[DemRed]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Can I suggest you dont make anymore outlandish statements in the future then without reading the whole thread.

No, you can't suggest anything and what outlandish statements?!?

Some of us have to work and I'm not going to read through fifty odd pages of a thread when there's only about 6 of you commenting. It takes me two pages at most to get the gist of who thinks what.

[LeatherTrumpet]

[DemRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

where were anti Jewish riots and what is your source?

I hope its not Marxist things like The New Statesman?

Here's one https://jcpa.org/article/antisemitis...itish-culture/

[DemRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by DemRed

No, you can't suggest anything and what outlandish statements?!?

Some of us have to work and I'm not going to read through fifty odd pages of a thread when there's only about 6 of you commenting. It takes me two pages at most to get the gist of who thinks what.

Some of us dont have to work, we work because we enjoy it.

Cant answer the top question because you wont let me.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by DemRed

Here's one https://jcpa.org/article/antisemitis...itish-culture/

great its says "anti- jewish riots"

but provides zero evidence

anyone can type "anti- jewish riots"

like I just did

[DemRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

great its says "anti- jewish riots"

but provides zero evidence

anyone can type "anti- jewish riots"

like I just did

You can always do your own research.
Anyway, I believe my father-in-law, but it matters not if you don't, after all, this is just an anonymous forum where people can make up ****.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by DemRed

You can always do your own research.
Anyway, I believe my father-in-law, but it matters not if you don't, after all, this is just an anonymous forum where people can make up ****.

sample size one

is

sample size one

[parmnion]

Jews are often portrayed as whiney in films.

[LeatherTrumpet]

The charge goes unchallenged on the BBC. But it is a depressing rehashing of
age-old anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish blood lust



The battle to destroy Israel is not just fought with weapons. In the wider world, Hamas’s fellow travellers have been fighting to eradicate the Jewish state for many decades, and their chosen weapon is words.

In recent years the accusation they have alighted on is that Israel is an apartheid state. It’s a powerful weapon because the word is so poisonous. And the more it is repeated the more it becomes accepted as “fact”.

But since Israel began its response to Hamas’s October 7 massacre, another word has entered the “destroy Israel” lexicon: genocide. If apartheid is bad, genocide is of course a different order of magnitude.

If screaming “apartheid” has an impact in delegitimising the very basis of Israel’s existence, accusing it of genocide is a still more powerful weapon. So it has, likewise, been repeated until it has now become accepted as fact – such that it can be asserted without contradiction.

On yesterday’s Today programme, for example, a student referred to as “Issy” claimed that Israel had been found guilty by the International Court of Justice of a “plausible genocide”. The presenter, Amol Rajan, did not correct her. Given how often this lie is repeated, perhaps Rajan thought it a statement of fact.

But the ICJ’s presiding judge at the time of the Gaza ruling, Joan Donoghue, has made clear that the court made no such finding. Rather, the ICJ held that Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide in Gaza in theory.

Donoghue told the BBC’s own HardTalk programme that the court “didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible…[T]he shorthand that often appears which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn’t what the court decided.”

Genocide is a specific crime, which is when certain acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

It has now become accepted as “fact” that Israel has killed over 30,000 people in Gaza, 70 per cent of whom are women and children. That these statistics are supplied by Hamas, via its health ministry, is sometimes mentioned as an afterthought. But that they are clearly correct is assumed as a given.

Yet when these figures are looked at in the context of analysis by some of the world’s leading statisticians, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they have been seized upon primarily as a confirmation of Jewish blood lust – one of the most familiar of anti-Semitic tropes.

Data scientist Professor Abraham Wyner of the University of Pennsylvania appears to show that the civilian death toll is statistically impossible: “The daily totals increase too consistently to be real”, rising daily “with almost metronomical linearity”.

He writes that Hamas “assigned about 70 per cent of the total to be women and children, splitting that amount randomly from day to day. Then they in-filled the number of men as set by the predetermined total. This explains all the data observed.”

In some data sets, it would seem, men must have come back to life while on several days no men were apparently killed, only women.

As Prof Wyner claims, “the casualties are not overwhelmingly women and children, and the majority may be Hamas fighters”. Indeed, the actual ratio of civilian casualties to Hamas terrorists is “at most 1.4 to 1 and perhaps as low as 1 to 1”.

This matters not just because it matters to be correct, but because it exposes the accusation of genocide to be a lie. The legal standard for the death of civilians is “willful.” Far from there being evidence to support this, the facts show the opposite.

John Spencer, professor of Urban War Studies at West Point, argues that “Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any military in history – above and beyond what international law requires and more than the US did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – setting a standard that will be both hard and potentially problematic to repeat.”

This includes, he claims. evacuating 70 to 90 per cent of civilians from cities before beginning a full ground invasion in conventional attacks that seek to destroy enemy defenders. The US did not do this in the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, the Vietnam Tet counter-offensive or the Korean War.

And the IDF’s Civilian Harm Mitigation Cell tracks the presence of civilians in real time uses that to drive its operations to minimise the risk of civilian casualties.

But this is war, and civilians die in war. Especially when one of the combatants deliberately embeds itself among civilians specifically to maximise the civilian death toll.

As always, novelist Howard Jacobson gets to the heart of the issue: “There is a sadistic triumphalism in charging Jews with genocide, as though those making it feel they have their man at last. The sadism resides, specifically, in attacking Jews where their memories of pain are keenest. By making them now the torturer and not the tortured, their assailants wrest their anguish from them, not only stealing their past but trampling on it.”

Added to that is the sick irony that there is indeed a wish for genocide – by Hamas, the terrorist group which massacred 1200 Israelis on October 7 and which is committed in its founding charter not just to the death of all Israelis but to the elimination of all Jews, everywhere.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ting-genocide/

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Nope still none on page 3...we did get slim popping in to back hamas though...so there is support for hamas on TIBB, Demred was wrong..

Quote my support for Hamas, please. Let's all have a look at it.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Israel have been trying to wipe out the Palestinians for the last 60 years, and are the real terrorists. If you have supported Ukraine's right to defend itself, then you should also be supporting Palestine.

Obviously horrific scenes, but these same scenes have been happening daily for years the other way round, but they are not plastered across the media like this has been. Draw your own conclusions as to why that is the case.

I don't blame the Palestinians for fighting back against the apartheid system they have been living under. None of the tough talkers on this forum would allow an occupying force to withdraw our food, water, energy supplies etc without wanting to fight back. Neither should the Palestinians.

Israel has always been the aggressor in this occupation, and is a stain on the western myth of peace and democracy.

Parms banned, so I'm posting my offending post. As I repeatedly said in the start of this thread, please try and prove a thing I've written, incorrect.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemRed

I'm glad she had a better experience because antisemitism was very virulent in Britain at that time. There were anti-Jewish riots in 1947 in a number of British cities.
Ernest Bevin, foreign secretary of Clement Attlee was regularly reported in papers like the Daily Mail for his vitriol against the Jews. He even started a conspiracy, that in some circles, lives to this day.

Some people through history dIdn't like Jews.

Labour have always had a bit of a problem with Jews.

WHO KNEW?!?

[The Slim Reaper]

Parm wanted this reply to my post adding in.

does that defence include rape, mutilation, executions kidnap and torture of innocent civilians in a direct manner?

No, but then again, Israel has been doing these things for decades, so why is it not only allowed, but ignored and cheered on by the side that have been the aggressor for most of these crimes.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Livia

Some people through history dIdn't like Jews.

Labour have always had a bit of a problem with Jews.

WHO KNEW?!?

You're making this up. As you know, AS has been the traditional hobby horse of the right. This was accepted wisdom until a leader of the labour party said we should support the Palestinian struggle for freedom, then all of a sudden everyone on the left was an anti semite according to weirdos and the media.

What's more likely; that lifelong anti racists suddenly started picking on a single minority, or that the folks who have labelled brown immigrants and asylum seekers as trash, and are dripping with racism from every pore, are the real anti racists?

[The Slim Reaper]

Parm wanted me to add this comment in too.

Get a massive bomb.....drop it on the place, then we can all live in peace

But I'm the one who supports terrorism

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The charge goes unchallenged on the BBC. But it is a depressing rehashing of
age-old anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish blood lust



The battle to destroy Israel is not just fought with weapons. In the wider world, Hamas’s fellow travellers have been fighting to eradicate the Jewish state for many decades, and their chosen weapon is words.

In recent years the accusation they have alighted on is that Israel is an apartheid state. It’s a powerful weapon because the word is so poisonous. And the more it is repeated the more it becomes accepted as “fact”.

But since Israel began its response to Hamas’s October 7 massacre, another word has entered the “destroy Israel” lexicon: genocide. If apartheid is bad, genocide is of course a different order of magnitude.

If screaming “apartheid” has an impact in delegitimising the very basis of Israel’s existence, accusing it of genocide is a still more powerful weapon. So it has, likewise, been repeated until it has now become accepted as fact – such that it can be asserted without contradiction.

On yesterday’s Today programme, for example, a student referred to as “Issy” claimed that Israel had been found guilty by the International Court of Justice of a “plausible genocide”. The presenter, Amol Rajan, did not correct her. Given how often this lie is repeated, perhaps Rajan thought it a statement of fact.

But the ICJ’s presiding judge at the time of the Gaza ruling, Joan Donoghue, has made clear that the court made no such finding. Rather, the ICJ held that Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide in Gaza in theory.

Donoghue told the BBC’s own HardTalk programme that the court “didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible…[T]he shorthand that often appears which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn’t what the court decided.”

Genocide is a specific crime, which is when certain acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

It has now become accepted as “fact” that Israel has killed over 30,000 people in Gaza, 70 per cent of whom are women and children. That these statistics are supplied by Hamas, via its health ministry, is sometimes mentioned as an afterthought. But that they are clearly correct is assumed as a given.

Yet when these figures are looked at in the context of analysis by some of the world’s leading statisticians, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they have been seized upon primarily as a confirmation of Jewish blood lust – one of the most familiar of anti-Semitic tropes.

Data scientist Professor Abraham Wyner of the University of Pennsylvania appears to show that the civilian death toll is statistically impossible: “The daily totals increase too consistently to be real”, rising daily “with almost metronomical linearity”.

He writes that Hamas “assigned about 70 per cent of the total to be women and children, splitting that amount randomly from day to day. Then they in-filled the number of men as set by the predetermined total. This explains all the data observed.”

In some data sets, it would seem, men must have come back to life while on several days no men were apparently killed, only women.

As Prof Wyner claims, “the casualties are not overwhelmingly women and children, and the majority may be Hamas fighters”. Indeed, the actual ratio of civilian casualties to Hamas terrorists is “at most 1.4 to 1 and perhaps as low as 1 to 1”.

This matters not just because it matters to be correct, but because it exposes the accusation of genocide to be a lie. The legal standard for the death of civilians is “willful.” Far from there being evidence to support this, the facts show the opposite.

John Spencer, professor of Urban War Studies at West Point, argues that “Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any military in history – above and beyond what international law requires and more than the US did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – setting a standard that will be both hard and potentially problematic to repeat.”

This includes, he claims. evacuating 70 to 90 per cent of civilians from cities before beginning a full ground invasion in conventional attacks that seek to destroy enemy defenders. The US did not do this in the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, the Vietnam Tet counter-offensive or the Korean War.

And the IDF’s Civilian Harm Mitigation Cell tracks the presence of civilians in real time uses that to drive its operations to minimise the risk of civilian casualties.

But this is war, and civilians die in war. Especially when one of the combatants deliberately embeds itself among civilians specifically to maximise the civilian death toll.

As always, novelist Howard Jacobson gets to the heart of the issue: “There is a sadistic triumphalism in charging Jews with genocide, as though those making it feel they have their man at last. The sadism resides, specifically, in attacking Jews where their memories of pain are keenest. By making them now the torturer and not the tortured, their assailants wrest their anguish from them, not only stealing their past but trampling on it.”

Added to that is the sick irony that there is indeed a wish for genocide – by Hamas, the terrorist group which massacred 1200 Israelis on October 7 and which is committed in its founding charter not just to the death of all Israelis but to the elimination of all Jews, everywhere.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ting-genocide/

i hope they will invade the malmo arena tonight, to disturb that pathetic song contest ****show

karma to the israeli money lovers in the EBU

[LeatherTrumpet]

"You can't just put out 80 percent of a fire; you have to put out the whole
thing. You can't destroy 80 percent of Hamas."

Watch @DouglasKMurray and @BillMaher react to the calls for Israelis to stop
their attack on Rafah

Youtube video

[DemRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

great its says "anti- jewish riots"

but provides zero

anyone can type "anti- jewish riots"

like I just did

Going into the 1940s archives can be problematic, but things are there.
George Orwell was a Jew and he wrote 50 essays about antisemitism in the UK.

Youtube video

[LeatherTrumpet]

Latest IDF map for the civilian evacuation in Rafah.

A lot to unpack here, but the key point is that humanitarian requirements force Israel to
reveal their plans in advance.

By giving up the element of surprise, they’re effectively risking IDF lives to save Gazan
civilians.



https://x.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/1789199652786467086

[arista]

[Israel has ordered thousands more Rafah
residents to evacuate the city as it steps
up attacks in Gaza,
and claims to have had face-to-face
battles with Hamas
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been
intensifying operations around the southern city,
where more than a million displaced
people are sheltering
The latest evacuation order came hours
after the US said Israel may have breached
international law with US weapons in Gaza
A US government report says it is
"reasonable to assess" that arms have
been used in ways "inconsistent"
with Israel's obligations - but stopped short
of halting shipments
The UN says more than 80,000 people
have fled Rafah since Monday,
after Israel warned people to evacuate
ahead of a planned major offensive]


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...-east-68990918

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Latest IDF map for the civilian evacuation in Rafah.

A lot to unpack here, but the key point is that humanitarian requirements force Israel to
reveal their plans in advance.

By giving up the element of surprise, they’re effectively risking IDF lives to save Gazan
civilians.



https://x.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/1789199652786467086

in just about any other conflict around the world, residents would go into cellars, bunkers and tunnels, but because of hamas, thats just not an option. They would also go to hospitals or community centres, but because of hamas tactics, thats not an option

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemRed

Going into the 1940s archives can be problematic, but things are there.
George Orwell was a Jew and he wrote 50 essays about antisemitism in the UK.

Youtube video

Honestly, it's as if anti-Semitism is news to you. Jews have been thrown out of every decent country in Europe in the past, it's been no worse in the UK than anywhere else despite how many times you Google it. It's tedious watching you use your tenuous links to Judaism to try to make yourself sound more informed. It's just not working.

[DemRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

Honestly, it's as if anti-Semitism is news to you. Jews have been thrown out of every decent country in Europe in the past, it's been no worse in the UK than anywhere else despite how many times you Google it. It's tedious watching you use your tenuous links to Judaism to try to make yourself sound more informed. It's just not working.

What nonsense. I mentioned that my farther-in-law as a small Jewish boy being brought to England from Poland, was warned, when he started school, not to let his classmates know he was Jewish.
You came back with how your grandmother, after surviving the death camps was warmly welcomed in the UK. So you, wanted to make a point that the Brits (because they were warm and welcoming to your grandma) were not antisemitic, as I had suggested.
LT then comes back on your side, saying there's no evidence unless you have a link. I send him a link from Jerusalem center of public affairs and he attempts to de-bunk that and so I sent the one that you are remarking to.

I'm very well informed. I can speak some Hebrew as well as some Arabic. I have studied both Torah and Talmud. Some years ago, I studied with a Jewish Rabbi because I considered (very seriously) adopting the faith I had inherited.
I have been to both Israel and Palestine. I love both Israel and Palestine but as a Judo-Christian, I felt more welcome in Palestine than Israel.

The benefit I had was, whilst I may of been born with Jewish rights, I was never raised with a Zionist ideology. I'm sure if I had been, I would feel like you do.

The put downs aren't necessary. Its arrogant to suggest I know nothing about a subject I've studied for many years.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Hello Mr Hammer and Sickle

Fancy seeing you here....