Struck off, and then lost his appeal against striking off. I think
that's appalling. Others may disagree. However, anonymity might be your
best protection in any form of social media.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1170.html
Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on
the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a
profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he
identified himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the
Solicitors' Regulatory Authority ("SRA") received a complaint and
reviewed his Twitter feed. It started an investigation and later brought disciplinary proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were
offensive and in some cases antisemitic, and about comments made in correspondence with the SRA, which it said were offensive.
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings
of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses.
The question is not whether I would have reached a different conclusion,
but whether the tribunal's decision involved a finding of fact with no
basis in the evidence, a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant
evidence, a failure to take into account relevant evidence or a
conclusion that cannot be reasonably explained or justified.
Mr Husain is an opponent of Zionism and a critic of Israel. A central
issue in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and in the appeal before
me, is whether he overstepped the boundaries of legitimate political
speech and, in particular, whether when criticising Israel he used
language that was antisemitic.
In his revised skeleton argument for the appeal, Mr Magennis for the appellant submitted that it was legitimate to assert that Israel is a
fascist state, that Zionism is a fascist ideology and that Israeli
fascism can be compared to other historical examples of fascism. Mr
Magennis observed that Nazi Germany is the most well-known and studied example of fascism and that "[t]he ordinary reasonable observer would
not view the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany as inherently
antisemitic".
Mr Solomon for the SRA, in his skeleton argument, noted that making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is an example of
antisemitism given by the IHRA, yet Mr Magennis's skeleton argument
"seeks to defend this position". Mr Solomon continued: "The approach
adopted by Mr Husain in the Revised Skeleton crosses the line from
engaging with the legal question of the correct comparator, to making assertions which are simply antisemitic. This should not be tolerated by
the Court."
Shortly before the hearing Mr Magennis filed a reply skeleton argument objecting to the allegation of antisemitism against him. This
allegation, he said, "seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle, and
in any event risks having the effect of stifling, the Appellant's
freedom to fully advance his appeal". Mr Magennis invited Mr Solomon to withdraw the allegation that his revised skeleton argument "ma[de]
assertions which are simply antisemitic".
On 2 October 2020, Mr Husain tweeted: "How terrible 1300 Zionist
criminals coming to steal the land of Palestine and turn the
Palestinians into refugees by those East Europeans who kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and took up residence in them.
PALESTINES, ETHNIC CLEANSING, that continues to this day. SHAME". The Tribunal considered that this was an example of: "Denying the Jewish
people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour) AND Drawing
comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
[There were some tweets from him that were rather more offensive]
In the light of these findings, the Tribunal was entitled to be
"concerned that the Respondent would behave in similar vein with clients
and members of the public who did not share his views or who he
perceived were challenging him": [66]. This was a finding of particular importance when considering sanction.
In my judgment, the Tribunal explained adequately why it had concluded
that no lesser sanction than striking off would suffice. In essence, it
was because, having considered all the evidence and formed clear
impressions about Mr Husain's motivations at the time of the misconduct
and his attitude at the time of the hearing, it was not satisfied that a lesser sanction would protect the public from a repetition of his
behaviour. I cannot say that this conclusion was wrong in the sense of
being "clearly inappropriate" or "outside the bounds of what the
Tribunal could properly and reasonably decide".
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings
of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses.
On 5/14/25 14:57, The Todal wrote:
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings
of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist
tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses.
Why should we have any confidence in the SRA? Any confidence in their motivation? Why should we assign any merit to their findings? Why do you
need to exercise caution?
On 14 May 2025 at 23:43:38 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/14/25 14:57, The Todal wrote:
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings
of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist
tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses.
Why should we have any confidence in the SRA? Any confidence in their
motivation? Why should we assign any merit to their findings? Why do you
need to exercise caution?
I think it is the judge hearing the appeal who is exercising the "restraint".
He appears to be saying he feels the decision is clearly wrong, but can't overturn it within the rules applying to the appeal.
On 14 May 2025 at 14:57:44 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Struck off, and then lost his appeal against striking off. I think
that's appalling. Others may disagree. However, anonymity might be your
best protection in any form of social media.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1170.html
Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on
the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a
profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he
identified himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the
Solicitors' Regulatory Authority ("SRA") received a complaint and
reviewed his Twitter feed. It started an investigation and later brought
disciplinary proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were
offensive and in some cases antisemitic, and about comments made in
correspondence with the SRA, which it said were offensive.
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings
of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist
tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses.
The question is not whether I would have reached a different conclusion,
but whether the tribunal's decision involved a finding of fact with no
basis in the evidence, a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant
evidence, a failure to take into account relevant evidence or a
conclusion that cannot be reasonably explained or justified.
Mr Husain is an opponent of Zionism and a critic of Israel. A central
issue in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and in the appeal before
me, is whether he overstepped the boundaries of legitimate political
speech and, in particular, whether when criticising Israel he used
language that was antisemitic.
In his revised skeleton argument for the appeal, Mr Magennis for the
appellant submitted that it was legitimate to assert that Israel is a
fascist state, that Zionism is a fascist ideology and that Israeli
fascism can be compared to other historical examples of fascism. Mr
Magennis observed that Nazi Germany is the most well-known and studied
example of fascism and that "[t]he ordinary reasonable observer would
not view the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany as inherently
antisemitic".
Mr Solomon for the SRA, in his skeleton argument, noted that making
comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is an example of
antisemitism given by the IHRA, yet Mr Magennis's skeleton argument
"seeks to defend this position". Mr Solomon continued: "The approach
adopted by Mr Husain in the Revised Skeleton crosses the line from
engaging with the legal question of the correct comparator, to making
assertions which are simply antisemitic. This should not be tolerated by
the Court."
Shortly before the hearing Mr Magennis filed a reply skeleton argument
objecting to the allegation of antisemitism against him. This
allegation, he said, "seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle, and
in any event risks having the effect of stifling, the Appellant's
freedom to fully advance his appeal". Mr Magennis invited Mr Solomon to
withdraw the allegation that his revised skeleton argument "ma[de]
assertions which are simply antisemitic".
On 2 October 2020, Mr Husain tweeted: "How terrible 1300 Zionist
criminals coming to steal the land of Palestine and turn the
Palestinians into refugees by those East Europeans who kicked the
Palestinians out of their homes and took up residence in them.
PALESTINES, ETHNIC CLEANSING, that continues to this day. SHAME". The
Tribunal considered that this was an example of: "Denying the Jewish
people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour) AND Drawing
comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
[There were some tweets from him that were rather more offensive]
In the light of these findings, the Tribunal was entitled to be
"concerned that the Respondent would behave in similar vein with clients
and members of the public who did not share his views or who he
perceived were challenging him": [66]. This was a finding of particular
importance when considering sanction.
In my judgment, the Tribunal explained adequately why it had concluded
that no lesser sanction than striking off would suffice. In essence, it
was because, having considered all the evidence and formed clear
impressions about Mr Husain's motivations at the time of the misconduct
and his attitude at the time of the hearing, it was not satisfied that a
lesser sanction would protect the public from a repetition of his
behaviour. I cannot say that this conclusion was wrong in the sense of
being "clearly inappropriate" or "outside the bounds of what the
Tribunal could properly and reasonably decide".
It does seem appalling that someone can be expelled from their profession for perfectly legally comparing the Israeli state to Nazis.
Would it be more
acceptable to compare them to ISIS, do you think, the parallels are perhaps closer?
On 5/15/25 09:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:43:38 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/14/25 14:57, The Todal wrote:
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings >>>> of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist >>>> tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the
witnesses.
Why should we have any confidence in the SRA? Any confidence in their
motivation? Why should we assign any merit to their findings? Why do you >>> need to exercise caution?
I think it is the judge hearing the appeal who is exercising the
"restraint".
He appears to be saying he feels the decision is clearly wrong, but
can't
overturn it within the rules applying to the appeal.
Ah yes, I see that now. However, the question remains. It also applies
to the High Court. Some judgements condemn the judge rather than the
person being judged. This was very much a political judgement.
On 14 May 2025 at 15:13:39 BST, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 14:57:44 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Struck off, and then lost his appeal against striking off. I think
that's appalling. Others may disagree. However, anonymity might be your
best protection in any form of social media.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1170.html
Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on
the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a
profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he
identified himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the
Solicitors' Regulatory Authority ("SRA") received a complaint and
reviewed his Twitter feed. It started an investigation and later brought >>> disciplinary proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were
offensive and in some cases antisemitic, and about comments made in
correspondence with the SRA, which it said were offensive.
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings
of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist
tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses. >>> The question is not whether I would have reached a different conclusion, >>> but whether the tribunal's decision involved a finding of fact with no
basis in the evidence, a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant
evidence, a failure to take into account relevant evidence or a
conclusion that cannot be reasonably explained or justified.
Mr Husain is an opponent of Zionism and a critic of Israel. A central
issue in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and in the appeal before
me, is whether he overstepped the boundaries of legitimate political
speech and, in particular, whether when criticising Israel he used
language that was antisemitic.
In his revised skeleton argument for the appeal, Mr Magennis for the
appellant submitted that it was legitimate to assert that Israel is a
fascist state, that Zionism is a fascist ideology and that Israeli
fascism can be compared to other historical examples of fascism. Mr
Magennis observed that Nazi Germany is the most well-known and studied
example of fascism and that "[t]he ordinary reasonable observer would
not view the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany as inherently
antisemitic".
Mr Solomon for the SRA, in his skeleton argument, noted that making
comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is an example of
antisemitism given by the IHRA, yet Mr Magennis's skeleton argument
"seeks to defend this position". Mr Solomon continued: "The approach
adopted by Mr Husain in the Revised Skeleton crosses the line from
engaging with the legal question of the correct comparator, to making
assertions which are simply antisemitic. This should not be tolerated by >>> the Court."
Shortly before the hearing Mr Magennis filed a reply skeleton argument
objecting to the allegation of antisemitism against him. This
allegation, he said, "seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle, and
in any event risks having the effect of stifling, the Appellant's
freedom to fully advance his appeal". Mr Magennis invited Mr Solomon to
withdraw the allegation that his revised skeleton argument "ma[de]
assertions which are simply antisemitic".
On 2 October 2020, Mr Husain tweeted: "How terrible 1300 Zionist
criminals coming to steal the land of Palestine and turn the
Palestinians into refugees by those East Europeans who kicked the
Palestinians out of their homes and took up residence in them.
PALESTINES, ETHNIC CLEANSING, that continues to this day. SHAME". The
Tribunal considered that this was an example of: "Denying the Jewish
people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour) AND Drawing
comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
[There were some tweets from him that were rather more offensive]
In the light of these findings, the Tribunal was entitled to be
"concerned that the Respondent would behave in similar vein with clients >>> and members of the public who did not share his views or who he
perceived were challenging him": [66]. This was a finding of particular
importance when considering sanction.
In my judgment, the Tribunal explained adequately why it had concluded
that no lesser sanction than striking off would suffice. In essence, it
was because, having considered all the evidence and formed clear
impressions about Mr Husain's motivations at the time of the misconduct
and his attitude at the time of the hearing, it was not satisfied that a >>> lesser sanction would protect the public from a repetition of his
behaviour. I cannot say that this conclusion was wrong in the sense of
being "clearly inappropriate" or "outside the bounds of what the
Tribunal could properly and reasonably decide".
It does seem appalling that someone can be expelled from their profession for
perfectly legally comparing the Israeli state to Nazis.
It wasn't that he made the comparison, it's that he "overstepped the boundaries of legitimate political speech and, in particular, whether when criticising Israel he used language that was antisemitic" (para 9).
Would it be more
acceptable to compare them to ISIS, do you think, the parallels are perhaps >> closer?
Possibly.
A central argument in the case appears to be that equating Israel with fascism/nazism is antisemitic - according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The IHRA definition of antisemiitism doesn't quite do this
- IIUC. It was the combination of the IHRA's use of examples of
antisemitism and Husain's 'robust' line of criticism and clumsy attribution that did for him. Again IIUC - the judge's reasoning is difficult for me to unpack from a brief reading.
So criticism of ISIS might have been more acceptable, so long as the criticism
doesn't become aligned with say religious alignment.
On 15 May 2025 at 09:42:17 BST, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 15:13:39 BST, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 14:57:44 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Struck off, and then lost his appeal against striking off. I think
that's appalling. Others may disagree. However, anonymity might be your >>>> best protection in any form of social media.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1170.html
Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on >>>> the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a
profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he
identified himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the
Solicitors' Regulatory Authority ("SRA") received a complaint and
reviewed his Twitter feed. It started an investigation and later brought >>>> disciplinary proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were
offensive and in some cases antisemitic, and about comments made in
correspondence with the SRA, which it said were offensive.
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings >>>> of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist >>>> tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the witnesses. >>>> The question is not whether I would have reached a different conclusion, >>>> but whether the tribunal's decision involved a finding of fact with no >>>> basis in the evidence, a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant
evidence, a failure to take into account relevant evidence or a
conclusion that cannot be reasonably explained or justified.
Mr Husain is an opponent of Zionism and a critic of Israel. A central
issue in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and in the appeal before >>>> me, is whether he overstepped the boundaries of legitimate political
speech and, in particular, whether when criticising Israel he used
language that was antisemitic.
In his revised skeleton argument for the appeal, Mr Magennis for the
appellant submitted that it was legitimate to assert that Israel is a
fascist state, that Zionism is a fascist ideology and that Israeli
fascism can be compared to other historical examples of fascism. Mr
Magennis observed that Nazi Germany is the most well-known and studied >>>> example of fascism and that "[t]he ordinary reasonable observer would
not view the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany as inherently
antisemitic".
Mr Solomon for the SRA, in his skeleton argument, noted that making
comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is an example of
antisemitism given by the IHRA, yet Mr Magennis's skeleton argument
"seeks to defend this position". Mr Solomon continued: "The approach
adopted by Mr Husain in the Revised Skeleton crosses the line from
engaging with the legal question of the correct comparator, to making
assertions which are simply antisemitic. This should not be tolerated by >>>> the Court."
Shortly before the hearing Mr Magennis filed a reply skeleton argument >>>> objecting to the allegation of antisemitism against him. This
allegation, he said, "seems to be motivated by a desire to stifle, and >>>> in any event risks having the effect of stifling, the Appellant's
freedom to fully advance his appeal". Mr Magennis invited Mr Solomon to >>>> withdraw the allegation that his revised skeleton argument "ma[de]
assertions which are simply antisemitic".
On 2 October 2020, Mr Husain tweeted: "How terrible 1300 Zionist
criminals coming to steal the land of Palestine and turn the
Palestinians into refugees by those East Europeans who kicked the
Palestinians out of their homes and took up residence in them.
PALESTINES, ETHNIC CLEANSING, that continues to this day. SHAME". The
Tribunal considered that this was an example of: "Denying the Jewish
people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour) AND Drawing
comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
[There were some tweets from him that were rather more offensive]
In the light of these findings, the Tribunal was entitled to be
"concerned that the Respondent would behave in similar vein with clients >>>> and members of the public who did not share his views or who he
perceived were challenging him": [66]. This was a finding of particular >>>> importance when considering sanction.
In my judgment, the Tribunal explained adequately why it had concluded >>>> that no lesser sanction than striking off would suffice. In essence, it >>>> was because, having considered all the evidence and formed clear
impressions about Mr Husain's motivations at the time of the misconduct >>>> and his attitude at the time of the hearing, it was not satisfied that a >>>> lesser sanction would protect the public from a repetition of his
behaviour. I cannot say that this conclusion was wrong in the sense of >>>> being "clearly inappropriate" or "outside the bounds of what the
Tribunal could properly and reasonably decide".
It does seem appalling that someone can be expelled from their profession for
perfectly legally comparing the Israeli state to Nazis.
It wasn't that he made the comparison, it's that he "overstepped the
boundaries of legitimate political speech and, in particular, whether when >> criticising Israel he used language that was antisemitic" (para 9).
Would it be more
acceptable to compare them to ISIS, do you think, the parallels are perhaps >>> closer?
Possibly.
A central argument in the case appears to be that equating Israel with
fascism/nazism is antisemitic - according to the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance. The IHRA definition of antisemiitism doesn't quite do >> this
If you read the IHRA definition, it does quite do this.
- IIUC. It was the combination of the IHRA's use of examples of
antisemitism and Husain's 'robust' line of criticism and clumsy attribution >> that did for him. Again IIUC - the judge's reasoning is difficult for me to >> unpack from a brief reading.
So criticism of ISIS might have been more acceptable, so long as the criticism
doesn't become aligned with say religious alignment.
On 15/05/2025 09:21, Pancho wrote:
On 5/15/25 09:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:43:38 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/14/25 14:57, The Todal wrote:
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings >>>>> of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist >>>>> tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the
witnesses.
Why should we have any confidence in the SRA? Any confidence in their
motivation? Why should we assign any merit to their findings? Why do you >>>> need to exercise caution?
I think it is the judge hearing the appeal who is exercising the
"restraint".
He appears to be saying he feels the decision is clearly wrong, but
can't
overturn it within the rules applying to the appeal.
Ah yes, I see that now. However, the question remains. It also applies
to the High Court. Some judgements condemn the judge rather than the
person being judged. This was very much a political judgement.
In my opinion the judge isn't saying that the Tribunal's decision is
clearly wrong. He is saying, as judges often do, that he can only
interfere if the decision is clearly wrong ie so irrational that it
cannot stand.
I think some of the examples of antisemitism aren't antisemitism, and
others are perhaps borderline. The puerile abuse is rather more
concerning. But social media encourages people to forget their wider audience. I think it may have been sensible to suspend him for a while,
but striking him off so that he can no longer be a solicitor is cruel
and unnecessary.
In 2018 solicitor Mark Lewis was merely fined by the Solicitors
Disciplinary Tribunal when he sent offensive messages to a critic of
Israel. The Jewish Chronicle reckons that the SDT was biased against Mr Lewis.
https://www.thejc.com/news/anti-israel-peace-campaigner-on-panel-that-found-against-abused-solicitor-mark-lewis-vfnrvohn
https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/11/phone-hacking-lawyer-mark-lewis-fined-2500-for-posting-offensive-tweets/
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
On 15/05/2025 in message <m8luptF4p5oU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a very one sided situation.
On 15/05/2025 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2025 in message <m8luptF4p5oU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a very one
sided situation.
Looking at one of the examples:
"Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation".
I think many people reading that would be puzzled. When does anyone
demand of Israel a standard of behaviour that is higher than that of any other democratic nation? We object to the widespread slaughter of
innocent civilians, the genocide, the deliberate starvation of entire communities. Are there democratic countries that have behaved even more appallingly?
However, I've been watching the Panorama programme about the war crimes committed by our own SAS in Afghanistan. Deliberately killing innocent people. So maybe that sets the bar for other countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001ykkf/panorama-special-forces-i-saw-war-crimes
On 15/05/2025 in message <m8luptF4p5oU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same right? If not why
not?
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or
demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised nation or a body
such as the UN/ICC?
Not criticisms of the poster
But then you have a series of "examples" which are controversial. When Corbyn tried
to reject any of the examples he was accused of antisemitism but actually he was
quite right .
but open questions on what seems a very one sided situation.
Struck off, and then lost his appeal against striking off. I think
that's appalling. Others may disagree. However, anonymity might be your
best protection in any form of social media.
I think some of the examples of antisemitism aren't antisemitism, and
others are perhaps borderline. The puerile abuse is rather more
concerning. But social media encourages people to forget their wider audience. I think it may have been sensible to suspend him for a while,
but striking him off so that he can no longer be a solicitor is cruel
and unnecessary.
In 2018 solicitor Mark Lewis was merely fined by the Solicitors
Disciplinary Tribunal when he sent offensive messages to a critic of
Israel. The Jewish Chronicle reckons that the SDT was biased against Mr Lewis.
https://www.thejc.com/news/anti-israel-peace-campaigner-on-panel-that- found-against-abused-solicitor-mark-lewis-vfnrvohn
https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/11/phone-hacking-lawyer-mark-lewis- fined-2500-for-posting-offensive-tweets/
On 15/05/2025 10:29, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That's covered by the appeal ruling:
"The Tribunal found that the harm to those who received Mr Husain's
tweets,
On 14/05/2025 14:57, The Todal wrote:
Struck off, and then lost his appeal against striking off. I think
that's appalling. Others may disagree. However, anonymity might be
your best protection in any form of social media.
There are lengthy lists of his tweets in the Tribunal judgment. Here are
just a couple:
“But my TALIB blow up doll with additional strap on manhood is a best seller and Brigitte said she’d be ordering a replacement because her current one has holes in all the wrong places.”
“So u not going to buy my high-grade Afghan heroin anymore? It is a
quality product luv ur soldiers will buy it all up too bad u lost out on
mega high mega profit ”.
He kept this output up for months, and then was extremely rude to the
SRA investigator (which achieved nothing and was extremely foolish). Honestly, would you want someone who showed so little insight into how
to handle a dispute to be representing you?
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a very one sided situation.
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses, but
can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
Did the UK shrink from doing things some describe as "uncivilised" when
its own cities were blitzed?
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a very one
sided situation.
Yes, it sometimes does.
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets
on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Did the UK shrink from doing things some describe as "uncivilised"
when its own cities were blitzed?
In general the UK obeyed international law.
To the extent that excessive
deaths and destruction were caused by the RAF, that was probably
calculated to reduce the enemy's ability to make and deploy weapons.
We would not have bombed Belfast to reduce the number of IRA terrorists.
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a very one >>> sided situation.
Yes, it sometimes does.
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>>> claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>>> nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets
on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being illegally held?
Did the UK shrink from doing things some describe as "uncivilised"
when its own cities were blitzed?
In general the UK obeyed international law.
Is Israel, *in general*, doing or not doing the same? I accept that it's difficult to tell from here.
To the extent that excessive
deaths and destruction were caused by the RAF, that was probably
calculated to reduce the enemy's ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
I assume there must be one, because many German and Japanese civilians
were killed by Allied bombing, weren't they?
We would not have bombed Belfast to reduce the number of IRA terrorists.Would it have had that effect, d'you think?
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a very
one
sided situation.
Yes, it sometimes does.
On 15/05/2025 09:21, Pancho wrote:
On 5/15/25 09:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2025 at 23:43:38 BST, "Pancho"
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/14/25 14:57, The Todal wrote:
I must exercise caution and restraint before interfering with findings >>>>> of fact or evaluative judgments of the Tribunal, which is a specialist >>>>> tribunal, bearing in mind the advantage it had in hearing the
witnesses.
Why should we have any confidence in the SRA? Any confidence in their
motivation? Why should we assign any merit to their findings? Why do
you
need to exercise caution?
I think it is the judge hearing the appeal who is exercising the
"restraint".
He appears to be saying he feels the decision is clearly wrong, but
can't
overturn it within the rules applying to the appeal.
Ah yes, I see that now. However, the question remains. It also applies
to the High Court. Some judgements condemn the judge rather than the
person being judged. This was very much a political judgement.
In my opinion the judge isn't saying that the Tribunal's decision is
clearly wrong. He is saying, as judges often do, that he can only
interfere if the decision is clearly wrong ie so irrational that it
cannot stand.
I think some of the examples of antisemitism aren't antisemitism, and
others are perhaps borderline.
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>>> claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>>> nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets
on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being illegally held?
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>>>> claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. >>>Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>>>> nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets >>> on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being
illegally held?
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by the Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Thus, I could ask you, personally, to release those hostages. You have
as much control over them as the average civilian in Gaza. Go on,
release them. Use telekinesis.
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates for >attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses, but
can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of actual >murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
On 15/05/2025 in message <m8mjnjF83dcU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Then you have some research to do,
Wikipedia reports:
Category Number
Disabled people 270,000
Freemasons 80,000
Homosexuals 5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
Jews 6 million
Poles 1.8 million
Romani 250,000–500,000
Serbs 310,000+
Slovenes 20,000–25,000
Soviet civilians 4.5 million
Soviet POWs 3.3 million
Spanish Republicans 3,500
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
I mean in the light of living in a civilised society in the 21st
century, one in which we no longer hang witches or torture prisoners.
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>>>> claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist
endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>>>> nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets >>> on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being
illegally held?
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by the Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Thus, I could ask you, personally, to release those hostages. You have
as much control over them as the average civilian in Gaza. Go on,
release them. Use telekinesis.
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
I mean in the light of living in a civilised society in the 21st
century, one in which we no longer hang witches or torture prisoners.
Why do you limit the context so narrowly?
For a start, why do you rule out the twentieth century, which was, and >remains, a huge part of that context?
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by the >>Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any hostages >>that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
JNugent wrote:
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
I mean in the light of living in a civilised society in the 21st
century, one in which we no longer hang witches or torture prisoners.
Why do you limit the context so narrowly?
For a start, why do you rule out the twentieth century, which was, and
remains, a huge part of that context?
Because it seems to me we have moved on a million miles from what was acceptable on the twentieth century and what is acceptable now. Sadly sometimes it doesn't show of course.
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any hostages >>> that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
How would you compare an election in the UK,
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any hostages >>> that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
How would you compare an election in the UK, with a couple of dogs tied to the railing outside and a kindly bobby inside, to having somebody with an AK47 standing next to you to ensure you put your "X" in the right box?
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>>>> claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist
endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same
right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates
for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>>>> nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets >>> on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being
illegally held?
Wasn't there an agreement for precisely that to happen?
Then Israel broke that agreement simply so that Netanyahu could hang
onto power.
Did the UK shrink from doing things some describe as "uncivilised"
when its own cities were blitzed?
In general the UK obeyed international law.
Is Israel, *in general*, doing or not doing the same? I accept that
it's difficult to tell from here.
No, collective punishment is a crime, starving a country is a crime.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime.
To the extent that excessive
deaths and destruction were caused by the RAF, that was probably
calculated to reduce the enemy's ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population. You
have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans were killed through bombing as a percentage of Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan population.
(Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is 1 (or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the next 39 are killed.
I assume there must be one, because many German and Japanese civilians
were killed by Allied bombing, weren't they?
Yes, they weren't occupied by allied forces.
We would not have bombed Belfast to reduce the number of IRA terrorists. >>>Would it have had that effect, d'you think?
Given the army was sent in to protect the minority republicans that's a strange assertion.
So much easier simply to have left NI to their own
devices!
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a
very one sided situation.
Yes, it sometimes does.
On 15/05/2025 07:13 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by >>>>>>> claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist
endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same >>>>>> right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates >>>>> for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any civilised >>>>>> nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with rockets >>>> on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being
illegally held?
Wasn't there an agreement for precisely that to happen?
I believe there was.
Then Israel broke that agreement simply so that Netanyahu could hang
onto power.
What is to stop the hostage takers from releasing the hostages?
Wouldn't it be a good idea?
Or have the remaining hostages somehow forfeited their right to a free life?
On 16/05/2025 04:54 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of >>>>>actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
I mean in the light of living in a civilised society in the 21st >>>>century, one in which we no longer hang witches or torture prisoners.
Why do you limit the context so narrowly?
For a start, why do you rule out the twentieth century, which was, and >>>remains, a huge part of that context?
Because it seems to me we have moved on a million miles from what was >>acceptable on the twentieth century and what is acceptable now. Sadly >>sometimes it doesn't show of course.
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth
century and remembered?
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by the >>>>Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any hostages >>>>that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others quote has >been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every time they >report on the latest events, with references to "the health ministry, run
by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken hostages?
On 15/05/2025 07:13 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:00 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,
e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist
endeavor.
Does that mean any such state must be located in Palestine?
Are other religions (or victims of the Holocaust) accorded the same >>>>>> right? If not why not?
Which other religions were targeted by the Third Reich as candidates >>>>> for attempted extinction?
I vaguely remember reading something about the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but can't be sure.
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not >>>>>>> expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What about expecting it to meet the standard required by any
civilised
nation or a body such as the UN/ICC?
Do you mean in the abstract, or within the context of a series of
actual murderous onslaughts going back over a millennium or more?
How would you know what to expect of a civilised country unless and
until one is being bombarded with rockets on a daily basis and its
people are being murdered?
What would you expect of Gaza now that it's being bombarded with
rockets
on a daily basis and its people are being murdered?
Would you expect them to resist in some way? Except that they can't
because they have no army or air force. Just demolished buildings and
tents.
Perhaps they might consider releasing the rest of the hostages being
illegally held?
Wasn't there an agreement for precisely that to happen?
I believe there was.
Then Israel broke that agreement simply so that Netanyahu could hang
onto power.
What is to stop the hostage takers from releasing the hostages?
Wouldn't it be a good idea?
Or have the remaining hostages somehow forfeited their right to a free
life?
Did the UK shrink from doing things some describe as "uncivilised"
when its own cities were blitzed?
In general the UK obeyed international law.
Is Israel, *in general*, doing or not doing the same? I accept that
it's difficult to tell from here.
No, collective punishment is a crime, starving a country is a crime.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime.
To the extent that excessive
deaths and destruction were caused by the RAF, that was probably
calculated to reduce the enemy's ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population. You
have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans were killed
through bombing as a percentage of Germany's population.
Not all. We are discussing principles, not numbers.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan population.
(Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is 1 (or more) in 40
people. I guess you think problem solved when the next 39 are killed.
Don't "guess". It just makes you look silly. If I don't answer an
irrelevant question, that's because it's not... er... relevant. But you launch another ad-hom in frustration.
I assume there must be one, because many German and Japanese civilians
were killed by Allied bombing, weren't they?
Yes, they weren't occupied by allied forces.
We would not have bombed Belfast to reduce the number of IRAWould it have had that effect, d'you think?
terrorists.
Given the army was sent in to protect the minority republicans that's a
strange assertion.
Ah... there's one of your difficulties: you are failing to distinguish assertions from questions.
"Would it have had that effect, d'you think?" was a *question*.
It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, an assertion.
So much easier simply to have left NI to their own
devices!
Not criticisms of the poster but open questions on what seems a
very one sided situation.
Yes, it sometimes does.
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages during hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it didn't suit him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused by
the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's ability
to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population.
You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans were
killed through bombing as a percentage of Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is 1
(or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the
next 39 are killed.
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused by
the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's ability
to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population.
You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans were
killed through bombing as a percentage of Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is 1
(or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the
next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their claimed
number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000 militants and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order to
later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader Sinwar saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly lower
than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and Yemen. It all
seems to be going reasonably well for a war started by terrorists deliberately.
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/hamas-casualty-reports-are-a- tangle-of-technical-problems/
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by
the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any
hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others quote
has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every
time they report on the latest events, with references to "the health
ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken hostages?
I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans
willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly
nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as valid.
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various official bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't know". Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't want
to know.
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused by
the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's ability
to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population.
You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans were
killed through bombing as a percentage of Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is 1
(or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the
next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their claimed
number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000 militants and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order to
later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader Sinwar saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly lower
than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and Yemen. It all
seems to be going reasonably well for a war started by terrorists deliberately.
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages
during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite it
being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it
didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able to
decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is 1
(or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the
next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff >organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their claimed
number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000 militants and >9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order to
later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader Sinwar saw >Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth >>>century and remembered?
It seems to me the reality is that humans remember what they want to, we >>have had several wars to end all wars and people are still being >>slaughtered, often in the name of religious beliefs.
Is that a "No"?
On 16/05/2025 08:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by >>>>>> the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any
hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others quote
has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every
time they report on the latest events, with references to "the health
ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken hostages?
I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans
willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly
nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as valid.
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various official
bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't
know".
Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't want
to know.
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to freedom?
JNugent wrote:
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth
century and remembered?
It seems to me the reality is that humans remember what they want to, we >>> have had several wars to end all wars and people are still being
slaughtered, often in the name of religious beliefs.
Is that a "No"?
I thought it was clear?
We do not seem to learn lessons as is clear from the continuing
slaughter and genocide in Gaza and the rest of the world.
On 17/05/2025 13:45, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 08:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by >>>>>>> the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any
hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza?
That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years. >>>>>> Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others quote >>>> has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every
time they report on the latest events, with references to "the health
ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken hostages?
I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans
willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly
nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as valid.
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various official >>> bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't
know".
Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't want
to know.
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to
freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Do you think the hostages in Gaza justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?
But more importantly, why do you think Israel broke the cease-fire
agreement, other than to justify the continued ethnic cleansing in Gaza?
On 17/05/2025 03:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth >>>>>century and remembered?
It seems to me the reality is that humans remember what they want to, we >>>>have had several wars to end all wars and people are still being >>>>slaughtered, often in the name of religious beliefs.
Is that a "No"?
I thought it was clear?
Hardly.
Perhaps you'd like to make it a clear "Yes" or "No"?
Or perhaps there's some reason why you'd rather not commit yourself?
We do not seem to learn lessons as is clear from the continuing
slaughter and genocide in Gaza and the rest of the world.
And what else?
[It ought to be ovbious.]
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to >>>freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages during >> hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite it
being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able to
decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
On 17 May 2025 at 12:25:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages during >>> hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite it
being "technically impossible".
I think we are entitled to assume that this was arranged in a mini, local cease fire, by a large team of armed Americans. Just guessing.
On 17/05/2025 05:40 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:45, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 08:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>> wrote:
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and starved by >>>>>>>> the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any >>>>>>>> hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza? >>>>>>> That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years. >>>>>>> Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions? >>>>>>
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others quote >>>>> has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every
time they report on the latest events, with references to "the health >>>>> ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken hostages? >>>>
willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly
nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as valid.
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various
official
bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't
know".
Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't want >>>> to know.
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to
freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
Why do you continually avoid giving an answer to a straightforward
question?
Should the hostages illegally helf by Hamas be released or don't they
have the right to freedom?
Palestinians?
Answer the questions that YOU have been asked if you expect an answer to
your own irrelevant and evasive questions.
But more importantly, why do you think Israel broke the cease-fire
agreement, other than to justify the continued ethnic cleansing in Gaza?
I have no way of knowing.
You don't let such considerations hold you back.
JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 03:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth >>>>>> century and remembered?
It seems to me the reality is that humans remember what they want
to, we have had several wars to end all wars and people are still
being slaughtered, often in the name of religious beliefs.
Is that a "No"?
I thought it was clear?
Hardly.
Perhaps you'd like to make it a clear "Yes" or "No"?
Or perhaps there's some reason why you'd rather not commit yourself?
We do not seem to learn lessons as is clear from the continuing
slaughter and genocide in Gaza and the rest of the world.
And what else?
[It ought to be ovbious.]
Too obscure for me I'm afraid, you'll have to give me a steer.
On 17/05/2025 19:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 05:40 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:45, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 08:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>> wrote:
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and
starved by
the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any >>>>>>>>> hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza? >>>>>>>> That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years. >>>>>>>> Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions? >>>>>>>
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others
quote
has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every >>>>>> time they report on the latest events, with references to "the health >>>>>> ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken hostages? >>>>>
willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly
nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as valid. >>>>>
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various
official
bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't
know".
Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't
want
to know.
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to
freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
yes, they were due to be released before Israel broke the ceasefire agreement. You seem to hold strong views on things you know little
about. Just an observation and hope you now feel much enlightened.
Why do you continually avoid giving an answer to a straightforward
question?
Should the hostages illegally helf by Hamas be released or don't they
have the right to freedom?
Generally I would say hostages should be released.
You have also been told that there is a significant risk to the hostages being released without a ceasefire. Perhaps you want them shot by the
IDF to prove a point? It would be an extreme way of providing further
proof of an IDF shoot to kill policy.
>> Do you think the hostages in Gaza justify the ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians?
Answer the questions that YOU have been asked if you expect an answer
to your own irrelevant and evasive questions.
I have answered you before in that yes, the hostages should be released during a ceasefire. Please remind us who broke the ceasefire? I can
assure that's not irrelevant to the question of hostage release.
But more importantly, why do you think Israel broke the cease-fire
agreement, other than to justify the continued ethnic cleansing in Gaza?
I have no way of knowing.
You should read the news and open your eyes rather than burying your
head in the sand. Any intelligent person versed in recent Israeli
politics will know.
You don't let such considerations hold you back.
No,I read the news and learn how it is Netanyahu's policy to commit
genocide in Gaza. You just can't seem to take this in, or dyslexic when
it comes to news regarding the Knesset and its decrees.
JNugent wrote:
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to
freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
There are some thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, many without trial and many of whom are being beaten/tortured.
There is
plenty of evidence of this, it is mentioned on the news frequently, did
you miss it?
On 17/05/2025 08:30 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 03:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth >>>>>>>century and remembered?
It seems to me the reality is that humans remember what they want >>>>>>to, we have had several wars to end all wars and people are still >>>>>>being slaughtered, often in the name of religious beliefs.
Is that a "No"?
I thought it was clear?
Hardly.
Perhaps you'd like to make it a clear "Yes" or "No"?
Or perhaps there's some reason why you'd rather not commit yourself?
We do not seem to learn lessons as is clear from the continuing >>>>slaughter and genocide in Gaza and the rest of the world.
And what else?
[It ought to be ovbious.]
Too obscure for me I'm afraid, you'll have to give me a steer.
Eh? :-)
You are the one who "thought it was clear"!
The question was:
"Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth >century and remembered?".
Given the context, the answer ought to have been a clear "Yes" and one of
the main reasons would have been the experiences of some in Europe between >1933 and 1945.
It's not possible to easily accept that you are and were not aware of
that. But for your own reasons (I'm not going to hazard ant specific
guesses) you don't want to "go there", as the kids have it these days.
On 17/05/2025 08:34 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to >>>>>freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be >>>>released too?
Are there any?
There are some thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, many >>without trial and many of whom are being beaten/tortured.
What proportion "without trial"?
Just as importantly, what proportion with trial?
There is
plenty of evidence of this, it is mentioned on the news frequently, did
you miss it?
IF it was mentioned on "the news", I must have missed it.
Got a URL? [For a respected and trusted news organisation, of course.]
Are you sure that the prisoners to whom you refer are not in that position
as convicted criminals (Occam's Razor, etc)?
JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 08:34 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to >>>>>> freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
There are some thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, many
without trial and many of whom are being beaten/tortured.
What proportion "without trial"?
Just as importantly, what proportion with trial?
There is
plenty of evidence of this, it is mentioned on the news frequently, did
you miss it?
IF it was mentioned on "the news", I must have missed it.
Got a URL? [For a respected and trusted news organisation, of course.]
Are you sure that the prisoners to whom you refer are not in that
position as convicted criminals (Occam's Razor, etc)?
It's not possible to continue an exchange with you unless you make some attempt to keep up with what is happening in Israel/Gaza. The BBC has reported widely on the condition of prisoners released by Israel and
their status, go and find it yourself.
JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 08:30 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 03:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the
twentieth century and remembered?
It seems to me the reality is that humans remember what they want >>>>>>> to, we have had several wars to end all wars and people are still >>>>>>> being slaughtered, often in the name of religious beliefs.
Is that a "No"?
***************************I thought it was clear?
Hardly.
Perhaps you'd like to make it a clear "Yes" or "No"?
Or perhaps there's some reason why you'd rather not commit yourself?
We do not seem to learn lessons as is clear from the continuing
slaughter and genocide in Gaza and the rest of the world.
And what else?
[It ought to be ovbious.]
Too obscure for me I'm afraid, you'll have to give me a steer.
Eh? :-)
You are the one who "thought it was clear"!
You're wobbling again, I said "We do not seem to learn lessons as is
clear from the continuing slaughter and genocide in Gaza and the rest of
the world."
The question was:
"Do you think that there are no lessons to be drawn from the twentieth
century and remembered?".
Indeed, I remember it well and have answered it.
Given the context, the answer ought to have been a clear "Yes" and one
of the main reasons would have been the experiences of some in Europe
between 1933 and 1945.
The answer would be WWII, lions led by donkeys, the impact of the
Holocaust on appx 20 million people and probably lots more. Yet Israel,
led by Netanyahu, continue to slaughter new born babies, children and
women so clearly has learned nothing.
It's not possible to easily accept that you are and were not aware of
that. But for your own reasons (I'm not going to hazard ant specific
guesses) you don't want to "go there", as the kids have it these days.
I still think I covered it, it's all pretty obvious isn't it?
On 17/05/2025 12:25, GB wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages
during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite it
being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it
didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do
you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able
to decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
We certainly know that Netanyahu has stated he wants rid off all
Palestinians in Gaza. The only way for that to happen was to break the ceasefire.
On 17/05/2025 13:52, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, GB wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages >>>>during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite it >>>being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it didn't >>>>suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do you >>>really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able to >>>decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
We certainly know that Netanyahu has stated he wants rid off all >>Palestinians in Gaza. The only way for that to happen was to break the >>ceasefire.
That's just waffle. Do you really know enough about the details of the >agreement to come to a reasonable conclusion? If yes, let's have the
detail.
On 17/05/2025 13:52, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, GB wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages
during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite it
being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it
didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do
you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able
to decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
We certainly know that Netanyahu has stated he wants rid off all
Palestinians in Gaza. The only way for that to happen was to break the
ceasefire.
That's just waffle. Do you really know enough about the details of the agreement to come to a reasonable conclusion? If yes, let's have the
detail.
On 17/05/2025 08:31 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 19:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 05:40 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:45, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 08:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>> wrote:
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and
starved by
the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any >>>>>>>>>> hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza? >>>>>>>>> That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few years. >>>>>>>>> Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and inactions? >>>>>>>>
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others >>>>>>> quote
has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every >>>>>>> time they report on the latest events, with references to "the
health
ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken
hostages?
I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans
willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly
nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as valid. >>>>>>
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various
official
bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't >>>>>> know".
Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't >>>>>> want
to know.
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to
freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
yes, they were due to be released before Israel broke the ceasefire
agreement. You seem to hold strong views on things you know little
about. Just an observation and hope you now feel much enlightened.
Why do you continually avoid giving an answer to a straightforward
question?
Should the hostages illegally helf by Hamas be released or don't they
have the right to freedom?
Generally I would say hostages should be released.
You have also been told that there is a significant risk to the hostages
being released without a ceasefire. Perhaps you want them shot by the
IDF to prove a point? It would be an extreme way of providing further
proof of an IDF shoot to kill policy.
>> Do you think the hostages in Gaza justify the ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians?
Answer the questions that YOU have been asked if you expect an answer
to your own irrelevant and evasive questions.
I have answered you before in that yes, the hostages should be released
during a ceasefire. Please remind us who broke the ceasefire? I can
assure that's not irrelevant to the question of hostage release.
But more importantly, why do you think Israel broke the cease-fire
agreement, other than to justify the continued ethnic cleansing in
Gaza?
I have no way of knowing.
You should read the news and open your eyes rather than burying your
head in the sand. Any intelligent person versed in recent Israeli
politics will know.
You don't let such considerations hold you back.
No,I read the news and learn how it is Netanyahu's policy to commit
genocide in Gaza. You just can't seem to take this in, or dyslexic when
it comes to news regarding the Knesset and its decrees.
Yet more abuse.
Yet more failure to discuss things civilly and with regard to the normally-accepted rules of debate.
On 18/05/2025 14:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 08:31 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 19:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2025 05:40 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:45, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 08:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p6ndFko9bU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:57 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2025 in message <m8p3voFkajvU2@mid.individual.net>
JNugent
wrote:
The people of Gaza, the ones who are being massacred and >>>>>>>>>>> starved by
the
Israelis, do not have hostages and are powerless to release any >>>>>>>>>>> hostages
that are still imprisoned by Hamas.
Isn't Hamas supposed to be the representative government of Gaza? >>>>>>>>>> That is what has been constantly asserted over the past few >>>>>>>>>> years.
Aren't governments resposible for their own actions and
inactions?
Presumably that is tongue in cheek?
Not in the slightest.
How would you compare an election in the UK,
I wouldn't.
I haven't.
And I shan't.
Is that clear? You will not divert me.
But I'd also perhaps remind you that every figure you and others >>>>>>>> quote
has been provided by Hamas. The BBC at least makes that clear every >>>>>>>> time they report on the latest events, with references to "the >>>>>>>> health
ministry, run by Hamas" (or words to that exact effect).
So... should or shouldn't Hamas release the illegally taken
hostages?
I am not trying to divert you or anybody, suggesting that Gazans >>>>>>> willingly elected Hamas in the way we elect government is clearly >>>>>>> nonsense but you seem to be working on the basis it is just as
valid.
The figures quoted have been verified by the BBC and by various
official
bodies such as the UN.
In 1946 there were people in Germany and Poland who said "we didn't >>>>>>> know".
Today no one can say they didn't know, you can only say you didn't >>>>>>> want
to know.
So should the hostages be released or don't they have the right to >>>>>> freedom?
Do you think the Gazan hostages kept in Israeli prisons should be
released too?
Are there any?
yes, they were due to be released before Israel broke the ceasefire
agreement. You seem to hold strong views on things you know little
about. Just an observation and hope you now feel much enlightened.
Why do you continually avoid giving an answer to a straightforward
question?
Should the hostages illegally helf by Hamas be released or don't they
have the right to freedom?
Generally I would say hostages should be released.
You have also been told that there is a significant risk to the hostages >>> being released without a ceasefire. Perhaps you want them shot by the
IDF to prove a point? It would be an extreme way of providing further
proof of an IDF shoot to kill policy.
>> Do you think the hostages in Gaza justify the ethnic cleansing of >>>>> Palestinians?
Answer the questions that YOU have been asked if you expect an answer
to your own irrelevant and evasive questions.
I have answered you before in that yes, the hostages should be released
during a ceasefire. Please remind us who broke the ceasefire? I can
assure that's not irrelevant to the question of hostage release.
But more importantly, why do you think Israel broke the cease-fire
agreement, other than to justify the continued ethnic cleansing in
Gaza?
I have no way of knowing.
You should read the news and open your eyes rather than burying your
head in the sand. Any intelligent person versed in recent Israeli
politics will know.
You don't let such considerations hold you back.
No,I read the news and learn how it is Netanyahu's policy to commit
genocide in Gaza. You just can't seem to take this in, or dyslexic when
it comes to news regarding the Knesset and its decrees.
Yet more abuse.
Yet more failure to discuss things civilly and with regard to the
normally-accepted rules of debate.
If there was any perceived abuse it was from your statement, "I have no
way of knowing" that showed plain ignorance. I thought you were more intelligent than that so wonder the purpose of that statement. Am I wrong?
Please explain where I'm going wrong that resulted in my observation.
Most people who take a balanced view look up articles that quote
Netanyahu and the Israeli defence minister plans of the ethnic cleansing
of Gaza. Where there are plans to move the indigenous population out of
Gaza.
On 19/05/2025 10:49, GB wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:52, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, GB wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages
during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite
it being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it
didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do
you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able
to decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
We certainly know that Netanyahu has stated he wants rid off all
Palestinians in Gaza. The only way for that to happen was to break
the ceasefire.
That's just waffle. Do you really know enough about the details of the
agreement to come to a reasonable conclusion? If yes, let's have the
detail.
I genuinely suggest you read alternative news media in the past week
that quote both Netanyahu and the Defence minister plans to remove the indigenous populations from Gaza.
On 19/05/2025 13:19, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 10:49, GB wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:52, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, GB wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages >>>>>> during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite
it being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it
didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do
you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able >>>>> to decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
We certainly know that Netanyahu has stated he wants rid off all
Palestinians in Gaza. The only way for that to happen was to break
the ceasefire.
That's just waffle. Do you really know enough about the details of the
agreement to come to a reasonable conclusion? If yes, let's have the
detail.
I genuinely suggest you read alternative news media in the past week
that quote both Netanyahu and the Defence minister plans to remove the
indigenous populations from Gaza.
All I'm asking for is details of which side broke the treaty.
Clearly, there are none, and yet people have come to conclusions -
expressed with great vehemence. There's a name for that, prejudice.
On 19 May 2025 at 15:53:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 13:19, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 10:49, GB wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:52, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, GB wrote:
On 16/05/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would probably be technically impossible to release the hostages >>>>>>> during
hostilities, which is why there was a ceasefire to do it.
There was a single hostage released a couple of days ago - despite >>>>>> it being "technically impossible".
As an aside, why do people use the word technically in that way?
Clearly Netanyahu
restarted the war in breach of the ceasefire agreement because it >>>>>>> didn't suit
him to have them released, or to stick to his bargain.
He obviously claims that Hamas broke the terms of the agreement. Do >>>>>> you really know enough about the details of the agreement to be able >>>>>> to decide which side was (more) in the wrong?
We certainly know that Netanyahu has stated he wants rid off all
Palestinians in Gaza. The only way for that to happen was to break
the ceasefire.
That's just waffle. Do you really know enough about the details of the >>>> agreement to come to a reasonable conclusion? If yes, let's have the
detail.
I genuinely suggest you read alternative news media in the past week
that quote both Netanyahu and the Defence minister plans to remove the
indigenous populations from Gaza.
All I'm asking for is details of which side broke the treaty.
Clearly, there are none, and yet people have come to conclusions -
expressed with great vehemence. There's a name for that, prejudice.
Those of us who can remember for more than 48 hours remember exactly what happened. Trump announced (presumably after consulting Israel) that the US and
Israel were going to change the terms of the ceasefire (in other word break the agreement) and that if Hamas did not agree to the new terms slaughter would resume. Netanyahu said something about not liking the public way Hamas had released the hostages to the Red Cross, but *did not even claim* that Hamas had broken the ceasefire, just that he had changed the terms.
I think if Hamas had broken the ceasefire the Israelis would have mentioned it.
You will no doubt continue to believe what you wish to believe.
On 13:30 17 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, Pamela wrote:
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused
by the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's
ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population.
You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans
were killed through bombing as a percentage of Germany's
population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is
1 (or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the
next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff
organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their claimed
number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000 militants
and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
Unverified. Israel does not permit any independent reputable
journalists to enter Gaza and produce reliable reports. All
journalists are expected to parrot Israel's propaganda announcements,
and any who happen to be in Gaza without Israel's permission are
likely to be shot or bombed. The IDF does not honour any "Press"
tabards or badges.
However, the United Nations has verified the casualty figures.
It doesn't help the UN's reputation that their agencies have been
complicit with Hamas to the point of promoting for decades that
generations of Palestinian are "refugees".
The media bias of news reports from inside Gaza is signficantly greater
than from within Israel, largely on account of the extraordinary
control Hamas exerts over all media reports.
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order
to later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader Sinwar
saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
Hamas might well be one of the most evil organisations on the planet
Earth, second only to the government of Israel.
However, the civilians in Gaza are not Hamas. They have as much right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you do. So if you
believe they are expendable, perhaps you too should volunteer to be a
human sacrifice.
In some conflicts civilian deaths have been deliberate such as at Hama
(sic), Ukraine or Sudan and Warsaw too; in others such as Mosul and
Gaza they were not. The terrorists' method to mingle with the civilian population and fight without identification is bound to increase
casualties.
Gazans are notoriously militant and widely disliked in the Arab world
for their unnecessary agitation and violent support of the Moslem Brotherhood, such as happened in Kuwait and in their home of Egypt.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly
lower than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and
Yemen. It all seems to be going reasonably well for a war started by
terrorists deliberately.
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/hamas-casualty-
reports-are-a- tangle-of-technical-problems/
The Henry Jackson Society. A source of wholly unreliable pro-Israel
propaganda.
Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017
that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the
Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim
racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and
ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has
relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam"
That's shooting the messenger because the analysis he carries is
embarassing. It would be more useful to consider the actual contents of
the report. I quoted two statistics from the report -- and comments of
a former disgruntled employee, bitter at their lack of support for
Islam, doesn't change their accuracy.
The bottom line is most civilian deaths in Gaza are the result of Hamas deliberately allowing civilians into the line of fire by using them as
human shields contrary to the Geneva Convention, or by fighting from
civilian buildings such as hospitals and schools.
However all this is drifting away from the misleading civilian Hamas
casualty figures frequently bandied around. One of the few remaining
things which give Hamas cause to smile is the sheer number of useful
idiots in the West. Hamas plays them masterfully. The idiots weep and
wait in unison at the right moments as they did at the recent false
claim of 14,000 dead children in Gaza if aid doesn't reach them in 14
days.
The bottom line is most civilian deaths in Gaza are the result of Hamas >deliberately allowing civilians into the line of fire by using them as
human shields contrary to the Geneva Convention, or by fighting from
civilian buildings such as hospitals and schools.
On 17/05/2025 12:25, Pamela wrote:
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused
by the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's
ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of population.
You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how many Germans
were killed through bombing as a percentage of Germany's
population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that is
1 (or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved when the
next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff
organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their claimed
number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000 militants
and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
Unverified. Israel does not permit any independent reputable
journalists to enter Gaza and produce reliable reports. All
journalists are expected to parrot Israel's propaganda announcements,
and any who happen to be in Gaza without Israel's permission are
likely to be shot or bombed. The IDF does not honour any "Press"
tabards or badges.
However, the United Nations has verified the casualty figures.
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order
to later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader Sinwar
saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
Hamas might well be one of the most evil organisations on the planet
Earth, second only to the government of Israel.
However, the civilians in Gaza are not Hamas. They have as much right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you do. So if you
believe they are expendable, perhaps you too should volunteer to be a
human sacrifice.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly
lower than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and
Yemen. It all seems to be going reasonably well for a war started by
terrorists deliberately.
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/hamas-casualty-
reports-are-a- tangle-of-technical-problems/
The Henry Jackson Society. A source of wholly unreliable pro-Israel propaganda.
Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017
that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the
Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim
racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and
ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has
relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam"
On 22/05/2025 12:58, Pamela wrote:
On 13:30 17 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, Pamela wrote:
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused
by the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's
ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of
population. You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how
many Germans were killed through bombing as a percentage of
Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that
is 1 (or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved
when the next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff
organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their
claimed number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000
militants and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
Unverified. Israel does not permit any independent reputable
journalists to enter Gaza and produce reliable reports. All
journalists are expected to parrot Israel's propaganda
announcements, and any who happen to be in Gaza without Israel's
permission are likely to be shot or bombed. The IDF does not honour
any "Press" tabards or badges.
However, the United Nations has verified the casualty figures.
It doesn't help the UN's reputation that their agencies have been
complicit with Hamas to the point of promoting for decades that
generations of Palestinian are "refugees".
The media bias of news reports from inside Gaza is significantly
greater than from within Israel, largely on account of the
extraordinary control Hamas exerts over all media reports.
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order
to later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader
Sinwar saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
Hamas might well be one of the most evil organisations on the
planet Earth, second only to the government of Israel.
However, the civilians in Gaza are not Hamas. They have as much
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you do. So
if you believe they are expendable, perhaps you too should
volunteer to be a human sacrifice.
In some conflicts civilian deaths have been deliberate such as at
Hama (sic), Ukraine or Sudan and Warsaw too; in others such as Mosul
and Gaza they were not. The terrorists' method to mingle with the
civilian population and fight without identification is bound to
increase casualties.
Gazans are notoriously militant and widely disliked in the Arab
world for their unnecessary agitation and violent support of the
Moslem Brotherhood, such as happened in Kuwait and in their home of
Egypt.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly
lower than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and
Yemen. It all seems to be going reasonably well for a war started
by terrorists deliberately.
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/hamas-casualty-
reports-are-a- tangle-of-technical-problems/
The Henry Jackson Society. A source of wholly unreliable pro-Israel
propaganda.
Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017
that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the
Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim
racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and
ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has
relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam"
That's shooting the messenger because the analysis he carries is
embarrassing. It would be more useful to consider the actual
contents of the report. I quoted two statistics from the report --
and comments of a former disgruntled employee, bitter at their lack
of support for Islam, doesn't change their accuracy.
The bottom line is most civilian deaths in Gaza are the result of
Hamas deliberately allowing civilians into the line of fire by using
them as human shields contrary to the Geneva Convention, or by
fighting from civilian buildings such as hospitals and schools.
However all this is drifting away from the misleading civilian Hamas
casualty figures frequently bandied around. One of the few remaining
things which give Hamas cause to smile is the sheer number of useful
idiots in the West. Hamas plays them masterfully. The idiots weep
and wait in unison at the right moments as they did at the recent
false claim of 14,000 dead children in Gaza if aid doesn't reach
them in 14 days.
Thank you for giving us the official Israeli Government version of
the facts, which is of course their self-seeking propaganda,
discredited by all reputable international agencies and observers.
I had no idea that anyone here was a willing dupe of the Israeli
government but you've bravely come out of the closet.
Anyone who actually wants to know the facts can see the various
documentaries that are still available on catch-up.
The "human shields" argument is particularly absurd. When the
Israelis bomb and shell hospitals they do so from a great height and
they have never even attempted to show that the civilians whom they
have slaughtered are standing in the way of Hamas terrorists, the
true targets. But even if that was true, it is a war crime to shoot
civilians in order to kill the enemy soldiers standing behind them.
Israel has committed war crimes and is committing genocide.
On 13:36 22 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 22/05/2025 12:58, Pamela wrote:
On 13:30 17 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, Pamela wrote:
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused >>>>>>>> by the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's >>>>>>>> ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of
population. You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how
many Germans were killed through bombing as a percentage of
Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that
is 1 (or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved
when the next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff
organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their
claimed number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000
militants and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
Unverified. Israel does not permit any independent reputable
journalists to enter Gaza and produce reliable reports. All
journalists are expected to parrot Israel's propaganda
announcements, and any who happen to be in Gaza without Israel's
permission are likely to be shot or bombed. The IDF does not honour
any "Press" tabards or badges.
However, the United Nations has verified the casualty figures.
It doesn't help the UN's reputation that their agencies have been
complicit with Hamas to the point of promoting for decades that
generations of Palestinian are "refugees".
The media bias of news reports from inside Gaza is significantly
greater than from within Israel, largely on account of the
extraordinary control Hamas exerts over all media reports.
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order
to later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader
Sinwar saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
Hamas might well be one of the most evil organisations on the
planet Earth, second only to the government of Israel.
However, the civilians in Gaza are not Hamas. They have as much
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you do. So
if you believe they are expendable, perhaps you too should
volunteer to be a human sacrifice.
In some conflicts civilian deaths have been deliberate such as at
Hama (sic), Ukraine or Sudan and Warsaw too; in others such as Mosul
and Gaza they were not. The terrorists' method to mingle with the
civilian population and fight without identification is bound to
increase casualties.
Gazans are notoriously militant and widely disliked in the Arab
world for their unnecessary agitation and violent support of the
Moslem Brotherhood, such as happened in Kuwait and in their home of
Egypt.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly
lower than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and
Yemen. It all seems to be going reasonably well for a war started
by terrorists deliberately.
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/hamas-casualty-
reports-are-a- tangle-of-technical-problems/
The Henry Jackson Society. A source of wholly unreliable pro-Israel
propaganda.
Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017
that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the
Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim
racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and
ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has
relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam"
That's shooting the messenger because the analysis he carries is
embarrassing. It would be more useful to consider the actual
contents of the report. I quoted two statistics from the report --
and comments of a former disgruntled employee, bitter at their lack
of support for Islam, doesn't change their accuracy.
The bottom line is most civilian deaths in Gaza are the result of
Hamas deliberately allowing civilians into the line of fire by using
them as human shields contrary to the Geneva Convention, or by
fighting from civilian buildings such as hospitals and schools.
However all this is drifting away from the misleading civilian Hamas
casualty figures frequently bandied around. One of the few remaining
things which give Hamas cause to smile is the sheer number of useful
idiots in the West. Hamas plays them masterfully. The idiots weep
and wait in unison at the right moments as they did at the recent
false claim of 14,000 dead children in Gaza if aid doesn't reach
them in 14 days.
Thank you for giving us the official Israeli Government version of
the facts, which is of course their self-seeking propaganda,
discredited by all reputable international agencies and observers.
I had no idea that anyone here was a willing dupe of the Israeli
government but you've bravely come out of the closet.
Anyone who actually wants to know the facts can see the various
documentaries that are still available on catch-up.
The "human shields" argument is particularly absurd. When the
Israelis bomb and shell hospitals they do so from a great height and
they have never even attempted to show that the civilians whom they
have slaughtered are standing in the way of Hamas terrorists, the
true targets. But even if that was true, it is a war crime to shoot
civilians in order to kill the enemy soldiers standing behind them.
Israel has committed war crimes and is committing genocide.
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
War is an exceptionally unpleasant matter and those unduly aggressive terrorists in Hamas and AlQuds should not have gambled that Israel
would be too hamstrung by world opinion to retaliate after the October
2023 massacre. Rather than give up those war aims and free the
hostages, Hamas (and its backers) still prefer to prolong the military struggle with Israel. Of Netanyahu loves the excuse this gives to
strike back hard.
As for "genocide" in Gaza, as I recall this was initially a propaganda
term used by Qatari-sponsored pro-terrorist agitators in America. No
informed observer realistically believes the civilian deaths in Gaza
are a genocide by any meaningful definition of the term.
The formal charges of "genocide" has made little progress at the
ICC, which has no more than accepted the allegation as a legitimate
matter the court has jurisdiction over, but it has not determined
anything else about its validity in this conflict.
Such allegations, sponsored by corrupt opportunists like South Africa's Ramaphosa, are little more than grandstanding. Now Trump is getting in
on the act and says the ethnic cleansing of white farmers is
"genocide".
On 22/05/2025 17:59, Pamela wrote:
On 13:36 22 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 22/05/2025 12:58, Pamela wrote:
On 13:30 17 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/05/2025 12:25, Pamela wrote:
On 19:13 15 May 2025, Fredxx said:
On 15/05/2025 18:36, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 05:53 PM, The Todal
[TRIMMED]
To the extent that excessive deaths and destruction were caused >>>>>>>>> by the RAF, that was probably calculated to reduce the enemy's >>>>>>>>> ability to make and deploy weapons.
What's the difference?
A lot, just look at the proportion of deaths to size of
population. You have seemingly forgotten a recent thread of how
many Germans were killed through bombing as a percentage of
Germany's population.
I will remind you deaths are at 2.5% of the original Gazan
population. (Some reputable sources estimate it's 3%). Yes that
is 1 (or more) in 40 people. I guess you think problem solved
when the next 39 are killed.
Hamas (like Hezbollah, ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood spinoff
organisations) takes great care over their propaganda. Their
claimed number of deaths in Gaza is unverified and includes 20,000 >>>>>> militants and 9,000 natural deaths. (See link below.)
Unverified. Israel does not permit any independent reputable
journalists to enter Gaza and produce reliable reports. All
journalists are expected to parrot Israel's propaganda
announcements, and any who happen to be in Gaza without Israel's
permission are likely to be shot or bombed. The IDF does not honour
any "Press" tabards or badges.
However, the United Nations has verified the casualty figures.
It doesn't help the UN's reputation that their agencies have been
complicit with Hamas to the point of promoting for decades that
generations of Palestinian are "refugees".
The media bias of news reports from inside Gaza is significantly
greater than from within Israel, largely on account of the
extraordinary control Hamas exerts over all media reports.
It is Hamas' callous strategy to maximise civilian deaths in order >>>>>> to later use footage and figures as propaganda. Hamas leader
Sinwar saw Palestinian civilian deaths as a welcome sacrifice.
Hamas might well be one of the most evil organisations on the
planet Earth, second only to the government of Israel.
However, the civilians in Gaza are not Hamas. They have as much
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you do. So
if you believe they are expendable, perhaps you too should
volunteer to be a human sacrifice.
In some conflicts civilian deaths have been deliberate such as at
Hama (sic), Ukraine or Sudan and Warsaw too; in others such as Mosul
and Gaza they were not. The terrorists' method to mingle with the
civilian population and fight without identification is bound to
increase casualties.
Gazans are notoriously militant and widely disliked in the Arab
world for their unnecessary agitation and violent support of the
Moslem Brotherhood, such as happened in Kuwait and in their home of
Egypt.
All in all, the number of civilian war deaths in Gaza is markedly
lower than in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as Syria and
Yemen. It all seems to be going reasonably well for a war started
by terrorists deliberately.
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/hamas-casualty-
reports-are-a- tangle-of-technical-problems/
The Henry Jackson Society. A source of wholly unreliable pro-Israel
propaganda.
Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017
that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the
Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim
racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and
ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has
relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam"
That's shooting the messenger because the analysis he carries is
embarrassing. It would be more useful to consider the actual
contents of the report. I quoted two statistics from the report --
and comments of a former disgruntled employee, bitter at their lack
of support for Islam, doesn't change their accuracy.
The bottom line is most civilian deaths in Gaza are the result of
Hamas deliberately allowing civilians into the line of fire by using
them as human shields contrary to the Geneva Convention, or by
fighting from civilian buildings such as hospitals and schools.
However all this is drifting away from the misleading civilian Hamas
casualty figures frequently bandied around. One of the few remaining
things which give Hamas cause to smile is the sheer number of useful
idiots in the West. Hamas plays them masterfully. The idiots weep
and wait in unison at the right moments as they did at the recent
false claim of 14,000 dead children in Gaza if aid doesn't reach
them in 14 days.
Thank you for giving us the official Israeli Government version of
the facts, which is of course their self-seeking propaganda,
discredited by all reputable international agencies and observers.
I had no idea that anyone here was a willing dupe of the Israeli
government but you've bravely come out of the closet.
Anyone who actually wants to know the facts can see the various
documentaries that are still available on catch-up.
The "human shields" argument is particularly absurd. When the
Israelis bomb and shell hospitals they do so from a great height and
they have never even attempted to show that the civilians whom they
have slaughtered are standing in the way of Hamas terrorists, the
true targets. But even if that was true, it is a war crime to shoot
civilians in order to kill the enemy soldiers standing behind them.
Israel has committed war crimes and is committing genocide.
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas official is
present in a hospital it means it has become a command and control
centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the patients.
War is an exceptionally unpleasant matter and those unduly aggressive
terrorists in Hamas and AlQuds should not have gambled that Israel
would be too hamstrung by world opinion to retaliate after the October
2023 massacre. Rather than give up those war aims and free the
hostages, Hamas (and its backers) still prefer to prolong the military
struggle with Israel. Of Netanyahu loves the excuse this gives to
strike back hard.
As for "genocide" in Gaza, as I recall this was initially a propaganda
term used by Qatari-sponsored pro-terrorist agitators in America. No
informed observer realistically believes the civilian deaths in Gaza
are a genocide by any meaningful definition of the term.
The formal charges of "genocide" has made little progress at the
ICC, which has no more than accepted the allegation as a legitimate
matter the court has jurisdiction over, but it has not determined
anything else about its validity in this conflict.
Fact: it does not require a court decision to deem an action "genocide". Likewise you don't only become a murderer on being convicted of murder
in a court of law.
Such allegations, sponsored by corrupt opportunists like South Africa's
Ramaphosa, are little more than grandstanding. Now Trump is getting in
on the act and says the ethnic cleansing of white farmers is
"genocide".
Meanwhile, the IDF have been using human shields. Another war crime.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-army-human- shields-80f358dd2c87a1123f26ffada159701c
Israeli use of human shields in Gaza was systematic, soldiers and former detainees tell the AP
The only times the Palestinian man wasn’t bound or blindfolded, he said, was when he was used by Israeli soldiers as their human shield.
Dressed in army fatigues with a camera fixed to his forehead, Ayman Abu Hamadan was forced into houses in the Gaza Strip to make sure they were
clear of bombs and gunmen, he said. When one unit finished with him, he
was passed to the next.
“They beat me and told me: ‘You have no other option; do this or we’ll kill you,’” the 36-year-old told The Associated Press, describing the 2 1/2 weeks he was held last summer by the Israeli military in northern Gaza.
Orders often came from the top, and at times nearly every platoon used a Palestinian to clear locations, said an Israeli officer, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
The AP spoke with seven Palestinians who described being used as shields
in Gaza and the occupied West Bank and with two members of Israel’s military who said they engaged in the practice, which is prohibited by international law. Rights groups are ringing the alarm, saying it’s
become standard procedure increasingly used in the war.
“These are not isolated accounts; they point to a systemic failure and a horrifying moral collapse,” said Nadav Weiman, executive director of Breaking the Silence — a whistleblower group of former Israeli soldiers that has collected testimonies about the practice from within the
military. “Israel rightly condemns Hamas for using civilians as human shields, but our own soldiers describe doing the very same.”
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas official is
present in a hospital it means it has become a command and control
centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the patients.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas official
is present in a hospital it means it has become a command and control
centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a hospital
and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware of them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement used
for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware of
them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do you
need a reference?
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement
used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported that
the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby school!
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware of
them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement
used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas official
is present in a hospital it means it has become a command and control
centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't present opinions as facts.
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby >>school!
According to the Saudis, the remaining leader of Hamas, Mohammed Sinwar
and 10 of his aides were allegedly killed in that bombing but this has
yet to be confirmed. Either way, their calculated use of tunnels under
the hospital and school as a military bunker turned the area into a >legitimate military target. Such is the disregard Hamas has for
civilian lives in Gaza.
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being used >>>> for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels as
Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were targeting.
On 24/05/2025 in message <XnsB2E99EC93832B1F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela wrote:
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
According to the Saudis, the remaining leader of Hamas, Mohammed Sinwar
and 10 of his aides were allegedly killed in that bombing but this has
yet to be confirmed. Either way, their calculated use of tunnels under
the hospital and school as a military bunker turned the area into a
legitimate military target. Such is the disregard Hamas has for
civilian lives in Gaza.
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware of
them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement
used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-contradicts- israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas command centres. Yippee - job done.
On 24/05/2025 20:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 24/05/2025 in message <XnsB2E99EC93832B1F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela >>wrote:
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to >>>>bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby >>>>school!
According to the Saudis, the remaining leader of Hamas, Mohammed Sinwar >>>and 10 of his aides were allegedly killed in that bombing but this has >>>yet to be confirmed. Either way, their calculated use of tunnels under >>>the hospital and school as a military bunker turned the area into a >>>legitimate military target. Such is the disregard Hamas has for
civilian lives in Gaza.
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to blow >>babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain amount of >collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search
engine yourself?
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being
used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels as
Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be utilised
as a military command centre?
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being >>>>>> used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels as
Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be utilised
as a military command centre?
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun the terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are over
the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom are likely
to be non-combatants?
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers are
too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face. Or maybe their commanders are incompetent and unskilled, and firmly believe that
dropping bombs is the best way of winning a war. Or maybe they just like
to slaughter innocent civilians because they have a half-assed belief
that the civilians might turn on Hamas and kill Hamas.
On 24/05/2025 15:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware of
them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement
used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-contradicts-
israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas
command centres. Yippee - job done.
I don't have access to the intelligence reports, but let's assume that
the raid cost the Israelis several million pounds. (Bunker busting bombs don't come cheap!)
Clearly, that's a ridiculous waste of money if the
*intended* target was a drainage system. So, can you explain what your thought process is, please?
On 24/05/2025 20:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 24/05/2025 in message <XnsB2E99EC93832B1F3QA2@135.181.20.170>
Pamela wrote:
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
According to the Saudis, the remaining leader of Hamas, Mohammed Sinwar
and 10 of his aides were allegedly killed in that bombing but this has
yet to be confirmed. Either way, their calculated use of tunnels under
the hospital and school as a military bunker turned the area into a
legitimate military target. Such is the disregard Hamas has for
civilian lives in Gaza.
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain amount
of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search
engine yourself?
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being
used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels as
Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be utilised
as a military command centre?
On 24/05/2025 15:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware of
them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement
used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-contradicts-
israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas command
centres. Yippee - job done.
I don't have access to the intelligence reports, but let's assume that
the raid cost the Israelis several million pounds. (Bunker busting bombs don't come cheap!) Clearly, that's a ridiculous waste of money if the *intended* target was a drainage system. So, can you explain what your thought process is, please?
On 24/05/2025 20:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 24/05/2025 in message <XnsB2E99EC93832B1F3QA2@135.181.20.170>
Pamela wrote:
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs to
bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC reported
that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually under a nearby
school!
According to the Saudis, the remaining leader of Hamas, Mohammed Sinwar
and 10 of his aides were allegedly killed in that bombing but this has
yet to be confirmed. Either way, their calculated use of tunnels under
the hospital and school as a military bunker turned the area into a
legitimate military target. Such is the disregard Hamas has for
civilian lives in Gaza.
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain amount
of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search
engine yourself?
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being >>>>>> used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be utilised
as a military command centre?
In a nearby school? What has that to do with the attack on a nearby
hospital.
<snip rest of irrelevant text>
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are being >>>>>> used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's
pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF
tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command
and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be utilised
as a military command centre?
If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun the terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are over
the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom are likely
to be non-combatants?
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers are
too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face. Or maybe their commanders are incompetent and unskilled, and firmly believe that
dropping bombs is the best way of winning a war. Or maybe they just like
to slaughter innocent civilians because they have a half-assed belief
that the civilians might turn on Hamas and kill Hamas.
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are
being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This
has been gone through many times before without conclusion, and
it's pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The
IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a
command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of
all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun the terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are
over the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom are
likely to be non-combatants?
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers
are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face. Or maybe
their commanders are incompetent and unskilled, and firmly believe
that dropping bombs is the best way of winning a war. Or maybe they
just like to slaughter innocent civilians because they have a
half-assed belief that the civilians might turn on Hamas and kill
Hamas.
[SNIP]
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
On 25/05/2025 11:00, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 15:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The
IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any
Hamas official is present in a hospital it means it has become a
command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of
all the patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware
of them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so.
Do you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital
basement used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single
instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs
to bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC
reported that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually
under a nearby school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-
contradicts-israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas
command centres. Yippee - job done.
I don't have access to the intelligence reports, but let's assume
that the raid cost the Israelis several million pounds. (Bunker
busting bombs don't come cheap!)
There is no evidence that this or the subsequent attacks on those
carrying out the post bombing clear-up were bunker bombs.
Clearly, that's a ridiculous waste of money if the
*intended* target was a drainage system. So, can you explain what
your thought process is, please?
A small price to pay for the removal of a Gazan from the territory.
You know it makes sense. Otherwise Israel wouldn't have broken the
ceasefire.
Bombing hospitals has the added effect of removing medics who are
able to independently verify the true nature of IDF's offensives and
evidence of continued ethnic cleansing.
On 14:53 25 May 2025, JNugent said:
[SNIP]
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
I seem to recall field marshall Montgomery acquired a reputation for
being reckless with his own soldiers' lives.
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain
amount of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search
engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
It only makes a difference if doctors working in Gaza can be relied
upon to tell the truth. Unfortunately that isn't always the case, as
Honest Reporting discovered a few months ago.
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to blow >>>>babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better >>>explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain amount >>>of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search >>>engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and >>deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you? Not
your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary >Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this NG.
On 25/05/2025 11:00, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 15:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF >>>>>> tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command >>>>>> and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware
of them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement
used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs
to bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC
reported that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually
under a nearby school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-contradicts-
israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas
command centres. Yippee - job done.
I don't have access to the intelligence reports, but let's assume that
the raid cost the Israelis several million pounds. (Bunker busting
bombs don't come cheap!)
There is no evidence that this or the subsequent attacks on those
carrying out the post bombing clear-up were bunker bombs.
Clearly, that's a ridiculous waste of money if the *intended* target
was a drainage system. So, can you explain what your thought process
is, please?
A small price to pay for the removal of a Gazan from the territory. You
know it makes sense. Otherwise Israel wouldn't have broken the ceasefire.
Bombing hospitals has the added effect of removing medics who are able
to independently verify the true nature of IDF's offensives and evidence
of continued ethnic cleansing.
On 25/05/2025 16:07, Pamela wrote:
On 14:53 25 May 2025, JNugent said:
[SNIP]
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
I seem to recall field marshall Montgomery acquired a reputation for
being reckless with his own soldiers' lives.
That could have led to a court martial if true.
On 25/05/2025 in message <100vb73$1du2m$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain
amount of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a
search engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and
deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you?
Not your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary
Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this
NG.
The Belgrano was an Argentinian ship sunk in a war with Argentina, no comparison with Israel slaughtering Palestinian civilians despite it
being attacked by Hamas, a terrorist group.
I don't recognise the names you quote, you will have to provide links. Presumably they were all new born babies?
On 25/05/2025 14:28, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are
being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's >>>>>>> pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF >>>>>> tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command >>>>>> and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun the
terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
I dare say that it isn't actually impossible. Just very unwise to risk
the lives of one's troops when the objective can be achieved by other
means.
I wonder why the British and American armies didn't assault Monte
Cassino on foot, advancing up the slopes of the mountain? Was it
cowardly to bombard the German machine gun nests from the air?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are
over the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom are
likely to be non-combatants?
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers
are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face. Or maybe
their commanders are incompetent and unskilled, and firmly believe
that dropping bombs is the best way of winning a war. Or maybe they
just like to slaughter innocent civilians because they have a half-
assed belief that the civilians might turn on Hamas and kill Hamas.
Have you ever thought of offering your undoubted military acumen and
command skills to the British armed forces? They're another bunch who
don't like seeing their men killed when there's an alternative and see
it as a priority to avaoid that at more or less all costs..
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain
amount of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search
engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and
deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you? Not
your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this
NG.
On 25/05/2025 12:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:00, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 15:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF >>>>>>> tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command >>>>>>> and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware
of them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital basement >>>>>> used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs
to bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC
reported that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually
under a nearby school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-contradicts-
israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas
command centres. Yippee - job done.
I don't have access to the intelligence reports, but let's assume that
the raid cost the Israelis several million pounds. (Bunker busting
bombs don't come cheap!)
There is no evidence that this or the subsequent attacks on those
carrying out the post bombing clear-up were bunker bombs.
Clearly, that's a ridiculous waste of money if the *intended* target
was a drainage system. So, can you explain what your thought process
is, please?
A small price to pay for the removal of a Gazan from the territory. You
know it makes sense. Otherwise Israel wouldn't have broken the ceasefire.
Bombing hospitals has the added effect of removing medics who are able
to independently verify the true nature of IDF's offensives and evidence
of continued ethnic cleansing.
Well, I did ask what your thought process was, so I can't really
complain if it seems utterly bizarre to me.
On 2025-05-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain
amount of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search >>>> engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and
deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you? Not
your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
Firing upon a military warship (no matter which direction it's
travelling in) is "not quite the same thing" as blowing up babies
in hospitals and residences and civilian encampments? If you're
going for some sort of medal for heroic understatement then don't
worry, you've earned it.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary
Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this
NG.
[The above is a reference to three British adult civilian women who
were killed in the Falklands by British shelling that was intended
for the Argentine military.]
Again, not children. And *clearly* not intentional given they were
our own people. I'm not sure which newsgroup you've been reading,
but clearly it isn't this one. Nobody at all has said that they
expect there to be zero civilian casualties. That's a strawman
you've made up.
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers are
too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face.
On 25/05/2025 13:28, The Todal wrote:
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers are >>too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face.
General Patton would have replied "The object of war is not to die for
your country; it's about making the other guy die for his.".
(I'm not sure he said those particular words, but something along those
lines is attributed to him.)
On 25/05/2025 19:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to >>>>>> blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better >>>>> explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain
amount of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable). >>>>>
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search >>>>> engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and
deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you? Not
your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
Firing upon a military warship (no matter which direction it's
travelling in) is "not quite the same thing" as blowing up babies
in hospitals and residences and civilian encampments? If you're
going for some sort of medal for heroic understatement then don't
worry, you've earned it.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary
Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this
NG.
[The above is a reference to three British adult civilian women who
were killed in the Falklands by British shelling that was intended
for the Argentine military.]
Again, not children. And *clearly* not intentional given they were
our own people. I'm not sure which newsgroup you've been reading,
but clearly it isn't this one. Nobody at all has said that they
expect there to be zero civilian casualties. That's a strawman
you've made up.
There are a limited number of examples of this country going to war that
I can draw from.
I thought it was rather gentlemanly of the Argentinians to dig in in the countryside. They could have chosen to fight from within Port Stanley, surrounded by civilians.
On 25/05/2025 in message <100vvqe$1ihr8$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:28, The Todal wrote:
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers are >>> too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face.
General Patton would have replied "The object of war is not to die for
your country; it's about making the other guy die for his.".
(I'm not sure he said those particular words, but something along those
lines is attributed to him.)
Indeed, but he was talking about an identified enemy. In Gaza/Israel it
was Hamas who attacked Israel and it's Palestinian civilians who are bing slaughtered in response. Interestingly in many Facebook groups Israelis
argue there is no distinction.
On 25/05/2025 16:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/05/2025 in message <100vb73$1du2m$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to blow >>>>>>babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better >>>>>explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain amount >>>>>of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a search >>>>>engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and >>>>deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you? Not >>>your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary >>>Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this >>>NG.
The Belgrano was an Argentinian ship sunk in a war with Argentina, no >>comparison with Israel slaughtering Palestinian civilians despite it
being attacked by Hamas, a terrorist group.
I don't recognise the names you quote, you will have to provide links. >>Presumably they were all new born babies?
In the early hours of June 12th, at 7 Ross Road, to the west of Stanley, >three Falkland Islanders, civilians, tragically lost their lives. This was >due, not to ‘direct’ Argentine action, but to a computer ‘glitch’
on a Royal Navy frigate that had been shelling Argentine positions.
Two shells were fired before the ‘spotter’ (hidden on Beagle Ridge,
north of Stanley) was able to stop the action. The second ‘air-burst’ >shell had accounted for the lives of the three ladies, Mary Goodwin,
Doreen Bonner and Sue Whitley.
On 25/05/2025 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2025 14:28, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are
being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This >>>>>>>> has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's >>>>>>>> pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The
IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas >>>>>>> official is present in a hospital it means it has become a
command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of
all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun the
terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
I dare say that it isn't actually impossible. Just very unwise to risk
the lives of one's troops when the objective can be achieved by other
means.
I wonder why the British and American armies didn't assault Monte
Cassino on foot, advancing up the slopes of the mountain? Was it
cowardly to bombard the German machine gun nests from the air?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are
over the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom are
likely to be non-combatants?
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers
are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face. Or maybe
their commanders are incompetent and unskilled, and firmly believe
that dropping bombs is the best way of winning a war. Or maybe they
just like to slaughter innocent civilians because they have a half-
assed belief that the civilians might turn on Hamas and kill Hamas.
Have you ever thought of offering your undoubted military acumen and
command skills to the British armed forces? They're another bunch who
don't like seeing their men killed when there's an alternative and see
it as a priority to avaoid that at more or less all costs..
I think what you are saying, in effect, is that you trust the IDF to be honest and truthful and to do whatever it can to keep civilian
casualties to a minimum - and you trust them as much as you would trust
our own dear RAF and our own commanders in past wars.
Whereas all the indications are that the IDF and the Israeli government
are doing their level best to prevent journalists reporting from Gaza
and are peddling false propaganda which even Sir Keir Starmer can no
longer take seriously.
The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's their main strategy. And when, in wartime, did Britain deliberately starve civilian populations and prevent supplies of food and medicine reaching the
civilians? Do you think we did that to the French as we advanced through Europe after D-day? Sounds more like what the Nazis did.
From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. I'll quote, because there's a
paywall. And I'm a subscriber. Don't expect our own press to tell the
truth about Gaza.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2025-04-18/ty-article/.premium/the-situation-in-gaza-is-no-longer-a-war-but-an-unrestrained-assault-on-civilians/00000196-47b9-d9fb-a79f-67f997dd0000
April 18 2025
The Situation in Gaza Is No Longer a War, but an Unrestrained Assault on Civilians
In the absence of any real military targets, Israel is waging a reckless offensive against those who are in no way involved in the fighting
against it. Gazans are forced to choose between death and displacement
to 'safe zones' that are far from safe
Even those who don't believe most of the people killed in Gaza are
innocent cannot deny the horrific pictures of the humanitarian disaster there. The use of the word "war" for what is going on in Gaza is
misleading and distorted. What's happening in Gaza is not war. It's an unbridled Israeli assault on people who are mostly uninvolved in any
activity against it.
Israel's "target bank" has long run dry. No administration buildings or "terror infrastructure" remain, and there's no way to tell if all Hamas' tunnels have been destroyed.
Israel is attacking from the air, ground and sea densely populated
civilian sites in the Gaza Strip – encampments for refugees and
displaced people, shaky buildings that still serve as shelters, like hospitals and UNWRA schools. The IDF spokesperson may speak of a "safe
zone," but in Gaza, nobody's heard of that term.
But apart from these killed people, we should remember: the humanitarian catastrophe taking place in Gaza now is placing two million Gazans on
the brink of death by starvation and from diseases.
For more than a month, the Gaza Strip has been completely closed. Only
those who have asked to leave are permitted to do so, and Israel boasts
of it. Every medical and humanitarian system has collapsed, along with education and social systems.
On 25/05/2025 20:01, The Todal wrote:
From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. I'll quote, because there's a
paywall. And I'm a subscriber. Don't expect our own press to tell the
truth about Gaza.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2025-04-18/ty-
article/.premium/the-situation-in-gaza-is-no-longer-a-war-but-an-
unrestrained-assault-on-civilians/00000196-47b9-d9fb-a79f-67f997dd0000
April 18 2025
The Situation in Gaza Is No Longer a War, but an Unrestrained Assault
on Civilians
In the absence of any real military targets, Israel is waging a
reckless offensive against those who are in no way involved in the
fighting against it. Gazans are forced to choose between death and
displacement to 'safe zones' that are far from safe
Even those who don't believe most of the people killed in Gaza are
innocent cannot deny the horrific pictures of the humanitarian
disaster there. The use of the word "war" for what is going on in Gaza
is misleading and distorted. What's happening in Gaza is not war. It's
an unbridled Israeli assault on people who are mostly uninvolved in
any activity against it.
Israel's "target bank" has long run dry. No administration buildings
or "terror infrastructure" remain, and there's no way to tell if all
Hamas' tunnels have been destroyed.
Israel is attacking from the air, ground and sea densely populated
civilian sites in the Gaza Strip – encampments for refugees and
displaced people, shaky buildings that still serve as shelters, like
hospitals and UNWRA schools. The IDF spokesperson may speak of a "safe
zone," but in Gaza, nobody's heard of that term.
But apart from these killed people, we should remember: the
humanitarian catastrophe taking place in Gaza now is placing two
million Gazans on the brink of death by starvation and from diseases.
For more than a month, the Gaza Strip has been completely closed. Only
those who have asked to leave are permitted to do so, and Israel
boasts of it. Every medical and humanitarian system has collapsed,
along with education and social systems.
Thank you.
Whereabout within the Israeli firmament of media sources does "Haaretz"
sit?
Is it more like the Daily Telegraph or the Guardian?
We all need to exercise some source criticism.
On 14:53 25 May 2025, JNugent said:
[SNIP]
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
I seem to recall field marshall Montgomery acquired a reputation for
being reckless with his own soldiers' lives.
On 25 May 2025 at 21:59:02 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 in message <100vvqe$1ihr8$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:28, The Todal wrote:
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli
soldiers are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face.
General Patton would have replied "The object of war is not to die
for your country; it's about making the other guy die for his.".
(I'm not sure he said those particular words, but something along
those lines is attributed to him.)
Indeed, but he was talking about an identified enemy. In Gaza/Israel
it was Hamas who attacked Israel and it's Palestinian civilians who
are bing slaughtered in response. Interestingly in many Facebook
groups Israelis argue there is no distinction.
The other war crime is to murder Hamas civilian officials. Hamas was
the only government in Gaza and Hamas officials who are not fighters
are not legitimate targets.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB2EA99E3A859E1F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 14:53 25 May 2025, JNugent said:
[SNIP]
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
I seem to recall field marshall Montgomery acquired a reputation for
being reckless with his own soldiers' lives.
Then you remember wrongly; and I suggest you check your sourcea
Montgomery was always popular with his own men. Less so with fellow
generals, and politicians; some of whom regarded him as prickly and difficult.
At the second Battle of El Alemain he had 4 to 1 advantage in tanks,
and while Market Garden, Arnhem etc his own initiative in defiance of
Ike is regarded as a bit of a mistake, this was largely down to
faulty intillegence, both before and during, and the losses not that catastophic.
bb
On 25/05/2025 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2025 14:28, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are
being used for military purposes, and there are some specific
caveats. This has been gone through many times before without
conclusion, and it's pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The
IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any
Hamas official is present in a hospital it means it has become
a command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF
of all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage
channels as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school
they were targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun
the terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
I dare say that it isn't actually impossible. Just very unwise to
risk the lives of one's troops when the objective can be achieved by
other means.
I wonder why the British and American armies didn't assault Monte
Cassino on foot, advancing up the slopes of the mountain? Was it
cowardly to bombard the German machine gun nests from the air?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are
over the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom
are likely to be non-combatants?
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated
by the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions
which ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own
soldiers. Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli
soldiers are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to
face. Or maybe their commanders are incompetent and unskilled,
and firmly believe that dropping bombs is the best way of winning a
war. Or maybe they just like to slaughter innocent civilians
because they have a half- assed belief that the civilians might
turn on Hamas and kill Hamas.
Have you ever thought of offering your undoubted military acumen and
command skills to the British armed forces? They're another bunch
who don't like seeing their men killed when there's an alternative
and see it as a priority to avaoid that at more or less all costs..
I think what you are saying, in effect, is that you trust the IDF to
be honest and truthful and to do whatever it can to keep civilian
casualties to a minimum - and you trust them as much as you would
trust our own dear RAF and our own commanders in past wars.
Whereas all the indications are that the IDF and the Israeli
government are doing their level best to prevent journalists
reporting from Gaza and are peddling false propaganda which even Sir
Keir Starmer can no longer take seriously.
The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible
- it's their main strategy. And when, in wartime, did Britain
deliberately starve civilian populations and prevent supplies of food
and medicine reaching the civilians? Do you think we did that to the
French as we advanced through Europe after D-day? Sounds more like
what the Nazis did.
From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. I'll quote, because there's a
paywall. And I'm a subscriber. Don't expect our own press to tell the
truth about Gaza.
On 19:01 25 May 2025, The Todal said:
On 25/05/2025 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2025 14:28, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The >>>>>>>> IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are >>>>>>>>> being used for military purposes, and there are some specific >>>>>>>>> caveats. This has been gone through many times before without >>>>>>>>> conclusion, and it's pointless rehearsing the arguments again. >>>>>>>>
Hamas official is present in a hospital it means it has become >>>>>>>> a command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF
of all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage
channels as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school
they were targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
If you know your enemies are in an underground tunnel, why is it
impossible to send Israeli troops into the tunnel, to machine gun
the terrorists, to use flamethrowers, to use CS gas?
I dare say that it isn't actually impossible. Just very unwise to
risk the lives of one's troops when the objective can be achieved by
other means.
I wonder why the British and American armies didn't assault Monte
Cassino on foot, advancing up the slopes of the mountain? Was it
cowardly to bombard the German machine gun nests from the air?
Why is it considered so much better to bomb the buildings that are
over the tunnel, and kill the people in the buildings all of whom
are likely to be non-combatants?
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated
by the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions
which ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own
soldiers. Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli
soldiers are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to
face. Or maybe their commanders are incompetent and unskilled,
and firmly believe that dropping bombs is the best way of winning a
war. Or maybe they just like to slaughter innocent civilians
because they have a half- assed belief that the civilians might
turn on Hamas and kill Hamas.
Have you ever thought of offering your undoubted military acumen and
command skills to the British armed forces? They're another bunch
who don't like seeing their men killed when there's an alternative
and see it as a priority to avaoid that at more or less all costs..
I think what you are saying, in effect, is that you trust the IDF to
be honest and truthful and to do whatever it can to keep civilian
casualties to a minimum - and you trust them as much as you would
trust our own dear RAF and our own commanders in past wars.
Whereas all the indications are that the IDF and the Israeli
government are doing their level best to prevent journalists
reporting from Gaza and are peddling false propaganda which even Sir
Keir Starmer can no longer take seriously.
The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible
Is there any proof for that?
If it is a stated aim of the IDF, then why are they doing such a poor
job of it? The number of civilian deaths in Gaza in not remarkable for
an urban war against terrorists such as Mosul or Aleppo.
- it's their main strategy. And when, in wartime, did Britain
deliberately starve civilian populations and prevent supplies of food
and medicine reaching the civilians? Do you think we did that to the
French as we advanced through Europe after D-day? Sounds more like
what the Nazis did.
How often in a war does one side permit food supplies for civilians and combatatnts on the other side? This is what is being requested in Gaza.
From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. I'll quote, because there's a
paywall. And I'm a subscriber. Don't expect our own press to tell the
truth about Gaza.
On 26/05/2025 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2025 20:01, The Todal wrote:
From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. I'll quote, because there's a
paywall. And I'm a subscriber. Don't expect our own press to tell the
truth about Gaza.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2025-04-18/ty-
article/.premium/the-situation-in-gaza-is-no-longer-a-war-but-an-
unrestrained-assault-on-civilians/00000196-47b9-d9fb-a79f-67f997dd0000
April 18 2025
The Situation in Gaza Is No Longer a War, but an Unrestrained Assault
on Civilians
In the absence of any real military targets, Israel is waging a
reckless offensive against those who are in no way involved in the
fighting against it. Gazans are forced to choose between death and
displacement to 'safe zones' that are far from safe
Even those who don't believe most of the people killed in Gaza are
innocent cannot deny the horrific pictures of the humanitarian
disaster there. The use of the word "war" for what is going on in
Gaza is misleading and distorted. What's happening in Gaza is not
war. It's an unbridled Israeli assault on people who are mostly
uninvolved in any activity against it.
Israel's "target bank" has long run dry. No administration buildings
or "terror infrastructure" remain, and there's no way to tell if all
Hamas' tunnels have been destroyed.
Israel is attacking from the air, ground and sea densely populated
civilian sites in the Gaza Strip – encampments for refugees and
displaced people, shaky buildings that still serve as shelters, like
hospitals and UNWRA schools. The IDF spokesperson may speak of a
"safe zone," but in Gaza, nobody's heard of that term.
But apart from these killed people, we should remember: the
humanitarian catastrophe taking place in Gaza now is placing two
million Gazans on the brink of death by starvation and from diseases.
For more than a month, the Gaza Strip has been completely closed.
Only those who have asked to leave are permitted to do so, and Israel
boasts of it. Every medical and humanitarian system has collapsed,
along with education and social systems.
Thank you.
Whereabout within the Israeli firmament of media sources does
"Haaretz" sit?
Is it more like the Daily Telegraph or the Guardian?
We all need to exercise some source criticism.
You mean, dismiss a report because you assume it to be from a left wing source and therefore, in your opinion, unreliable.
It's an Israeli source and it is more open and honest than anything
we've seen published in the mainstream British media.
Which always opts
for "balance", as in "fifty children have been killed in a school used
as a shelter for refugees. The IDF has said that it was targeting
terrorists there".
Anyway - you tell me which Israeli news source you regard as objective
and reliable.
On 25/05/2025 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's the 21st century, what sort of scum feels it is acceptable to
blow babies and children to pieces to kill a terrorist?
I don't approve, either, but you are amongst that "scum"! I'd better
explain, hadn't I?
You are British, and British military doctrine accepts a certain
amount of collateral damage is inevitable (and therefore acceptable).
Do you need me to provide you with references, or can you use a
search engine yourself?
I would like references please, instances where we have knowingly and
deliberately blown babies and children to pieces.
Not quite the same thing, but you blew up the Belgrano, didn't you? Not
your finest hour, Jeff, as you mostly killed teenage conscripts.
You also shelled (and killed) Doreen Bonner, Susan Whitley, and Mary Goodwin. Obviously, this must have been intentional, according to this NG.
On 23:23 25 May 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 25 May 2025 at 21:59:02 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 in message <100vvqe$1ihr8$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:28, The Todal wrote:
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli
soldiers are too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face.
General Patton would have replied "The object of war is not to die
for your country; it's about making the other guy die for his.".
(I'm not sure he said those particular words, but something along
those lines is attributed to him.)
Indeed, but he was talking about an identified enemy. In Gaza/Israel
it was Hamas who attacked Israel and it's Palestinian civilians who
are bing slaughtered in response. Interestingly in many Facebook
groups Israelis argue there is no distinction.
The other war crime is to murder Hamas civilian officials. Hamas was
the only government in Gaza and Hamas officials who are not fighters
are not legitimate targets.
What about the Palestinian Authority under Abbas in Gaza?
Correct me if I am wrong, Hamas led the militant groups as well as
inveigling itself into the administration but it was never completely in charge.
<https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/introduction_armed_groups/>
On 25/05/2025 12:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:00, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 15:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:50, Fredxx wrote:
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The
IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas >>>>>>> official is present in a hospital it means it has become a
command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of
all the patients.
I wouldn't go as afar as that, but the IDF could have entered a
hospital and found known Hamas fighters, something I am not aware
of them doing. They'd sooner bomb the place to dust.
They certainly have done that, and been criticised for doing so. Do
you need a reference?
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.
In the early days there was claimed evidence of a hospital
basement used for weapon storage, but I only recall a single
instance?
A 13 May strike on the European Hospital used bunker busting bombs
to bomb a Hamas bunker under the hospital courtyard. The BBC
reported that the IDF got it wrong, and the bunker was actually
under a nearby school!
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-hospital-attack-analysis-
contradicts- israels-evidence-justifying-airstrike-13367823
You say bunker, I say drainage system. So do Sky News, but hey.
From now on let's bomb all drainage system and call them Hamas
command centres. Yippee - job done.
I don't have access to the intelligence reports, but let's assume
that the raid cost the Israelis several million pounds. (Bunker
busting bombs don't come cheap!)
There is no evidence that this or the subsequent attacks on those
carrying out the post bombing clear-up were bunker bombs.
Clearly, that's a ridiculous waste of money if the *intended* target
was a drainage system. So, can you explain what your thought process
is, please?
A small price to pay for the removal of a Gazan from the territory.
You know it makes sense. Otherwise Israel wouldn't have broken the
ceasefire.
Bombing hospitals has the added effect of removing medics who are able
to independently verify the true nature of IDF's offensives and
evidence of continued ethnic cleansing.
Well, I did ask what your thought process was, so I can't really
complain if it seems utterly bizarre to me.
On 25 May 2025 at 21:59:02 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 in message <100vvqe$1ihr8$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:28, The Todal wrote:
There must be a reason. One possibility is that the Israeli soldiers are >>>> too cowardly to meet with their enemies face to face.
General Patton would have replied "The object of war is not to die for
your country; it's about making the other guy die for his.".
(I'm not sure he said those particular words, but something along those
lines is attributed to him.)
Indeed, but he was talking about an identified enemy. In Gaza/Israel it
was Hamas who attacked Israel and it's Palestinian civilians who are bing
slaughtered in response. Interestingly in many Facebook groups Israelis
argue there is no distinction.
The other war crime is to murder Hamas civilian officials. Hamas was the only government in Gaza and Hamas officials who are not fighters are not legitimate
targets.
On 25/05/2025 13:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are
being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This has >>>>>>> been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's >>>>>>> pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The IDF >>>>>> tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas
official is present in a hospital it means it has become a command >>>>>> and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of all the
patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
You must mean "no evidence that I, Fredxx, am prepared to accept",
because clearly, someone in a position of authority must have accepted it.
The word "verifiable" is hardly helpful in the context of discussion of
this war, if for no better reason than that the Guardian, the Washington Post, BBC, MSNBC et al are not allowed in.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
In a nearby school? What has that to do with the attack on a nearby
hospital.
<snip rest of irrelevant text>
You seem to have forgotten what you wrote in the PP. You said that the
IDF had identified drainage channels as Hamas Command centres, but in
such a context as to indicate that you did not believe it.
I asked why you didn't believe it, albeit in a question coming in from a different angle, asking whether drainage channels cannot be used for a military purpose. That would be the only reason why the Israelis could
not have made the identification.
You then moved on to talking about a school, which was not at all what
my question was about.
Let me remind you that lots of structures and locations never intended
for military use have been pressed into service as military
installations when occasion dictated it. I'm sure you have heard of the Battle of Waterloo, for instance. The chateau and farm building took a pasting.
On 25/05/2025 14:45, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are
being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats. This >>>>>>>> has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's >>>>>>>> pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The
IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any Hamas >>>>>>> official is present in a hospital it means it has become a
command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of
all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
You must mean "no evidence that I, Fredxx, am prepared to accept",
because clearly, someone in a position of authority must have accepted
it.
The word "verifiable" is hardly helpful in the context of discussion
of this war, if for no better reason than that the Guardian, the
Washington Post, BBC, MSNBC et al are not allowed in.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage channels
as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school they were
targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
In a nearby school? What has that to do with the attack on a nearby
hospital.
<snip rest of irrelevant text>
You seem to have forgotten what you wrote in the PP. You said that the
IDF had identified drainage channels as Hamas Command centres, but in
such a context as to indicate that you did not believe it.
I asked why you didn't believe it, albeit in a question coming in from
a different angle, asking whether drainage channels cannot be used for
a military purpose. That would be the only reason why the Israelis
could not have made the identification.
Is that was of you saying you justify the bombing of a nearby hospital
when there may be drainage channels in a nearby school.
You then moved on to talking about a school, which was not at all what
my question was about.
It was you who mentioned a drainage channel. And you seem to accept the drainage channel was associated with a hospital. Given that was a bare
faced untruth where the drainage channels were associated with a school
I can see why you didn't want to move the conversation onto a school.
Let me remind you that lots of structures and locations never intended
for military use have been pressed into service as military
installations when occasion dictated it. I'm sure you have heard of
the Battle of Waterloo, for instance. The chateau and farm building
took a pasting.
That was well before my time. I think you're older than me. Was the
purpose of shelling the chateau and farm building part of an operation
to ethnically cleanse the area of inhabitants? Otherwise it really has
little relevance to the 3% of the population in occupied Gaza being
killed by IDF
On 10:26 26 May 2025, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB2EA99E3A859E1F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 14:53 25 May 2025, JNugent said:
[SNIP]
As indicated above, that is an equation which has to be calculated by
the command staff. *Some* generals have indeed made decisions which
ensured the deaths of unconscionable numbers of their own soldiers.
Those of the USSR and eventually, Germany, did that.
I seem to recall field marshall Montgomery acquired a reputation for
being reckless with his own soldiers' lives.
Then you remember wrongly; and I suggest you check your sourcea
Montgomery was always popular with his own men. Less so with fellow
generals, and politicians; some of whom regarded him as prickly and
difficult.
At the second Battle of El Alemain he had 4 to 1 advantage in tanks,
and while Market Garden, Arnhem etc his own initiative in defiance of
Ike is regarded as a bit of a mistake, this was largely down to
faulty intillegence, both before and during, and the losses not that
catastophic.
bb
Montgomery was charismatic and instilled loyalty in soldiers, but his
peers found him arrogance insufferable and could see his recklessness.
What you're calling a "bit of a mistake" at Arnhem was an unnecessary
debacle caused by Montgomery ignoring warning.
One of my family members who fought under Montgomery's command never
saw him as a great leader.
I have often thought the same. The political wing of Hamas should rename themselves to
be something like "We ourselves" or [....?]. It worked well in Northern Ireland.
On 26/05/2025 14:45, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/05/2025 14:45, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:47, GB wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
Hospital lose their right to protection in a war if they are >>>>>>>>> being used
for military purposes, and there are some specific caveats.
This has
been gone through many times before without conclusion, and it's >>>>>>>>> pointless rehearsing the arguments again.
No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes. The >>>>>>>> IDF tells blatant lies about this, and pretends that if any
Hamas official is present in a hospital it means it has become a >>>>>>>> command and control centre justifying the murder by the IDF of >>>>>>>> all the patients.
There are clearly two versions of this story, and an absence of
unbiased, verifiable facts. It would be better if people didn't
present opinions as facts.
There is no verifiable evidence that hospitals have been used for
military purposes. There, that's better.
You must mean "no evidence that I, Fredxx, am prepared to accept",
because clearly, someone in a position of authority must have
accepted it.
The word "verifiable" is hardly helpful in the context of discussion
of this war, if for no better reason than that the Guardian, the
Washington Post, BBC, MSNBC et al are not allowed in.
It has been verified that the IDF have identified drainage
channels as Hamas Command centres in a school next to a school
they were targeting.
Why is it impossible for an underground drainage system to be
utilised as a military command centre?
In a nearby school? What has that to do with the attack on a nearby
hospital.
<snip rest of irrelevant text>
You seem to have forgotten what you wrote in the PP. You said that
the IDF had identified drainage channels as Hamas Command centres,
but in such a context as to indicate that you did not believe it.
I asked why you didn't believe it, albeit in a question coming in
from a different angle, asking whether drainage channels cannot be
used for a military purpose. That would be the only reason why the
Israelis could not have made the identification.
Is that was of you saying you justify the bombing of a nearby hospital
when there may be drainage channels in a nearby school.
Correction: Must proof read before sending.
Is that your way of saying you can justify the bombing of a nearby
hospital because there may be drainage channels in a nearby school?
You then moved on to talking about a school, which was not at all
what my question was about.
It was you who mentioned a drainage channel. And you seem to accept
the drainage channel was associated with a hospital. Given that was a
bare faced untruth where the drainage channels were associated with a
school I can see why you didn't want to move the conversation onto a
school.
Let me remind you that lots of structures and locations never
intended for military use have been pressed into service as military
installations when occasion dictated it. I'm sure you have heard of
the Battle of Waterloo, for instance. The chateau and farm building
took a pasting.
That was well before my time.
I think you're older than me. Was the
purpose of shelling the chateau and farm building part of an operation
to ethnically cleanse the area of inhabitants? Otherwise it really has
little relevance to the 3% of the population in occupied Gaza being
killed by IDF
I find your morals don't bear scrutiny; 3% of the Gazan population is
killed with just a few involved in terrorism. However you feel it
morally correct to criticise the few civilian deaths in the Falklands
yet morally justify the outrageous number of civilians killed in the
current conflict.
On 26/05/2025 14:29, Fredxx wrote:
killed with just a few involved in terrorism. However you feel it
morally correct to criticise the few civilian deaths in the Falklands
yet morally justify the outrageous number of civilians killed in the
current conflict.
Whhoooossshhh!
The Falklands population density was two square miles per head.
The Argentine soldiers conveniently lined up on a couple of hills, and
did not embed themselves within the civilian population.
The firefight only lasted a couple of nights.
All the Argentine soldiers then conveniently surrendered, rather than fighting a guerilla battle (which would have been difficult, I imagine,
given how barren the Falklands are).
And yet, despite these most favourable conditions, we still killed 0.1%
of the civilian population.
It appears that people here haven't mastered irony, because I obviously wasn't suggesting that the Falklands civilians were being deliberately targeted.
On 2025-05-27, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:29, Fredxx wrote:
killed with just a few involved in terrorism. However you feel it
morally correct to criticise the few civilian deaths in the Falklands
yet morally justify the outrageous number of civilians killed in the
current conflict.
Whhoooossshhh!
The Falklands population density was two square miles per head.
The Argentine soldiers conveniently lined up on a couple of hills, and
did not embed themselves within the civilian population.
The firefight only lasted a couple of nights.
All the Argentine soldiers then conveniently surrendered, rather than
fighting a guerilla battle (which would have been difficult, I imagine,
given how barren the Falklands are).
And yet, despite these most favourable conditions, we still killed 0.1%
of the civilian population.
It appears that people here haven't mastered irony, because I obviously
wasn't suggesting that the Falklands civilians were being deliberately
targeted.
I think perhaps you haven't mastered making it even remotely clear what
it is that you are suggesting.
It's an Israeli source and it is more open and honest than anything
we've seen published in the mainstream British media.
On 27/05/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-27, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:29, Fredxx wrote:
killed with just a few involved in terrorism. However you feel it
morally correct to criticise the few civilian deaths in the Falklands
yet morally justify the outrageous number of civilians killed in the
current conflict.
Whhoooossshhh!
The Falklands population density was two square miles per head.
The Argentine soldiers conveniently lined up on a couple of hills, and
did not embed themselves within the civilian population.
The firefight only lasted a couple of nights.
All the Argentine soldiers then conveniently surrendered, rather than
fighting a guerilla battle (which would have been difficult, I imagine,
given how barren the Falklands are).
And yet, despite these most favourable conditions, we still killed 0.1%
of the civilian population.
It appears that people here haven't mastered irony, because I obviously
wasn't suggesting that the Falklands civilians were being deliberately
targeted.
I think perhaps you haven't mastered making it even remotely clear what
it is that you are suggesting.
I'm suggesting that the conspiracy theorists amongst us are utterly
bananas. During a war such as is taking place in Gaza, very high
civilian casualties are inevitable.
That's one of the several reasons why I thought at the time the Israelis
were wrong to rise to Hamas's bait.
How that's come to be misrepresented as I "morally justify the
outrageous number of civilians killed", I have no idea, but there's
clearly a lot of misinformed nonsense being spouted on this NG.
And, just for the record, we don't need to wait for the wreck of The
Bayesian to be raised to be absolutely sure that it wasn't sunk by an underwater bomb.
On 27/05/2025 15:05, GB wrote:snip
And, just for the record, we don't need to wait for the wreck of The
Bayesian to be raised to be absolutely sure that it wasn't sunk by an
underwater bomb.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that as a possibility.
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human excrement (do
you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
How that's come to be misrepresented as I "morally justify the
outrageous number of civilians killed", I have no idea, but there's
clearly a lot of misinformed nonsense being spouted on this NG.
It would show proper humility if you now repented. Regurgitating IDF propaganda no longer fools anyone.
And, just for the record, we don't need to wait for the wreck of The
Bayesian to be raised to be absolutely sure that it wasn't sunk by an
underwater bomb.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that as a possibility.
snip
I'm choosing to rebut utterly absurd statements. I did the same with
some of the more seriously deranged statements about the Bayesian.
You don't have an obligation to read and memorise every post on this NG,
so don't feel bad about not remembering that particular sub-thread.
So, let's turn to this thread. Apparently, a bomb hit a drainage ditch
in Gaza. Several obviously plausible explanations spring to mind:
a) there was a legitimate target underneath, b) faulty intelligence,
and there wasn't, c) the bomb was off target ...
But, instead a poster seriously advanced the theory (as fact) that the
IDF is intent on destroying the infrastructure of Gaza by bombing
drainage ditches. It's a lunatic theory. Apart from anything else, they
could do the job far more effectively with a bulldozer.
On 26/05/2025 09:43, The Todal wrote:
It's an Israeli source and it is more open and honest than anything
we've seen published in the mainstream British media.
Out of interest, how do you know that?
[SNIP]
Market Garden was a combined operation involving both ground troops
and airborne taking place over days. And like all such operations had
many potential points of failure. The prime objective being of
course, to get to Berlin before the Russians.
bb
But, instead a poster seriously advanced the theory (as fact) that the
IDF is intent on destroying the infrastructure of Gaza by bombing
drainage ditches. It's a lunatic theory. Apart from anything else, they
could do the job far more effectively with a bulldozer.
As you well know, that any criticism of Israel and ethnic cleansing is
met with name calling of the antisemitic variety. It's difficult for the British MSM to embrace such reputation.
It's now so commonplace it will soon be a name many will embrace and be
proud of if it stops the ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Much like the word 'queer' that is now turned full circle and now embraced by the gay
community.
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable,
collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the
thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%.
Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really
suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli bombs?
On 18:33 26 May 2025, billy bookcase said:
[SNIP]
Market Garden was a combined operation involving both ground troops
and airborne taking place over days. And like all such operations had
many potential points of failure. The prime objective being of
course, to get to Berlin before the Russians.
bb
Market Garden was an avoidable tragedy in which Allied troops had to be bailed out by the US.
Monty takes the lion's share of blame for
ignoring intelligence reports and requests for caution from other
commanders. Who else could risk landing lightly armed paratroopers on
top of two rested German Panzer tank divisions?
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable,
collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the
thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%.
Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really
suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli
bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
On 27 May 2025 at 19:59:29 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
snip
I'm choosing to rebut utterly absurd statements. I did the same with
some of the more seriously deranged statements about the Bayesian.
Is their some connection between the state of Israel and the people who lost money allegedly as the result of the actions of the owner of The Bayesian that
we are missing here, or have I failed to see the obvious relevance?
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable,
collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the
thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%.
Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really
suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli
bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable,
collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the
thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%.
Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really
suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli
bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
On 27/05/2025 20:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 May 2025 at 19:59:29 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
snip
I'm choosing to rebut utterly absurd statements. I did the same with
some of the more seriously deranged statements about the Bayesian.
Is their some connection between the state of Israel and the people
who lost
money allegedly as the result of the actions of the owner of The
Bayesian that
we are missing here, or have I failed to see the obvious relevance?
The connection? Let me spell it out for you:
People made up insanely daft theories about the Bayesian.
People made up insanely daft theories about drainage ditches being bombed.
People made up insanely daft theories about drainage ditches being bombed.
No, the IDF came up with an insane press release claiming the a photo >represented a Hamas command centre in a hospital.
That was a lie you bought, hook line and sinker, where the the command
centre was a drainage ditch, and the hospital was in fact a nearby school
in disguise.
Some people are so utterly gullible and in perpetual denial of the true >facts. In much the same way much of the German population was in denial
and disbelief of the facts until they were shown the evidence of the death >camps.
Yet, we still have many holocaust deniers. We seem to be going full circle >here.
Is the problem Holocaust deniers or that some people think is was limited to people of
the Jewish faith? Wikipedia says the victims were:
Category Number
Disabled people 270,000
Freemasons 80,000
Homosexuals 5,000-15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
Jews 6 million
Poles 1.8 million
Romani 250,000-500,000
Serbs 310,000+
Slovenes 20,000-25,000
Soviet civilians 4.5 million
Soviet POWs 3.3 million
Spanish Republicans 3,500
Is the problem Holocaust deniers or that some people think is was limited
to people of the Jewish faith? Wikipedia says the victims were:
Category Number
Disabled people 270,000
Freemasons 80,000
Homosexuals 5,00015,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
Jews 6 million
Poles 1.8 million
Romani 250,000500,000
Serbs 310,000+
Slovenes 20,00025,000
Soviet civilians 4.5 million
Soviet POWs 3.3 million
Spanish Republicans 3,500
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable,
collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the
thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%.
Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really
suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli
bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents
scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to
90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you
really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by
Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
That is the most likely way a hostage would be killed. Why do you
believe otherwise?
If Israel wanted the hostages released they wouldn't have reneged on the ceasefire.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6c78qjksf7a011@news.individual.net...
Is the problem Holocaust deniers or that some people think is was limited >>to people of the Jewish faith? Wikipedia says the victims were:
Category Number
Disabled people 270,000
Freemasons 80,000
Homosexuals 5,000-15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
Jews 6 million
Poles 1.8 million
Romani 250,000-500,000
Serbs 310,000+
Slovenes 20,000-25,000
Soviet civilians 4.5 million
Soviet POWs 3.3 million
Spanish Republicans 3,500
Unless you're willing to assume there were no
Jewish Poles, no Jewish Soviet Citizens, no
Jewish Homosexuals, no Jewish Serbs
nor Jewish Slovenes, nor Jewish disabled
people for that matter, rounded up and send
to the camps then it might be suggested that
those figures as they stand are somewhat
misleading; to say the very least
On 28/05/2025 in message <1017f1g$3bd44$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6c78qjksf7a011@news.individual.net...
Is the problem Holocaust deniers or that some people think is was
limited to people of the Jewish faith? Wikipedia says the victims were: >>>
Category Number
Disabled people 270,000
Freemasons 80,000
Homosexuals 5,000-15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
Jews 6 million
Poles 1.8 million
Romani 250,000-500,000
Serbs 310,000+
Slovenes 20,000-25,000
Soviet civilians 4.5 million
Soviet POWs 3.3 million
Spanish Republicans 3,500
Unless you're willing to assume there were no
Jewish Poles, no Jewish Soviet Citizens, no
Jewish Homosexuals, no Jewish Serbs
nor Jewish Slovenes, nor Jewish disabled
people for that matter, rounded up and send
to the camps then it might be suggested that
those figures as they stand are somewhat
misleading; to say the very least
I subscribe to an Auschwitz Facebook group, either museum or memorial, because my father was in Monowitz.
During the memorial to its liberation they would post daily figures of arrivals and deaths and they distinguished between people of the Jewish
faith and other categories.
Their records won't be perfect (many were destroyed in the liberation)
but they do categorise them as in the figures I posted.
On 28/05/2025 in message <1017f1g$3bd44$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p6c78qjksf7a011@news.individual.net...
Is the problem Holocaust deniers or that some people think is was limited to people of
the Jewish faith? Wikipedia says the victims were:
Category Number
Disabled people 270,000
Freemasons 80,000
Homosexuals 5,000-15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
Jews 6 million
Poles 1.8 million
Romani 250,000-500,000
Serbs 310,000+
Slovenes 20,000-25,000
Soviet civilians 4.5 million
Soviet POWs 3.3 million
Spanish Republicans 3,500
Unless you're willing to assume there were no
Jewish Poles, no Jewish Soviet Citizens, no
Jewish Homosexuals, no Jewish Serbs
nor Jewish Slovenes, nor Jewish disabled
people for that matter, rounded up and send
to the camps then it might be suggested that
those figures as they stand are somewhat
misleading; to say the very least
I subscribe to an Auschwitz Facebook group, either museum or memorial, because my
father was in Monowitz.
During the memorial to its liberation they would post daily figures of arrivals and
deaths and they distinguished between people of the Jewish faith and other categories.
Their records won't be perfect (many were destroyed in the liberation) but they do
categorise them as in the figures I posted.
The majority of the remaining 5 million ( If you will insist on quoting >statistics ) were murdered in, mainly, two ways.
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019c0e$3qh1i$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
The majority of the remaining 5 million ( If you will insist on quoting >>statistics ) were murdered in, mainly, two ways.
Over 21 million according to statistics I quoted, of whom about 25% were people of the
Jewish faith.
My grandparents died in Auschwitz and I was told by the guide that they
would have been taken straight to the gas chamber on arrival and their
bodies burned with gasoline in a field. So there doesn't seem to be any >record of their names in the Auschwitz books, but we do have a manifest >prepared by the soldiers or SS guards who rounded up the Jews in their
town, listing my grandparents and many others. So we know they were taken >from there, we don't have any proof of what then happened but they
certainly disappeared after that.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6dgs6ktdr59016@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019c0e$3qh1i$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
The majority of the remaining 5 million ( If you will insist on quoting >>>statistics ) were murdered in, mainly, two ways.
Over 21 million according to statistics I quoted, of whom about 25% were >>people of the Jewish faith.
The victims under discussion are specifically victims of the Holocaust.
Not POW's nor civilians whose eventual starvation was almost inevitable
given
the straitened circumstances of the time
For anyone who still doubts what that term Holocaust actually "means"
* and I would add has a faily strong stomach * I can only refer them to
the five harrowing photographs to be found half way down on the right
of this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizocz_ghetto
bb
On 28 May 2025 at 11:34:19 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable, >>>>> collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the >>>>> thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%.
Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really
suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli
bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Since Hamas are holding the hostages and the Israelis claim to be bombing Hamas it seem to be are rather a likely claim. Especially since the main cause
of death for everyone in Gaza seems to be Israeli bombing. What is preposterous about it? Is it not yet another piece of "unfortunate collateral damage"? What do you think killed the hostages? Have you taken into account the testimony of freed hostages, or are they all suffering from Stockholm syndrome?
On 28/05/2025 12:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 11:34:19 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze >>>>>> Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became expendable, >>>>>> collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents scape not the >>>>>> thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the >>>>> region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to 90%. >>>>> Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you really >>>>> suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli >>>>> bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Since Hamas are holding the hostages and the Israelis claim to be bombing
Hamas it seem to be are rather a likely claim. Especially since the main cause
of death for everyone in Gaza seems to be Israeli bombing. What is
preposterous about it? Is it not yet another piece of "unfortunate collateral
damage"? What do you think killed the hostages? Have you taken into account >> the testimony of freed hostages, or are they all suffering from Stockholm
syndrome?
So, you are saying: 90% of hostages have been killed by bombs, and
that's because the hostages are with Hamas. Does that not imply that 90%
of all the non-hostage deaths must be Hamas, too?
On 29/05/2025 in message <m9qkvlF3i3gU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
My grandparents died in Auschwitz and I was told by the guide that
they would have been taken straight to the gas chamber on arrival and
their bodies burned with gasoline in a field. So there doesn't seem to
be any record of their names in the Auschwitz books, but we do have a
manifest prepared by the soldiers or SS guards who rounded up the Jews
in their town, listing my grandparents and many others. So we know
they were taken from there, we don't have any proof of what then
happened but they certainly disappeared after that.
My condolences. It is all very well talking about this in the abstract
but it's horrendous when somebody has been involved personally.
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019gp2$3rfui$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p6dgs6ktdr59016@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019c0e$3qh1i$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
The majority of the remaining 5 million ( If you will insist on quoting >>>>statistics ) were murdered in, mainly, two ways.
Over 21 million according to statistics I quoted, of whom about 25% were people of the
Jewish faith.
The victims under discussion are specifically victims of the Holocaust.
Not POW's nor civilians whose eventual starvation was almost inevitable given >>the straitened circumstances of the time
For anyone who still doubts what that term Holocaust actually "means"
* and I would add has a faily strong stomach * I can only refer them to
the five harrowing photographs to be found half way down on the right
of this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizocz_ghetto
bb
We differ in our views of what "Holocaust" means I think.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB2ECD0B8F1ED1F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 18:33 26 May 2025, billy bookcase said:
[SNIP]
Market Garden was a combined operation involving both ground troops
and airborne taking place over days. And like all such operations
had many potential points of failure. The prime objective being of
course, to get to Berlin before the Russians.
bb
Market Garden was an avoidable tragedy in which Allied troops had to
be bailed out by the US.
The US were our Allies. It was an Allied operation. The first,
airborne part of the operation, was carried out by two US Airborne
Divisions, one British Airborne Division, and the 1st Polish
Parachute Brigade. It was the largest airborne operation ever carried
out.
And neither was it a tragedy. The only foolproof way of avoiding
failure is to never do anything at all. Which in war is seldom an
option.
Monty takes the lion's share of blame for ignoring intelligence
reports and requests for caution from other commanders. Who else
could risk landing lightly armed paratroopers on top of two rested
German Panzer tank divisions?
These two "rested" Panzer tank divisions, consisted of exactly how
many serviceable tanks ?
https://www.battle-of-arnhem.com/myth-the-germans-had-dozens- of-tanks-in-arnhem/
Five.
Because, as Montgomery had correctly calculated, most had already
been destroyed, or damaged beyond repair, during the Battle of the
Falaise Pocket, in the previous month. And for which he had been
personally responsible in his role as Allied Commander Ground Forces.
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed
in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case
of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral,
or at war with Germany
On 08:38 28 May 2025, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB2ECD0B8F1ED1F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 18:33 26 May 2025, billy bookcase said:
[SNIP]
Market Garden was a combined operation involving both ground troops
and airborne taking place over days. And like all such operations
had many potential points of failure. The prime objective being of
course, to get to Berlin before the Russians.
bb
Market Garden was an avoidable tragedy in which Allied troops had to
be bailed out by the US.
The US were our Allies. It was an Allied operation. The first,
airborne part of the operation, was carried out by two US Airborne
Divisions, one British Airborne Division, and the 1st Polish
Parachute Brigade. It was the largest airborne operation ever carried
out.
I avoided saying "British" troops were rescued by the Americans as
there were other nationalities but, as you pointout, my use of
"Allied" is too broad.
However, your statement might confuse the two US airborne divisions in
Market Garden with troops who landed on the German divisions at Arnhem.
The entire air drop was indeed enormous. At the time, you write, "It
was the largest airborne operation ever carried out" although, expending
how you count it, I remember hearing the American landing in Panama and perhaps also in one of the Gulf wars might be greater.
And neither was it a tragedy. The only foolproof way of avoiding
failure is to never do anything at all. Which in war is seldom an
option.
Sadly Arnhem was disastrous and avoidable. Monty's unnecessary haste
gained little and it lost thousands of men.
Monty takes the lion's share of blame for ignoring intelligence
reports and requests for caution from other commanders. Who else
could risk landing lightly armed paratroopers on top of two rested
German Panzer tank divisions?
These two "rested" Panzer tank divisions, consisted of exactly how
many serviceable tanks ?
https://www.battle-of-arnhem.com/myth-the-germans-had-dozens-
of-tanks-in-arnhem/
Five.
It doesn't need tanks to take potshots at landing paratroopers and the
Battle of Arnhem wasn't a tank battle. The point is there were two
rested elite German armoured divisions safely encamped, onto which the
novice Allied paratroopers landed without anticipating the German
presence.
It was said many of the German soldiers were young with no
wives and children to return to, so could be expected to fight
particularly boldly.
Monty has a great reputation but not amongst the families of his dead
troops.
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed
in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >>control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case
of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral,
or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933.
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total
numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed >>> in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >>> control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case
of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral,
or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933. >>
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish
community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. >> There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general
importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. >> Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost
territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete
destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final
Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end,
is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective; which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR.
the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish
Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
On 30 May 2025 at 13:55:07 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>>> numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed >>>> in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >>>> control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case >>>> of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral, >>>> or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933. >>>
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish >>> community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. >>> There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general
importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany.
Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost
territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete
destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final
Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end,
is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective;
which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR.
the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish
Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
I think you underestimate the power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere as fifth-columnists promoting fascism in England in the 1930s. And in fact Hitler
did pay them some attention.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message >news:1025553257.38fb6749@uninhabited.net...
On 30 May 2025 at 13:55:07 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>>>>numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were >>>>>listed
in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct >>>>>German
control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case >>>>>of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral, >>>>>or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, >>>>1933.
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish >>>>community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the >>>>world.
There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general >>>>importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against >>>>Germany.
Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost >>>>territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete >>>>destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final >>>Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end,
is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective; >>>which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR. >>>the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish >>>Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
I think you underestimate the power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere as >>fifth-columnists promoting fascism in England in the 1930s. And in fact >>Hitler
did pay them some attention.
Quite possibly.
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution"
as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote
it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:1025553257.38fb6749@uninhabited.net...
On 30 May 2025 at 13:55:07 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote: >>
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>>>> numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed >>>>> in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >>>>> control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case >>>>> of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral, >>>>> or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933. >>>>
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish >>>> community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world.
There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general
importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany.
Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost
territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete
destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final
Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end,
is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective; >>> which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR.
the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish
Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
I think you underestimate the power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere as
fifth-columnists promoting fascism in England in the 1930s. And in fact Hitler
did pay them some attention.
Quite possibly.
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote
it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
bb
On 30/05/2025 in message <101ccmq$gl3d$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1025553257.38fb6749@uninhabited.net...
On 30 May 2025 at 13:55:07 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote: >>>
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>> wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>>>>> numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were
listed
in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct
German
control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case >>>>>> of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral, >>>>>> or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, >>>>> 1933.
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish >>>>> community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the >>>>> world.
There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general >>>>> importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against
Germany.
Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost >>>>> territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete >>>>> destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final
Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end, >>>> is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective; >>>> which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR. >>>> the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish
Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
I think you underestimate the power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere as
fifth-columnists promoting fascism in England in the 1930s. And in fact
Hitler
did pay them some attention.
Quite possibly.
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution"
as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote
it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think.
But it is quite apparent that Jabotinsky is saying something completely >untrue, either because he was a mad fanatic, a agent provocateur, or a >complete fabrication. Because no such international and universal Jewish >campaign against Germany existed. Not that such a campaign against the Nazi >government rather than the country, might not have been perfectly >justifiable.
What do you seek to show by this quotation?
On 29/05/2025 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/05/2025 in message <m9qkvlF3i3gU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
My grandparents died in Auschwitz and I was told by the guide that
they would have been taken straight to the gas chamber on arrival and
their bodies burned with gasoline in a field. So there doesn't seem
to be any record of their names in the Auschwitz books, but we do
have a manifest prepared by the soldiers or SS guards who rounded up
the Jews in their town, listing my grandparents and many others. So
we know they were taken from there, we don't have any proof of what
then happened but they certainly disappeared after that.
My condolences. It is all very well talking about this in the abstract
but it's horrendous when somebody has been involved personally.
My father, who became an orphan at 14, and his relatives, have always regarded Israel as the equivalent of the Nazis because of the treatment
of the Palestinians, so that's really why I acquired the views that I have.
My belief is that most Holocaust survivors have sympathy and empathy for
the Palestinians. The Jews who are most supportive of Israel are
probably the Jews who were not directly affected by the Nazis but who
decided to claim victimhood nevertheless. They are the equivalent of
MAGA in the USA - they admire Israel for being powerful, invulnerable
and willing to crush any opposition.
On 30/05/2025 in message <101ccmq$gl3d$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message >>news:1025553257.38fb6749@uninhabited.net...
On 30 May 2025 at 13:55:07 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote: >>>
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>>>>>numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed >>>>>>in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >>>>>>control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case >>>>>>of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral, >>>>>>or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933. >>>>>
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish >>>>>community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world.
There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general >>>>>importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany.
Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost >>>>>territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete >>>>>destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final >>>>Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end, >>>>is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective; >>>>which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR. >>>>the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish >>>>Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
I think you underestimate the power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere as >>>fifth-columnists promoting fascism in England in the 1930s. And in fact Hitler
did pay them some attention.
Quite possibly.
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote
it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:1025553257.38fb6749@uninhabited.net...
On 30 May 2025 at 13:55:07 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote: >>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6eqewm293hn01b@news.individual.net...
On 29/05/2025 in message <1019rh1$3tk06$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
In preparation for the conference, Eichmann drafted a list of the total >>>>> numbers of Jews in the various European countries. Countries were listed >>>>> in two groups, "A" and "B". "A" countries were those under direct German >>>>> control or occupation (or partially occupied and quiescent, in the case >>>>> of Vichy France); "B" countries were allied or client states, neutral, >>>>> or at war with Germany
And don't forget:
"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March 24, 1933. >>>>
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish >>>> community, on
every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world.
There are
reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general
importance. We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany.
Germany is
striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost
territories as
well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete
destruction of
Germany..."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch (January, 1934)
To forget something, a person would need to have heard of it first.
The whole point about the Wannssee Conference - which merely dotted
the I's and crossed the T's of the practical details of the "Final
Solution", is that it was fully carried out in those countries
which the Nazis had full control. One reason it fell short in the end,
is simply because the Nazis never succeeded in being able to murder
all of the estimated 5 million Jews in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Whereas your Mr Jabotisnky quite clearly failed in his stated objective; >>> which in the end required the combined resources of the US, The USSSR.
the UK Canada etc. to achieve.
Which is why most people, anti-semites apart in search of a "Jewish
Plot", will most likely have never even heard of him.
And its not as if Hitler or any of the other Nazis ever paid any
real attention to the "Daily Express" in any case. Is it ?
They could produce much better ant-semitic propaganda of their own
I think you underestimate the power of Beaverbrook and Rothermere as
fifth-columnists promoting fascism in England in the 1930s. And in fact Hitler
did pay them some attention.
Quite possibly.
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote
it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" >>>as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote
it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think.
Indeed, but why ?
What point were you trying to make, by quoting the whole thing ?
On 30/05/2025 in message <101cp1e$j6uh$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote >>>>it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think.
Indeed, but why ?
What point were you trying to make, by quoting the whole thing ?
Here's the answer which you snipped:
"The quotation flowed naturally from billy bookcase's quote of the Wannssee Conference."
I understand that Herr Hitler and his associates discussed the "Jewish Question" long
and hard, and considered moving the Jews living in Germany - not the "German Jews":
that would be a contradiction - to another land. Madagascar was considered, and then
Palestine. In the end, they just had to be killed. First they were made to stand at the
edge of pits, to be shot by German soldiers so that they fell in and the pit filled in.
Unfortunately the soldiers found this distressing. (Is this why Germany lost the war?)
So the "death camps" were set up.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p6g3vang2wjy01e@news.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 in message <101cp1e$j6uh$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" >>>>>as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote >>>>>it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think.
Indeed, but why ?
What point were you trying to make, by quoting the whole thing ?
Here's the answer which you snipped:
"The quotation flowed naturally from billy bookcase's quote of the >>Wannssee
Conference."
How can a quote about a totally fictitious Jewish Plan to take over
Germany, which is quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda, "flow
naturally" from a meeting which actually took place concerning the
Final Solution; the details if which were carefully recorded in minutes
by Adolf Eichmann at the time. And at least one copy of which, survived
On 31/05/2025 in message <101ec2u$10sme$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p6g3vang2wjy01e@news.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 in message <101cp1e$j6uh$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution"
as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote >>>>>> it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think. >>>>
Indeed, but why ?
What point were you trying to make, by quoting the whole thing ?
Here's the answer which you snipped:
"The quotation flowed naturally from billy bookcase's quote of the
Wannssee
Conference."
How can a quote about a totally fictitious Jewish Plan to take over
Germany, which is quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda, "flow
naturally" from a meeting which actually took place concerning the
Final Solution; the details if which were carefully recorded in minutes
by Adolf Eichmann at the time. And at least one copy of which, survived
As I said it is widely referenced on the Internet, I have no reason to
doubt its authenticity.
I have no idea why you would refer to it as "quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda" unless you are Netanyahu using a fake identity.
On 31/05/2025 in message <101ec2u$10sme$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p6g3vang2wjy01e@news.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 in message <101cp1e$j6uh$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
But not to the extent of causing Hitler to decide on the "Final Solution" as a
result of reading an article in the Daily Express
Which I assumed was the only possible reason, for Mr Gaines' to quote >>>>>>it in his post
Aside from the "Jewish Plot" angle, at least.
I quoted the while thing including the source, fairly standard I think. >>>>
Indeed, but why ?
What point were you trying to make, by quoting the whole thing ?
Here's the answer which you snipped:
"The quotation flowed naturally from billy bookcase's quote of the Wannssee >>>Conference."
How can a quote about a totally fictitious Jewish Plan to take over >>Germany, which is quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda, "flow
naturally" from a meeting which actually took place concerning the
Final Solution; the details if which were carefully recorded in minutes
by Adolf Eichmann at the time. And at least one copy of which, survived
As I said it is widely referenced on the Internet, I have no reason to doubt its
authenticity.
I have no idea why you would refer to it as "quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda"
unless you are Netanyahu using a fake identity.
As I said it is widely referenced on the Internet, I have no reason to >>doubt its authenticity.
I have no idea why you would refer to it as "quite obviously anti-semitic >>propaganda" unless you are Netanyahu using a fake identity.
It is quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda. There was clearly no
mechanism
by which Jews in general could plot together. And really almost no one had
a
wish to take over or destroy Germany. Many people, and not just, or even >mainly, Jews, might have wanted to destroy the Nazis but clearly no >significant international organisation had any realistic plan to do so; >unfortunately. The biggest anti-Nazi force in the world was probably the >USSR,
and their anti-semitism record was, to say the least, unfortunate.
One does not need to be Netanyahu, just vaguely aware of reality, to see
that
this is quotation is anti-semitic propaganda.
On 31/05/2025 in message <9110216114.d2634a48@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As I said it is widely referenced on the Internet, I have no reason to
doubt its authenticity.
I have no idea why you would refer to it as "quite obviously anti-semitic >>> propaganda" unless you are Netanyahu using a fake identity.
It is quite obviously anti-semitic propaganda. There was clearly no
mechanism
by which Jews in general could plot together. And really almost no one had >> a
wish to take over or destroy Germany. Many people, and not just, or even
mainly, Jews, might have wanted to destroy the Nazis but clearly no
significant international organisation had any realistic plan to do so;
unfortunately. The biggest anti-Nazi force in the world was probably the
USSR,
and their anti-semitism record was, to say the least, unfortunate.
One does not need to be Netanyahu, just vaguely aware of reality, to see
that
this is quotation is anti-semitic propaganda.
I disagree, I have no idea why it should be regarded as antisemitic.
Vladimir Jabotinsky appears to be real and in any event criticism on its
own is not antisemitic.
I disagree, I have no idea why it should be regarded as antisemitic. Vladimir Jabotinsky appears to be real and in any event criticism on its own is not antisemitic.
One does not need to be Netanyahu, just vaguely aware of reality, to see >>>that
this is quotation is anti-semitic propaganda.
I disagree, I have no idea why it should be regarded as antisemitic. >>Vladimir Jabotinsky appears to be real and in any event criticism on its >>own is not antisemitic.
Blood libel was just a mild rebuke, not in any sense an attempt to defame a >whole people. Obviously.
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze
Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents
scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the
region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to
90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you
really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by
Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on 7th
October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course some of
the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use of
the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three Israeli hostages
were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An investigation into the deaths of Nik
Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19, and Elia Toledano, 28, found there was a
"high probability" that the hostages were killed "as a result of a
byproduct of an IDF airstrike". The Qassam Brigades said the total
number of captives killed as a result of Israeli military operations
“may have exceeded” 70 as at March 2024. (We can probably expect the Quassam Brigades to exaggerate but neither you nor I can go to Gaza and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze >>>>>> Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents >>>>>> scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in
the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer
to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do
you really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately
hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that
the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are
vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the
Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care
how many innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are
starved or die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on 7th
October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course some of
the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we all
(I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have killed
hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use of
the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three Israeli hostages
were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the Battle of
Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An investigation into the deaths of Nik
Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19, and Elia Toledano, 28, found there was a
"high probability" that the hostages were killed "as a result of a
byproduct of an IDF airstrike". The Qassam Brigades said the total
number of captives killed as a result of Israeli military operations
“may have exceeded” 70 as at March 2024. (We can probably expect the
Quassam Brigades to exaggerate but neither you nor I can go to Gaza
and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the IDF
knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them?
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so you'll
have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of course?
On 31/05/2025 20:25, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a >>>>>>> massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human >>>>>>> excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to
raze Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some
innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in
the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer
to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do
you really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately
hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that
the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are
vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the
Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care
how many innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are
starved or die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on 7th
October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course some
of the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we all
(I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people on 7
October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have killed
hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly greater
proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I haven't suggested that the IDF have killed a greater proportion of
hostages than other civilians - that seems to be a garbled version of
what I said, which somehow you've fastened onto.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use
of the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three Israeli
hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the
Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An investigation into the
deaths of Nik Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19, and Elia Toledano, 28,
found there was a "high probability" that the hostages were killed
"as a result of a byproduct of an IDF airstrike". The Qassam
Brigades said the total number of captives killed as a result of
Israeli military operations “may have exceeded” 70 as at March 2024. >>> (We can probably expect the Quassam Brigades to exaggerate but
neither you nor I can go to Gaza and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the IDF
knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them?
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so you'll
have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of course?
You still haven't discovered how to browse the web, then. You need my help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the
Hannibal Directive to be used during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7 October Hamas
attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by Israeli helicopters
on their way into Gaza, and were shelled constantly by the Israeli
military while they were there.
The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that IDF
forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza, killing one
hostage and injuring others. According to Kibbutz Be'eri survivors Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank fired two shells at a house that
was known to hold over a dozen hostages, including 12-year-old twins;
only two hostages survived.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we all
(I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have killed
hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the IDF
knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them?
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a
massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human
excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze >>>>>> Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents >>>>>> scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the >>>>> region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to
90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you
really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by
Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the
IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis,
being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or
die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on 7th
October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course some of
the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we all
(I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have killed
hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
snip
On 31 May 2025 at 20:25:54 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a >>>>>>> massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human >>>>>>> excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to raze >>>>>>> Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some innocents >>>>>>> scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in the >>>>>> region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer to
90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do you >>>>>> really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately hit by >>>>>> Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that the >>>>> IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are vast
numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the Israelis, >>>>> being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care how many
innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are starved or >>>>> die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on 7th
October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course some of
the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we all
(I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people on 7
October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have killed
hostages since then.
You miss the point that it is very much in Hamas' interests to keep them alive.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly greater
proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I do not think anyone has suggested that the IDF bomb "indiscriminately".
That would be professional incompetence. Seeing that they drop thousands of bombs it is reasonable to infer that some of them are specifically aimed at Hamas fighters and Hamas administrators (doctors and ambulancemen for instance) and some of them are aimed to kill and demoralise the maximum number
of civilians.
This is certainly consistent with a higher mortality among Hamas
fighters and Hamas people guarding hostages as well as hostages, as well as high civilian casualties.
But indiscriminate? - that's silly!
snip
On 31/05/2025 20:25, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from a >>>>>>> massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for the
Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub-human >>>>>>> excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise to
raze Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some
innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in
the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer
to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do
you really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately
hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that
the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are
vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the
Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care
how many innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many are
starved or die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim that
nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on 7th
October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course some
of the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we all
(I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people on 7
October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have killed
hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly greater
proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I haven't suggested that the IDF have killed a greater proportion of
hostages than other civilians - that seems to be a garbled version of
what I said, which somehow you've fastened onto.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use
of the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three Israeli
hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the
Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An investigation into the
deaths of Nik Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19, and Elia Toledano, 28,
found there was a "high probability" that the hostages were killed
"as a result of a byproduct of an IDF airstrike". The Qassam
Brigades said the total number of captives killed as a result of
Israeli military operations “may have exceeded” 70 as at March 2024. >>> (We can probably expect the Quassam Brigades to exaggerate but
neither you nor I can go to Gaza and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the IDF
knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them?
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so you'll
have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of course?
You still haven't discovered how to browse the web, then. You need my help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the
Hannibal Directive to be used during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7 October Hamas
attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by Israeli helicopters
on their way into Gaza, and were shelled constantly by the Israeli
military while they were there.
The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that IDF
forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza, killing one
hostage and injuring others. According to Kibbutz Be'eri survivors Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank fired two shells at a house that
was known to hold over a dozen hostages, including 12-year-old twins;
only two hostages survived.
On 31/05/2025 21:39, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:25, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from >>>>>>>> a massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for
the Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub- >>>>>>>> human excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and promise >>>>>>>> to raze Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some
innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in >>>>>>> the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been closer >>>>>>> to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the thunderbolt'? Do >>>>>>> you really suggest that, somehow, they've all been unfortunately >>>>>>> hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that
the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there are >>>>>> vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and the
Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't care
how many innocent people are bombed to death let alone how many
are starved or die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim
that nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on
7th October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course
some of the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we
all (I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200 people
on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they have
killed hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the IDF
bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly
greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I haven't suggested that the IDF have killed a greater proportion of
hostages than other civilians - that seems to be a garbled version of
what I said, which somehow you've fastened onto.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use
of the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three Israeli
hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the
Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An investigation into the
deaths of Nik Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19, and Elia Toledano, 28,
found there was a "high probability" that the hostages were killed
"as a result of a byproduct of an IDF airstrike". The Qassam
Brigades said the total number of captives killed as a result of
Israeli military operations “may have exceeded” 70 as at March 2024. >>>> (We can probably expect the Quassam Brigades to exaggerate but
neither you nor I can go to Gaza and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the IDF
knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them?
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so you'll
have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of course?
You still haven't discovered how to browse the web, then. You need my
help.
You usually become most sarcastic when you have no evidence to back up
your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the
Hannibal Directive to be used during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with
Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7
October Hamas attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by
Israeli helicopters on their way into Gaza, and were shelled
constantly by the Israeli military while they were there.
The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that IDF
forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza, killing one
hostage and injuring others. According to Kibbutz Be'eri survivors
Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank fired two shells at a
house that was known to hold over a dozen hostages, including 12-year-
old twins; only two hostages survived.
So, based on that, you have concluded that the Israelis killed roughly
200 hostages. I hoped you had some evidence for your claim, but it is
obvious that the cupboard is bare.
In normal life, in this situation, most people would probably mutter something like "Well, maybe I went a bit far there." Something mundane
like that. But, on the internet, people stick to clearly untenable
positions through thick and thin.
On 02/06/2025 11:21, GB wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:39, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:25, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians from >>>>>>>>> a massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support for >>>>>>>>> the Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as sub- >>>>>>>>> human excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and
promise to raze Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some
innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been in >>>>>>>> the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been
closer to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the
thunderbolt'? Do you really suggest that, somehow, they've all >>>>>>>> been unfortunately hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean that >>>>>>> the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That there
are vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in Gaza and
the Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they now are, don't >>>>>>> care how many innocent people are bombed to death let alone how
many are starved or die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim
that nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on
7th October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course
some of the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we
all (I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200
people on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they
have killed hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the
IDF bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly
greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I haven't suggested that the IDF have killed a greater proportion of
hostages than other civilians - that seems to be a garbled version of
what I said, which somehow you've fastened onto.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's use
of the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three Israeli
hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the
Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An investigation into the
deaths of Nik Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19, and Elia Toledano, 28,
found there was a "high probability" that the hostages were killed
"as a result of a byproduct of an IDF airstrike". The Qassam
Brigades said the total number of captives killed as a result of
Israeli military operations “may have exceeded” 70 as at March
2024. (We can probably expect the Quassam Brigades to exaggerate
but neither you nor I can go to Gaza and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the IDF
knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them?
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so you'll
have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of course?
You still haven't discovered how to browse the web, then. You need my
help.
You usually become most sarcastic when you have no evidence to back up
your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the
Hannibal Directive to be used during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on
Israel.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with
Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7
October Hamas attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by
Israeli helicopters on their way into Gaza, and were shelled
constantly by the Israeli military while they were there.
The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that IDF
forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza, killing one
hostage and injuring others. According to Kibbutz Be'eri survivors
Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank fired two shells at a
house that was known to hold over a dozen hostages, including 12-
year- old twins; only two hostages survived.
So, based on that, you have concluded that the Israelis killed roughly
200 hostages. I hoped you had some evidence for your claim, but it is
obvious that the cupboard is bare.
I have concluded no such thing. Where do you see me claiming a figure of
200? I hope you have some evidence for your claim but I expect the
cupboard is bare.
Maybe you had a dream. Or maybe you saw that figure
put forward by someone else and decided that we're all in league with
each other, ganging up against poor Israel.
In normal life, in this situation, most people would probably mutter
something like "Well, maybe I went a bit far there." Something mundane
like that. But, on the internet, people stick to clearly untenable
positions through thick and thin.
On the internet, it seems you can invent claims that you say other
people have made and then berate them.
On 02/06/2025 11:27, The Todal wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:21, GB wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:39, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:25, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians >>>>>>>>>> from a massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore support >>>>>>>>>> for the Israeli leadership was to demonize the Palestinians as >>>>>>>>>> sub- human excrement (do you really want cites for that?) and >>>>>>>>>> promise to raze Gaza to the ground.
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became
expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some
innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has been >>>>>>>>> in the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages has been >>>>>>>>> closer to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not the
thunderbolt'? Do you really suggest that, somehow, they've all >>>>>>>>> been unfortunately hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean
that the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That
there are vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in
Gaza and the Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they now >>>>>>>> are, don't care how many innocent people are bombed to death let >>>>>>>> alone how many are starved or die of disease?
I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous claim
that nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli bombs, then? >>>>>>>
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims on
7th October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of course >>>>>> some of the hostages have since been killed by IDF bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But, we
all (I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed 1200
people on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose that they
have killed hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that the
IDF bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a vastly
greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I haven't suggested that the IDF have killed a greater proportion of
hostages than other civilians - that seems to be a garbled version
of what I said, which somehow you've fastened onto.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with the
statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so it is
impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on 7th
October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF's
use of the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023, three
Israeli hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)
during the Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An
investigation into the deaths of Nik Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman, 19,
and Elia Toledano, 28, found there was a "high probability" that
the hostages were killed "as a result of a byproduct of an IDF
airstrike". The Qassam Brigades said the total number of captives >>>>>> killed as a result of Israeli military operations “may have
exceeded” 70 as at March 2024. (We can probably expect the Quassam >>>>>> Brigades to exaggerate but neither you nor I can go to Gaza and
verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the
IDF knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting them? >>>>>
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so
you'll have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of course? >>>>>
You still haven't discovered how to browse the web, then. You need
my help.
You usually become most sarcastic when you have no evidence to back
up your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the
Hannibal Directive to be used during the 2023 Hamas-led attack on
Israel.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with
Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7
October Hamas attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by
Israeli helicopters on their way into Gaza, and were shelled
constantly by the Israeli military while they were there.
The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that IDF
forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza, killing one
hostage and injuring others. According to Kibbutz Be'eri survivors
Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank fired two shells at a
house that was known to hold over a dozen hostages, including 12-
year- old twins; only two hostages survived.
So, based on that, you have concluded that the Israelis killed
roughly 200 hostages. I hoped you had some evidence for your claim,
but it is obvious that the cupboard is bare.
I have concluded no such thing. Where do you see me claiming a figure
of 200? I hope you have some evidence for your claim but I expect the
cupboard is bare.
You said that many hostages were killed by Israeli bombs. Do you deny that?
I pointed out that the mortality rate amongst hostages was around 30
times higher than amongst Gazans generally, and you stated that the explanation was the Hannibal Directive. This has the clear implication
that the vast majority of hostage deaths were due to deliberate
targeting by the IDF. Do you deny that?
I agree that you didn't mention the figure of 200, but that figure is
implied by your other utterances. So, I can't see any point in quibbling.
Maybe you had a dream. Or maybe you saw that figure put forward by
someone else and decided that we're all in league with each other,
ganging up against poor Israel.
I am just pointing out that there are people on this NG making up preposterous theories. And, they get really sarcastic when I ask for evidence.
So, based on that, you have concluded that the Israelis killed roughly
200 hostages. I hoped you had some evidence for your claim, but it is
obvious that the cupboard is bare.
In normal life, in this situation, most people would probably mutter something like "Well, maybe I went a bit far there." Something mundane
like that. But, on the internet, people stick to clearly untenable
positions through thick and thin.
On 02/06/2025 12:01, GB wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:27, The Todal wrote:
On 02/06/2025 11:21, GB wrote:
On 31/05/2025 21:39, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:25, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:53, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:34, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 08:16, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 19:59, GB wrote:I take it that you are now recanting on your preposterous
On 27/05/2025 18:44, The Todal wrote:
Having negligently failed to protect the Israeli civilians >>>>>>>>>>> from a massacre by terrorists, the only way to restore
support for the Israeli leadership was to demonize the
Palestinians as sub- human excrement (do you really want >>>>>>>>>>> cites for that?) and promise to raze Gaza to the ground. >>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately that did mean that Israeli hostages became >>>>>>>>>>> expendable, collateral damage. During any massacre, some >>>>>>>>>>> innocents scape not the thunderbolt.
One question for you: The death toll amongst Gazans has
been in the region of 3%. The death toll amongst hostages
has been closer to 90%. Would you care to justify 'scape not >>>>>>>>>> the thunderbolt'? Do you really suggest that, somehow,
they've all been unfortunately hit by Israeli bombs?
Assuming that your statistics are correct, doesn't that mean >>>>>>>>> that the IDF attacks are like shooting fish in a barrel? That >>>>>>>>> there are vast numbers of ordinary noncombatant civilians in >>>>>>>>> Gaza and the Israelis, being the barbaric nation that they
now are, don't care how many innocent people are bombed to
death let alone how many are starved or die of disease?
claim that nearly all the hostages were killed by Israeli
bombs, then?
Why would you take such a thing? Of course many of the victims
on 7th October were killed by the IDF rather than by Hamas. Of
course some of the hostages have since been killed by IDF
bombs.
I'm sure that some hostages have been killed by IDF bombs. But,
we all (I think) agree that Hamas are murderers. They killed
1200 people on 7 October, so it's not far-fetched to suppose
that they have killed hostages since then.
I don't think you can (validly) suggest as you have done that
the IDF bombs indiscriminately, and yet that they have killed a
vastly greater proportion of hostages than other civilians.
I haven't suggested that the IDF have killed a greater proportion
of hostages than other civilians - that seems to be a garbled
version of what I said, which somehow you've fastened onto.
In what fantasy world would you expect me to provide you with
the statistics? Israel doesn't allow journalists into Gaza so
it is impossible to provide specific figures.
It doesn't take much searching on the internet to see that on
7th October "At least 14 Israeli civilians were killed by the
IDF's use of the Hannibal Directive". On 15 December 2023,
three Israeli hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces
(IDF) during the Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. An
investigation into the deaths of Nik Beizer, 19, Ron Sherman,
19, and Elia Toledano, 28, found there was a "high probability"
that the hostages were killed "as a result of a byproduct of an
IDF airstrike". The Qassam Brigades said the total number of
captives killed as a result of Israeli military operations
may have exceeded 70 as at March 2024. (We can probably
expect the Quassam Brigades to exaggerate but neither you nor I
can go to Gaza and verify the figures)
You're a big boy, surely you can google just as easily as I
can.
The Hannibal Directive - so you ARE actually suggesting that the
IDF knew where the hostages were and were deliberately targeting
them?
Obviously, you wouldn't just make that up, so you'd have bags of
evidence, and I'll look forward to you sharing it.
Thousands of people would have first hand knowledge of it, so
you'll have a ready explanation why there's been no leak, of
course?
You still haven't discovered how to browse the web, then. You
need my help.
You usually become most sarcastic when you have no evidence to
back up your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered
the Hannibal Directive to be used during the 2023 Hamas-led
attack on Israel.
On 5 December 2023, Israeli hostages released by Hamas met with
Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and claimed that, during the 7
October Hamas attack on Israel they were deliberately attacked by
Israeli helicopters on their way into Gaza, and were shelled
constantly by the Israeli military while they were there.
The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that
IDF forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza,
killing one hostage and injuring others. According to Kibbutz
Be'eri survivors Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank
fired two shells at a house that was known to hold over a dozen
hostages, including 12- year- old twins; only two hostages
survived.
So, based on that, you have concluded that the Israelis killed
roughly 200 hostages. I hoped you had some evidence for your
claim, but it is obvious that the cupboard is bare.
I have concluded no such thing. Where do you see me claiming a
figure of 200? I hope you have some evidence for your claim but I
expect the cupboard is bare.
You said that many hostages were killed by Israeli bombs. Do you
deny that?
It's a fact and it's in the public domain so there's no need for you
to imply that I invented the allegation or make oddly aggressive
remarks like "Do you deny that?" as if you imagined yourself to be a barrister in a court of law.
I pointed out that the mortality rate amongst hostages was around 30
times higher than amongst Gazans generally, and you stated that the
explanation was the Hannibal Directive. This has the clear
implication that the vast majority of hostage deaths were due to
deliberate targeting by the IDF. Do you deny that?
I agree that you didn't mention the figure of 200, but that figure
is implied by your other utterances. So, I can't see any point in
quibbling.
Well, call it quibbling if you like, but I don't see that I've
implied 200 or any other figure or percentage.
Maybe you had a dream. Or maybe you saw that figure put forward by
someone else and decided that we're all in league with each other,
ganging up against poor Israel.
I am just pointing out that there are people on this NG making up
preposterous theories. And, they get really sarcastic when I ask for
evidence.
I must now ask you for evidence that there are people in this NG
making up preposterous theories. I may have missed those posts.
On 12:11 2 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
Well, call it quibbling if you like, but I don't see that I've
implied 200 or any other figure or percentage.
You wrote: "Of course many of the victims on 7th October were killed by
the IDF rather than by Hamas."
The way you use "many" implies a large or substantial number. It might
be less contentious to say "a few" if you are referring to the two
dozen Israelis out of 1,300 dead (2 percent) as mentioned in your post
with MID <m9peuuFs7noU1@mid.individual.net>
Maybe you had a dream. Or maybe you saw that figure put forward by
someone else and decided that we're all in league with each other,
ganging up against poor Israel.
I am just pointing out that there are people on this NG making up
preposterous theories. And, they get really sarcastic when I ask for
evidence.
I must now ask you for evidence that there are people in this NG
making up preposterous theories. I may have missed those posts.
As far as I know, the following statement made by you in this thread
have little or no factual basis.
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's their
main strategy."
"It is a war crime to shoot civilians in order to kill the enemy
soldiers standing behind them."
"No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes."
On 6/2/25 11:21, GB wrote:
So, based on that, you have concluded that the Israelis killed roughly
200 hostages. I hoped you had some evidence for your claim, but it is
obvious that the cupboard is bare.
Where does this 200 come from? Wiki suggests 251 hostages were taken
into Gaza. So far, 148 have been released alive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_war_hostage_crisis>
At least one of the hostages appears to have died before they even got
to Gaza.
In normal life, in this situation, most people would probably mutter
something like "Well, maybe I went a bit far there." Something mundane
like that. But, on the internet, people stick to clearly untenable
positions through thick and thin.
Indeed!
On 02/06/2025 15:25, Pamela wrote:
On 12:11 2 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
Well, call it quibbling if you like, but I don't see that I've
implied 200 or any other figure or percentage.
You wrote: "Of course many of the victims on 7th October were killed
by the IDF rather than by Hamas."
The way you use "many" implies a large or substantial number. It
might be less contentious to say "a few" if you are referring to the
two dozen Israelis out of 1,300 dead (2 percent) as mentioned in
your post with MID <m9peuuFs7noU1@mid.individual.net>
The way you use "a few" implies that two dozen Israelis are trivially unimportant in your opinion. I do hope you aren't an antisemite.
Whereas "many" does not imply a majority.
Maybe you had a dream. Or maybe you saw that figure put forward
by someone else and decided that we're all in league with each
other, ganging up against poor Israel.
I am just pointing out that there are people on this NG making up
preposterous theories. And, they get really sarcastic when I ask
for evidence.
I must now ask you for evidence that there are people in this NG
making up preposterous theories. I may have missed those posts.
As far as I know, the following statement made by you in this thread
have little or no factual basis.
However, you aren't the Oracle. You aren't in a position to assert
that the allegations are untruthful. I think there's evidence that
the allegations are in fact truthful.
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's
their main strategy."
From a BBC web page
Yuval is the co-organiser of a public letter signed by more than 165
- at the latest count - Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) reservists, and
a smaller number of permanent soldiers, refusing to serve, or
threatening to refuse, unless the hostages are returned - something
that would require a ceasefire deal with Hamas.
The seeds of Yuval's refusal lie back in the days soon after the war
began. Then the deputy speaker of the Knesset (Israel's parliament),
Nissim Vaturi, called for the Gaza Strip to be "erased from the face
of the Earth".
"People were speaking about killing the entire population of Gaza,
as if it was some type of an academic idea that makes sense
"They told us to burn down a house, and I went to my commander and
asked him: 'Why are we doing that?' And the answers he gave me were
just not good enough. I wasn't willing to burn down a house without
reasons that make sense, without knowing that this serves a certain
military purpose, or any type of purpose. So I said no and left."
From Human Rights Watch
"The Israeli government cannot claim to be keeping Palestinians safe
when it kills them along escape routes, bombs so-called safe zones,
and cuts off food, water, and sanitation," said Nadia Hardman,
refugee and migrant rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Israel
has blatantly violated its obligation to ensure Palestinians can
return home, razing virtually everything in large areas."
"It is a war crime to shoot civilians in order to kill the enemy
soldiers standing behind them."
That's simply a fact. I suppose if you aren't a lawyer and don't
understand war crimes you can invent alternative facts.
"No hospitals in Gaza have been used for military purposes."
That's simply a fact. Well, except that when the IDF destroys
hospitals, equipment and human lives in the hospitals, they are doing
it for their military purposes.
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not apply
to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring Mohammed Sinwar
etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I posted the following
link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas 2023 Symposium - The
Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not apply
to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring Mohammed Sinwar
etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I posted the following
link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas 2023 Symposium - The
Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not apply
to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring Mohammed Sinwar
etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I posted the following
link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas 2023 Symposium - The
Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of flats
has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that somewhere in
that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When the survivors of
the blast were interviewed they said they weren't aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man
is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the hospital
and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No. It's a war
crime.
On 5 Jun 2025 at 13:42:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not apply
to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring Mohammed Sinwar
etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I posted the following
link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas 2023 Symposium - The
Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of flats
has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that somewhere in
that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When the survivors of
the blast were interviewed they said they weren't aware of any Hamas
terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man
is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the hospital
and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No. It's a war
crime.
This thinking can only be based on some biblical racism that makes one citizen
of Israel worth some power of 7 times members of lesser races. Or mere dishonesty.
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man
is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a war
crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance between
the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military advantage.
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not
apply to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring
Mohammed Sinwar etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I
posted the following link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas
2023 Symposium - The Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed
Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-
armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of
flats has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that
somewhere in that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When
the survivors of the blast were interviewed they said they weren't
aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an
attempt to kill one man is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the
hospital and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No.
It's a war crime.
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared >propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was >misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as >proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a war
crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military
advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate to
the number of enemies killed.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15
storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
On 13:42 5 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not
apply to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring
Mohammed Sinwar etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I
posted the following link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas
2023 Symposium - The Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed
Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of
flats has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that
somewhere in that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When
the survivors of the blast were interviewed they said they weren't
aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an
attempt to kill one man is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the
hospital and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No.
It's a war crime.
There's no need to decribe how war brings horrific suffering and that
it's to be avoided whenever possible.
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
On 06/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F69A41C5E891F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela wrote:
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared
propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was
misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as
proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
Presumably based on waging war on the people who attacked you rather
than the innocent civilians living alongside them?
On 06/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F69A41C5E891F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela >wrote:
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared >>propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was >>misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as >>proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
Presumably based on waging war on the people who attacked you rather than
the innocent civilians living alongside them?
On 6 Jun 2025 15:13:23 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F69A41C5E891F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela >>wrote:
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on >>>7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that >>>move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared >>>propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was >>>misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as >>>proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
Presumably based on waging war on the people who attacked you rather than >>the innocent civilians living alongside them?
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly disabuse >you of any such notion.
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a
war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military
advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate
to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing
at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this being
a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15
storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is
an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 15:09:50 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:42 5 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not
apply to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring
Mohammed Sinwar etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I
posted the following link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas
2023 Symposium - The Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed
Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of
flats has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that
somewhere in that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When
the survivors of the blast were interviewed they said they weren't
aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an
attempt to kill one man is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the
hospital and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No.
It's a war crime.
There's no need to decribe how war brings horrific suffering and that
it's to be avoided whenever possible.
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared
propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was
misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as
proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
It is doubtful if you can describe the military invasion of an enclave of stateless people you have reponsibility for as a war. It is more of a violent police action than a war against any recognisable entity. The only state in control of Gaza is Israel.
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a war
crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military
advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate to
the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing
at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this being
a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15
storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is an
unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
On 06/06/2025 17:24, GB wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a
war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military
advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate
to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of
international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that
this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing
at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this
being a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15
storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is
an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
With due respect, you've said nothing of any importance, you've provided
no legal analysis, all you seem to be doing is defying the virtually unanimous opinions of politicians (including our own PM) and relief
agencies and saying that war crimes are so nebulous that we can ignore
them unless, perhaps, some sort of court of law has held a trial and
reached a verdict.
As I've said before, a person can justifiably be called a murderer if he murders someone. It isn't necessary to wait until his trial is over.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 15:09:50 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:42 5 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not
apply to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring
Mohammed Sinwar etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I
posted the following link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas
2023 Symposium - The Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed
Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of
flats has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that
somewhere in that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When
the survivors of the blast were interviewed they said they weren't
aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an
attempt to kill one man is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the
hospital and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No.
It's a war crime.
There's no need to decribe how war brings horrific suffering and that
it's to be avoided whenever possible.
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared
propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was
misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as
proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
It is doubtful if you can describe the military invasion of an enclave of stateless people you have reponsibility for as a war. It is more of a violent police action than a war against any recognisable entity. The only state in control of Gaza is Israel.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 15:09:50 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:42 5 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not
apply to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring
Mohammed Sinwar etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I
posted the following link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas
2023 Symposium - The Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed
Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-
during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of
flats has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that
somewhere in that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When
the survivors of the blast were interviewed they said they weren't
aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an
attempt to kill one man is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the
hospital and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No.
It's a war crime.
There's no need to decribe how war brings horrific suffering and
that it's to be avoided whenever possible.
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre
on 7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support
that move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a
well-prepared propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from
retaliating was misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as
proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
It is doubtful if you can describe the military invasion of an
enclave of stateless people you have reponsibility for as a war. It
is more of a violent police action than a war against any
recognisable entity. The only state in control of Gaza is Israel.
On 06/06/2025 in message <nsh64ktn2j6ilrjodtqlattmmb0kjnbbc5@4ax.com>
Mark Goodge wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 15:13:23 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 06/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F69A41C5E891F3QA2@135.181.20.170>
Pamela wrote:
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its
massacre on 7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar
didn't support that move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and
trusting to a well-prepared propaganda machine as a way of
preventing Israel from retaliating was misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as >>>>proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
Presumably based on waging war on the people who attacked you rather
than the innocent civilians living alongside them?
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly
disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is
dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
On 06/06/2025 05:01 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 15:09:50 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
On 13:42 5 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 05/06/2025 11:58, Pamela wrote:
The protection of hospitals under the Geneva Convention does not
apply to when used for military purposes, such as harbouring
Mohammed Sinwar etc. In a recent thread called "Human Shields", I
posted the following link discussing the legalities: "Israel-Hamas
2023 Symposium - The Legal Protection of Hospitals during Armed
Conflict".
<https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflict/>
There have been many occasions when an entire residential block of
flats has been bombed to bits by the IDF and their excuse is that
somewhere in that block of flats there was a Hamas terrorist. When
the survivors of the blast were interviewed they said they weren't
aware of any Hamas terrorist. Plainly to kill lots of people in an
attempt to kill one man is a war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Same with hospitals. You seem to believe that if Mohammed Sinwar is
somewhere in a hospital building that makes the bombing of the
hospital and the slaughter of its staff, lawful and reasonable. No.
It's a war crime.
There's no need to decribe how war brings horrific suffering and that
it's to be avoided whenever possible.
Hamas was very foolish to deliberately provoke a war by its massacre on
7th October. Even their backers in Iran and Qatar didn't support that
move. Hamas's ruse of taking hostages and trusting to a well-prepared
propaganda machine as a way of preventing Israel from retaliating was
misjudged.
Clauswitz observed that war is total; there is no such thing as
proportionality in war. It is fought to be won.
It is doubtful if you can describe the military invasion of an enclave of
stateless people you have reponsibility for as a war. It is more of a
violent
police action than a war against any recognisable entity. The only
state in
control of Gaza is Israel.
Was the 1082 Falklands action a war or an armed conflist?
No "war" was formally declared by either side.
IOW, what is a "war"? And what isn't a "war"?
On 07/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2025 17:24, GB wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a
war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military >>>>> advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate
to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of
international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that
this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing
at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this
being a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15
storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is
an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
With due respect, you've said nothing of any importance, you've provided
no legal analysis, all you seem to be doing is defying the virtually
unanimous opinions of politicians (including our own PM) and relief
agencies and saying that war crimes are so nebulous that we can ignore
them unless, perhaps, some sort of court of law has held a trial and
reached a verdict.
As I've said before, a person can justifiably be called a murderer if he
murders someone. It isn't necessary to wait until his trial is over.
Guilty even if not proved guilty?
That's a significant departure from the norm, isn't it?
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly
disabuse
you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
On 08:40 7 Jun 2025, Jeff Gaines said:
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is
dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the
country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties when
its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
It is doubtful if you can describe the military invasion of an
enclave of stateless people you have reponsibility for as a war. It
is more of a violent police action than a war against any
recognisable entity. The only state in control of Gaza is Israel.
Based on that argument, the Israel-Hamas war is a civil war ("NIAC").
I think you must be confused.
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and put
on trial and convicted.
On 06/06/2025 17:24, GB wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a
war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military
advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate
to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of
international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that
this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing
at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this
being a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15
storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is
an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
With due respect, you've said nothing of any importance, you've provided
no legal analysis, all you seem to be doing is defying the virtually unanimous opinions of politicians (including our own PM)
On 07/06/2025 14:31, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:I think you must be confused.
On 06/06/2025 17:24, GB wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a >>>>>>> war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military >>>>>> advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate >>>>> to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of
international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that
this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing >>>> at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this
being a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15 >>>>> storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is >>>>> an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
With due respect, you've said nothing of any importance, you've provided >>> no legal analysis, all you seem to be doing is defying the virtually
unanimous opinions of politicians (including our own PM) and relief
agencies and saying that war crimes are so nebulous that we can ignore
them unless, perhaps, some sort of court of law has held a trial and
reached a verdict.
As I've said before, a person can justifiably be called a murderer if he >>> murders someone. It isn't necessary to wait until his trial is over.
Guilty even if not proved guilty?
That's a significant departure from the norm, isn't it?
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and put
on trial and convicted.
Fred West died before he was put on trial. Was Fred West therefore
innocent?
On 07/06/2025 14:31, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 06/06/2025 17:24, GB wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a >>>>>>> war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance
between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military >>>>>> advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate >>>>> to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of
international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great
compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that
this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing >>>> at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this
being a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15 >>>>> storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is >>>>> an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
With due respect, you've said nothing of any importance, you've provided >>> no legal analysis, all you seem to be doing is defying the virtually
unanimous opinions of politicians (including our own PM) and relief
agencies and saying that war crimes are so nebulous that we can ignore
them unless, perhaps, some sort of court of law has held a trial and
reached a verdict.
As I've said before, a person can justifiably be called a murderer if he >>> murders someone. It isn't necessary to wait until his trial is over.
Guilty even if not proved guilty?
That's a significant departure from the norm, isn't it?
I think you must be confused.
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of proof in a
criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and everyone must assume I didn't
do it unless and until I am caught and put on trial and convicted.
Fred West died before he was put on trial. Was Fred West therefore innocent?
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly >>>disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is >>dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the >>country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties when
its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
On 07/06/2025 04:19 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:31, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:51 AM, The Todal wrote:I think you must be confused.
On 06/06/2025 17:24, GB wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:08, The Todal wrote:
On 05/06/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 05/06/2025 13:42, The Todal wrote:
Plainly to kill lots of people in an attempt to kill one man is a >>>>>>>> war crime. Whether you agree or not.
Under international law, it's not plain. It depends on a balance >>>>>>> between the anticipated civilian damage and the anticipated military >>>>>>> advantage.
It's plain when the slaughter of civilians is wholly disproportionate >>>>>> to the number of enemies killed.
With due respect, all you are doing is restating the principles of
international law, but with an added assumption.
Your assumption is that the anticipated civilian damage is too great >>>>> compared to the anticipated military advantage.
So, in essence, your legal analysis is simply that you assume that
this incident is a war crime. So, it's a war crime.
With an added "Whether you agree or not", which I assume means nothing >>>>> at all?
Frankly, I'd hope for a more thoughtful analysis of the law, this
being a legal forum, etc.
And "he was an important terrorist and we couldn't think of any
effective way of killing him other than by demolishing the entire 15 >>>>>> storey block of flats and killing or injuring the other occupants" is >>>>>> an unlawful tactic. A war crime.
You are just restating your assumption.
With due respect, you've said nothing of any importance, you've
provided
no legal analysis, all you seem to be doing is defying the virtually
unanimous opinions of politicians (including our own PM) and relief
agencies and saying that war crimes are so nebulous that we can ignore >>>> them unless, perhaps, some sort of court of law has held a trial and
reached a verdict.
As I've said before, a person can justifiably be called a murderer
if he
murders someone. It isn't necessary to wait until his trial is over.
Guilty even if not proved guilty?
That's a significant departure from the norm, isn't it?
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and put
on trial and convicted.
Fred West died before he was put on trial. Was Fred West therefore
innocent?
Was he ever found guilty by a jury of his peers?
A straightforward "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
On 07/06/2025 16:19, The Todal wrote:
I think you must be confused.
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a very,
very poor analogy.
Suppose that you do kill whichever member of this NG you were referring
to, you have *many* possible defences. People who are ignorant of the
fact the NG member was attacking you with a cleaver might wrongly call
you a murderer, for example.
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of >>proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and put >>on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception that >"innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a crime
until they have been found guilty.
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden
of proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you
and everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught
and put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a
very, very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception
that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a
crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a "proven" in sight!
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of >>>>proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and >>>>put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a very, >>>>very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if you >haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption of >innocence.
Those who want to repeal the Human Rights Act will presumably want to
include something about this in their new Bill of Rights (which maybe they >would call their One Big Beautiful Bill Act).
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of >>>>> proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>> everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and >>>>> put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a very, >>>>> very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception
that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a
crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a
"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but
he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty.
Those who want to repeal the Human Rights Act will presumably want to
include something about this in their new Bill of Rights (which maybe they >> would call their One Big Beautiful Bill Act).
I thought it was the ECHR we were going to dump?
On 07/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F794AC0F9291F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela wrote:
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly
disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is
dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the
country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties when
its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
I believe that is somewhat disingenuous, although it mirrors the
propaganda put out by Israel.
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people popped
in to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the kindly bobby in
the corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on thing
with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were told to?
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of >>>>>proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>>everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and >>>>>put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a very, >>>>>very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>>that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>>"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if you >>haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption of >>innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but
he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty.
Those who want to repeal the Human Rights Act will presumably want to >>include something about this in their new Bill of Rights (which maybe they >>would call their One Big Beautiful Bill Act).
I thought it was the ECHR we were going to dump?
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>[snip]
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden >>>>>>of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>>>everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and >>>>>>put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>>>that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>>crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>>>"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if you >>>haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption of >>>innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but
he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty.
A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three
things
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as innocent >until proven guilty;
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden of >>>proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and put >>>on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a very, >>>very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception that >>"innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a crime
until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
On 07/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F794AC0F9291F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela wrote:
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly >>>>disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is >>>dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the >>>country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties when
its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
I believe that is somewhat disingenuous, although it mirrors the
propaganda put out by Israel.
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people popped in
to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the kindly bobby in the corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on thing
with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were told to?
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>[snip]
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>> wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden >>>>>>> of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>>>> everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught and >>>>>>> put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>> very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>>>> that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>>> crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>>>> "proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if you >>>> haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption of >>>> innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but >>> he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty.
A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three
things
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as innocent
until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:08:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:[snip]
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden >>>>>>>>of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>>>>>everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>>>>>and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>>>very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>>>>>that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>>>>crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>>>innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>>>>>"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if >>>>>you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption >>>>>of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but >>>>he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty.
A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three >>>things
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as innocent >>>until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
The fact that from context that statement clearly only applies to the >judicial
system? It doesn't appear to create a thought crime, or a crime of
expressing
a contrary opinion, which it would surely have to if it were applying the >rule
of presumption of innocence to any individual citizen.
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden
of proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you
and everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught
and put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a
very, very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception
that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a
crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a "proven" in sight!
On 08/06/2025 in message <8592464665.e7fbf85d@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:08:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>[snip]
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>> wrote:A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three >>>> things
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>> wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden >>>>>>>>> of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>>>>>> everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>>>>>> and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>>>> very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>>>>>> that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>>>>> crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>>>> innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>>>>>> "proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if >>>>>> you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption >>>>>> of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but >>>>> he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. >>>>
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as innocent >>>> until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
The fact that from context that statement clearly only applies to the
judicial
system? It doesn't appear to create a thought crime, or a crime of
expressing
a contrary opinion, which it would surely have to if it were applying the
rule
of presumption of innocence to any individual citizen.
I don't see that at all, it's a clear statement that says if you're
charged with a criminal offence then you are presumed innocent until
proved guilty, it doesn't limit who makes the presumption.
On 07/06/2025 19:23, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F794AC0F9291F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela
wrote:
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly
disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is
dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the
country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties when
its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
I believe that is somewhat disingenuous, although it mirrors the
propaganda put out by Israel.
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people popped
in to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the kindly bobby in
the corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on thing
with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were told to?
I don't think there have been any elections in Gaza since 2006. But ICBW.
My understanding is that when they were elected Hamas was quite a
popular organisation, based partly (or mainly) on their charitable works
at the time.
On 2025-06-07, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F794AC0F9291F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela
wrote:
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly
disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel is
dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the
country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties when
its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
I believe that is somewhat disingenuous, although it mirrors the
propaganda put out by Israel.
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people popped in >> to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the kindly bobby in the
corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on thing
with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were told to?
It's worse than that - Hamas doesn't hold rigged elections,
they just don't bother having elections at all.
On 07/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F794AC0F9291F3QA2@135.181.20.170>
Pamela wrote:
Visits to Dresden Frauenkirche and Coventry Cathedral will rapidly >>>>disabuse you of any such notion.
It's the 21st century so standards have changed substantially.
In any event Nazi Germany and the UK were at war; currently Israel
is dealing with a terrorist attack by slaughtering civilians in the >>>country/state that the terrorist organisation is based in.
More specifically ... the civilian population in Gaza, which
authorised, enabled and hides terrorists, is suffering casualties
when its terrorists get attacked. Same goes for terrorists in
Lebanon.
Enabling terrorism really isn't a great idea and this shows why.
I believe that is somewhat disingenuous, although it mirrors the
propaganda put out by Israel.
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people
popped in to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the
kindly bobby in the corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on
thing with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were
told to?
On 07/06/2025 20:58, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 04:19 PM, The Todal wrote:
Fred West died before he was put on trial. Was Fred West therefore
innocent?
Was he ever found guilty by a jury of his peers?
A straightforward "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
What's your point? I've already answered that. Is your point that he
cannot be accurately described as a murderer even now?
On 08/06/2025 09:52 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 20:58, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 04:19 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Fred West died before he was put on trial. Was Fred West therefore
innocent?
Was he ever found guilty by a jury of his peers?
A straightforward "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
What's your point? I've already answered that. Is your point that he
cannot be accurately described as a murderer even now?
You may describe anyone as anything you like and if they are dead, you
don't even have to worry about any defamation.
The underlying question is whether the late Mr West may be *treated* as
a criminal.
On 08/06/2025 10:19 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden
of proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you
and everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>and put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a
very, very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>"proven" in sight!
I ahave always maintained that that principle should be worded as:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent unless proved guilty according to law".
The use of "until" seems to take the outcome for granted.
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people
popped in to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the
kindly bobby in the corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on
thing with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were
told to?
The 2006 Gaza election was not as coercive as you suggest. In it, 44%
voted for Hamas and 41% for Fatah. However a quirk of their electoral
system gave significantly more seats to Hamas.
Civilian support for Hamas and its actions has been high throughout the >current war.
"In March 2024, 71% of Palestinians said Hamas decision to invade
was the right one. Today, that number has dropped to 50%"
On 08/06/2025 09:52 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 20:58, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 04:19 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Fred West died before he was put on trial. Was Fred West therefore
innocent?
Was he ever found guilty by a jury of his peers?
A straightforward "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
What's your point? I've already answered that. Is your point that he
cannot be accurately described as a murderer even now?
You may describe anyone as anything you like and if they are dead, you
don't even have to worry about any defamation.
The underlying question is whether the late Mr West may be *treated* as a criminal.
The underlying question is whether, since he was never convicted of
murder, the history books and the online sources need to be amended to
make it clear that actually despite killing several women including his
own daughter, he was NOT a murderer and was actually innocent. Which
seems to be the logic of what you've been saying. The position would be
the same whether he is alive or dead and defamation is irrelevant. It's
all about your cockeyed interpretation of the maxim "innocent until
proved guilty".
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:44:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8592464665.e7fbf85d@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:08:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>> wrote:[snip]
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>> wrote:A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three >>>>> things
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>>> wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden >>>>>>>>>> of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and >>>>>>>>>> everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>>>>>>> and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>>>>> very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception >>>>>>>>> that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>>>>>> crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>>>>> innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a >>>>>>>> "proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if >>>>>>> you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption >>>>>>> of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but >>>>>> he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. >>>>>
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as innocent >>>>> until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
The fact that from context that statement clearly only applies to the
judicial
system? It doesn't appear to create a thought crime, or a crime of
expressing
a contrary opinion, which it would surely have to if it were applying the >>> rule
of presumption of innocence to any individual citizen.
I don't see that at all, it's a clear statement that says if you're
charged with a criminal offence then you are presumed innocent until
proved guilty, it doesn't limit who makes the presumption.
How does that law make me, for instance, presume that the defendant is innocent? It has zero effect on my right to say he is guilty. If it was instructing the public, or the media, to presume innocence it would have to say so. And if it was like any other law governing our conduct it would have to specify an offence and a penalty for breaking that law. It does not. It does not force you or me or the Daily Mirror to presume his innocence, it only
governs the criminal law and those who administer it.
And the sub judice rule is something different; it equally stops me saying he is innocent during the trial as it stops me saying he is guilty.
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:44:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8592464665.e7fbf85d@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:08:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>wrote:[snip]
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The >>>>>>>>Todal
wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the >>>>>>>>>>burden
of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you >>>>>>>>>>and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>>>>>>>and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>>>>>very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the >>>>>>>>>misconception
that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed >>>>>>>>>a
crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>>>>>innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not >>>>>>>>a
"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if >>>>>>>you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption >>>>>>>of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, >>>>>>but
he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found >>>>>>guilty.
A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three >>>>>things
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as >>>>>innocent
until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
The fact that from context that statement clearly only applies to the >>>judicial
system? It doesn't appear to create a thought crime, or a crime of >>>expressing
a contrary opinion, which it would surely have to if it were applying the >>>rule
of presumption of innocence to any individual citizen.
I don't see that at all, it's a clear statement that says if you're
charged with a criminal offence then you are presumed innocent until
proved guilty, it doesn't limit who makes the presumption.
How does that law make me, for instance, presume that the defendant is >innocent? It has zero effect on my right to say he is guilty. If it was >instructing the public, or the media, to presume innocence it would have to >say so. And if it was like any other law governing our conduct it would
have
to specify an offence and a penalty for breaking that law. It does not. It >does not force you or me or the Daily Mirror to presume his innocence, it >only
governs the criminal law and those who administer it.
And the sub judice rule is something different; it equally stops me saying
he
is innocent during the trial as it stops me saying he is guilty.
On 08/06/2025 in message <XnsB2F8937A4767D1F3QA2@135.181.20.170> Pamela wrote:
Do you think when the last election was held in Gaza that people
popped in to the polling station at their leisure nodded to the
kindly bobby in the corner and voted as they wished?
Is it not more likely that the Hamas operative keeping an eye on
thing with an AK47 in his arms made sure people voted as they were
told to?
The 2006 Gaza election was not as coercive as you suggest. In it, 44%
voted for Hamas and 41% for Fatah. However a quirk of their electoral >>system gave significantly more seats to Hamas.
Civilian support for Hamas and its actions has been high throughout the >>current war.
"In March 2024, 71% of Palestinians said Hamas decision to invade
was the right one. Today, that number has dropped to 50%"
Seriously? Did you write that with your tongue in your cheek or was the
Hamas man standing next to you with an AK47?
On 08/06/2025 02:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:44:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>
On 08/06/2025 in message <8592464665.e7fbf85d@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:08:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>> wrote:[snip]
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>> wrote:A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three >>>>>> things
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>>>> wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the burden >>>>>>>>>>> of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>>>>>>>> and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>>>>>> very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the misconception
that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed a >>>>>>>>>> crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>>>>>> innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not a
"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if >>>>>>>> you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption >>>>>>>> of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, but
he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. >>>>>>
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as innocent
until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>> innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
The fact that from context that statement clearly only applies to the
judicial
system? It doesn't appear to create a thought crime, or a crime of
expressing
a contrary opinion, which it would surely have to if it were applying the >>>> rule
of presumption of innocence to any individual citizen.
I don't see that at all, it's a clear statement that says if you're
charged with a criminal offence then you are presumed innocent until
proved guilty, it doesn't limit who makes the presumption.
How does that law make me, for instance, presume that the defendant is
innocent? It has zero effect on my right to say he is guilty. If it was
instructing the public, or the media, to presume innocence it would have to >> say so. And if it was like any other law governing our conduct it would have >> to specify an offence and a penalty for breaking that law. It does not. It >> does not force you or me or the Daily Mirror to presume his innocence, it only
governs the criminal law and those who administer it.
And the sub judice rule is something different; it equally stops me saying he
is innocent during the trial as it stops me saying he is guilty.
Thank you.
So merely being arrested makes one guilty. I expect a lot of people
would agree with that.
On 08/06/2025 in message <8779310756.724f85d4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:44:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8592464665.e7fbf85d@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 13:08:39 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <8218015946.8366d769@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jun 2025 at 11:18:57 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>> wrote:[snip]
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal3cbFm84kU7@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>>>>> wrote:
On 08/06/2025 10:19, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mal1jiFm84kU4@mid.individual.net> The >>>>>>>>> Todal
wrote:
The presumption of innocent till proved guilty refers to the >>>>>>>>>>> burden
of
proof in a criminal trial. It does not mean that I can kill you >>>>>>>>>>> and
everyone must assume I didn't do it unless and until I am caught >>>>>>>>>>> and
put on trial and convicted.
You've made the same point a few posts above, but it's clearly a >>>>>>>>>>> very,
very poor analogy.
It's not an analogy. It's a necessary correction to the
misconception
that "innocent till proved guilty" means that nobody has committed >>>>>>>>>> a
crime until they have been found guilty.
The Human Rights Act 1985
Schedule 1
Article 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>>>>>> innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So they are entitled to be presumed innocent?
PS: Isn't it nice to see English legislation written in English, not >>>>>>>>> a
"proven" in sight!
I don't know if you imagine that disproves my point. But logically if >>>>>>>> you
haven't been charged with a criminal offence, there is no presumption >>>>>>>> of
innocence.
No, a person may have committed a crime, and we all know he done it, >>>>>>> but
he is entitled to be presumed innocent until he has been found
guilty.
A lot of nonsense is written about the presumption of innocence. Three >>>>>> things
are true:
An accused murderer is entitled to be regarded *by the state* as
innocent
until proven guilty;
Yet the ACT says:
"Clause 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>>>> innocent until proved guilty according to law."
Is there case law that limits that presumption to the state?
The fact that from context that statement clearly only applies to the
judicial
system? It doesn't appear to create a thought crime, or a crime of
expressing
a contrary opinion, which it would surely have to if it were applying the >>>> rule
of presumption of innocence to any individual citizen.
I don't see that at all, it's a clear statement that says if you're
charged with a criminal offence then you are presumed innocent until
proved guilty, it doesn't limit who makes the presumption.
How does that law make me, for instance, presume that the defendant is
innocent? It has zero effect on my right to say he is guilty. If it was
instructing the public, or the media, to presume innocence it would have to >> say so. And if it was like any other law governing our conduct it would
have
to specify an offence and a penalty for breaking that law. It does not. It >> does not force you or me or the Daily Mirror to presume his innocence, it
only
governs the criminal law and those who administer it.
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different it opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
And the sub judice rule is something different; it equally stops me saying >> he
is innocent during the trial as it stops me saying he is guilty.
Indeed.
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different it >>opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on whether
the
putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim. Equally, the state >presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether you have a defence of >truth
on the balance of probablities. Of course, if a criminal charge is made >against the putatative criminal it is unlikely that the defamation case
can go
ahead before the criminal case. But otherwise the state presumption of >innocence, or even a not guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation
claim
being defended successfully.
On 09/06/2025 in message <2669312134.00cb4fd9@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different it >>>opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on
whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim.
Equally, the state presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether
you have a defence of truth on the balance of probablities. Of course,
if a criminal charge is made against the putatative criminal it is
unlikely that the defamation case can go ahead before the criminal
case. But otherwise the state presumption of innocence, or even a not >>guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation claim being defended >>successfully.
I disagree. If the state presumes I am innocent and you publish something saying I am guilty I would certainly have grounds to make a civil claim against you for defamation. Whether or not it succeeds will depend on the facts.
On 2025-06-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <2669312134.00cb4fd9@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different it >>>>opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on
whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim. >>>Equally, the state presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether
you have a defence of truth on the balance of probablities. Of course,
if a criminal charge is made against the putatative criminal it is >>>unlikely that the defamation case can go ahead before the criminal
case. But otherwise the state presumption of innocence, or even a not >>>guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation claim being defended >>>successfully.
I disagree. If the state presumes I am innocent and you publish something >>saying I am guilty I would certainly have grounds to make a civil claim >>against you for defamation. Whether or not it succeeds will depend on the >>facts.
You say "I disagree" but then say nothing that disagrees with what Roger >said.
On 09/06/2025 in message
<slrn104d643.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <2669312134.00cb4fd9@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something
different it
opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on
whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim.
Equally, the state presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether
you have a defence of truth on the balance of probablities. Of course, >>>> if a criminal charge is made against the putatative criminal it is
unlikely that the defamation case can go ahead before the criminal
case. But otherwise the state presumption of innocence, or even a not
guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation claim being defended
successfully.
I disagree. If the state presumes I am innocent and you publish
something
saying I am guilty I would certainly have grounds to make a civil claim
against you for defamation. Whether or not it succeeds will depend on
the
facts.
You say "I disagree" but then say nothing that disagrees with what Roger
said.
Roger said "Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no
bearing on whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation
claim"
I disagree with that. If the state says I am presumed innocent and
somebody says I am guilty that is the basis of my claim.
On 09/06/2025 in message <slrn104d643.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <2669312134.00cb4fd9@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different it >>>>> opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on
whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim.
Equally, the state presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether
you have a defence of truth on the balance of probablities. Of course, >>>> if a criminal charge is made against the putatative criminal it is
unlikely that the defamation case can go ahead before the criminal
case. But otherwise the state presumption of innocence, or even a not
guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation claim being defended
successfully.
I disagree. If the state presumes I am innocent and you publish something >>> saying I am guilty I would certainly have grounds to make a civil claim
against you for defamation. Whether or not it succeeds will depend on the >>> facts.
You say "I disagree" but then say nothing that disagrees with what Roger
said.
Roger said "Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing
on whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim"
I disagree with that. If the state says I am presumed innocent and
somebody says I am guilty that is the basis of my claim.
On 09/06/2025 09:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message
<slrn104d643.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <2669312134.00cb4fd9@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different >>>>>>it
opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on >>>>>whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim. >>>>>Equally, the state presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether >>>>>you have a defence of truth on the balance of probablities. Of course, >>>>>if a criminal charge is made against the putatative criminal it is >>>>>unlikely that the defamation case can go ahead before the criminal >>>>>case. But otherwise the state presumption of innocence, or even a not >>>>>guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation claim being defended >>>>>successfully.
I disagree. If the state presumes I am innocent and you publish >>>>something
saying I am guilty I would certainly have grounds to make a civil claim >>>>against you for defamation. Whether or not it succeeds will depend on >>>>the
facts.
You say "I disagree" but then say nothing that disagrees with what Roger >>>said.
Roger said "Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no
bearing on whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation >>claim"
I disagree with that. If the state says I am presumed innocent and
somebody says I am guilty that is the basis of my claim.
You can disagree all you like, but what you've just said is nonsense, as a >matter of law. Are you interested in understanding the law, or do you
prefer your own fictional version?
"Presumed" innocent is only relevant to the trial itself.
You can sue for defamation but "presumed innocent" would be struck out by
the judge, as an abuse of process. The way it works is: was the statement >defamatory? If the statement is that you are a murderer then yes, it is >defamatory. Is it an allegation of fact or of opinion? Usually it would be >construed as fact, therefore actionable. Are there valid defences, eg fair >comment, truth? If you are in fact a murderer your defendant might
establish defences to your claim. If you said "no, but I haven't been put
on trial yet, so I'm innocent" you'd be laughed at.
On 9 Jun 2025 at 09:31:34 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <slrn104d643.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <2669312134.00cb4fd9@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
If the state presumes innocence then if you state something different >>>>>>it
opens you up to proceedings for defamation.
Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing on >>>>>whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim. >>>>>Equally, the state presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether >>>>>you have a defence of truth on the balance of probablities. Of course, >>>>>if a criminal charge is made against the putatative criminal it is >>>>>unlikely that the defamation case can go ahead before the criminal >>>>>case. But otherwise the state presumption of innocence, or even a not >>>>>guilty verdict, do not prevent the defamation claim being defended >>>>>successfully.
I disagree. If the state presumes I am innocent and you publish >>>>something
saying I am guilty I would certainly have grounds to make a civil claim >>>>against you for defamation. Whether or not it succeeds will depend on >>>>the
facts.
You say "I disagree" but then say nothing that disagrees with what Roger >>>said.
Roger said "Whether the state presumes innocence has absolutely no bearing >>on whether the putative criminal has a basis for a defamation claim"
I disagree with that. If the state says I am presumed innocent and
somebody says I am guilty that is the basis of my claim.
That is where you are mistaken. The basis of your claim is merely that the >defamer cannot show on the balance of probabilities that you are guilty.
What
the state presumes is totally irrelevant.
On 09/06/2025 in message <6927768368.4335bf63@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 9 Jun 2025 at 09:31:34 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>wrote:
I disagree with that. If the state says I am presumed innocent and >>>somebody says I am guilty that is the basis of my claim.
That is where you are mistaken. The basis of your claim is merely that the >>defamer cannot show on the balance of probabilities that you are guilty. >>What the state presumes is totally irrelevant.
I note your opinion and respect your right to hold it.
On 2025-06-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 in message <6927768368.4335bf63@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 9 Jun 2025 at 09:31:34 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
I disagree with that. If the state says I am presumed innocent and >>>>somebody says I am guilty that is the basis of my claim.
That is where you are mistaken. The basis of your claim is merely that >>>the
defamer cannot show on the balance of probabilities that you are guilty. >>>What the state presumes is totally irrelevant.
I note your opinion and respect your right to hold it.
Haha. I wonder how well that would work in court.
"Mr Gaines, you have been found guilty by this court and are hereby
sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment."
"Your honour, I respect your opinion and your right to hold it."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:21:45 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,107 |