[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

Oh come on everything about the chap on the right screams Villain... someone should be signing him up for the next Bond film. Twisting and weasling away. And I'm obviously no Pier fan.

Also the irony of that final comment after the EDL beer-swillers were out in force at the weekend.

[Liam-]

Isn’t that fella the one that wrote a column recently about how the Nazi soldiers weren’t that bad and had very hard jobs so shouldn’t be looked at as the bad guys?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Isn’t that fella the one that wrote a column recently about how the Nazi soldiers weren’t that bad and had very hard jobs so shouldn’t be looked at as the bad guys?

I've seen him around but hadn't looked into him much, I just thought he looked a bit fascism-coded, but a quick google has revealed that one of the opinions he's most infamous for is, in a nutshell;

"There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Nazi it's just that the naughty Germans were doing it wrong in the first half of the 20th century so now it unfairly gets a bad rap".

So... ... ... turns out first impressions can be quite accurate I guess...

[arista]

This was 6:48AM Early today.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I've seen him around but hadn't looked into him much, I just thought he looked a bit fascism-coded, but a quick google has revealed that one of the opinions he's most infamous for is, in a nutshell;

"There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Nazi it's just that the naughty Germans were doing it wrong in the first half of the 20th century so now it unfairly gets a bad rap".

Jeez, that's more stupid than when people say the same thing about Communism.

But I never thought I'd hear a straight-face "it ain't so bad" about Nazism.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by arista

This was 6:48AM Early today.

The host should have a bit of grace and decorum tbh, whatever they think of their guests.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The host should have a bit of grace and decorum tbh, whatever they think of their guests.

Like Piers?

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Yes and to get into the tunnel you of course have to get that pesky hospital on top out of the way. The logic is entirely sound!

yup, in order to exterminate Hamas entirely one way or another at whatever cost


but they did deliver fuel for the hospitals their generators, well so Benny said but honestly that video evidence of them ''delivering'' fuel to the hospital is kinda inconclusive as it doesn't really show them going into the hospital

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Isn’t that fella the one that wrote a column recently about how the Nazi soldiers weren’t that bad and had very hard jobs so shouldn’t be looked at as the bad guys?

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Tibb till defending/ignoring 70 years of massacres and oppression, to play make believe with the phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free."

This is everyone's new favourite thought leader, writing in the Jewish Chronicle a couple of days ago.

Freedom for Palestine = bad

Those poor Nazis had tough jobs = What an intellectual colossus.


I posted on here years ago about the close relationship between zionism/Israel and the far right, but let's not acknowledge reality and instead fall in love and accept this nonsense at face value because he doesn't have a regional accent.

.

[Liam-]

Thought so

The right really will cling onto anybody in the their mission to pretend to care about Jews

[arista]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The host should have a bit of grace and decorum tbh, whatever they think of their guests.

Yes Ed Balls Presenter pushing his Podcast

Bollocks to Ed Balls

[Livia]

The far Left pretending it's not they who are the problem when it comes to anti-Semitism. It would be funny if it wasn't insulting.

[bots]

We should clarify the situation a bit. Hamas have basically taken their own people hostage and are using them as human shields. Would any country just say, ok, we will just leave them to it. They can come back and slaughter our people, but thats just something we have to accept

Of course they wouldn't. Every country in the world would want to take out the terrorists. It's very sad if there are civilian casualties but the aim will always be to kill the terrorists

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

We should clarify the situation a bit. Hamas have basically taken their own people hostage and are using them as human shields. Would any country just say, ok, we will just leave them to it. They can come back and slaughter our people, but thats just something we have to accept

Of course they wouldn't. Every country in the world would want to take out the terrorists. It's very sad if there are civilian casualties but the aim will always be to kill the terrorists

defending genocide ain't a good look though


commando ground troops could be more effective in areas where they are many civilians, to prevent civilian casualties but still taking out the hamas terrorists


Netanyahu really made the silliest excuse ever now

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

We should clarify the situation a bit. Hamas have basically taken their own people hostage and are using them as human shields. Would any country just say, ok, we will just leave them to it. They can come back and slaughter our people, but thats just something we have to accept

Yes but we need a two state solution!!!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Of course they wouldn't. Every country in the world would want to take out the terrorists. It's very sad if there are civilian casualties but the aim will always be to kill the terrorists

Yes every country would want to but to say it's the aim simply can't be true, unless the decision makers have practically zero knowledge of the mechanisms of terrorism and recent history. They know for an almost concrete fact that indiscriminate wide-scale bombing campaigns with large numbers of civilian casualties increase terrorist recruitment in the short terms and thus increase terrorist activity in the longer term. It is, put quite simple, pretty much the WORST plan if the aim is reducing terrorism.

And like I said there's no way they don't know that, so the only reasonable explanation is that it isn't the reason/aim. The aim is clearly to annex Gaza entirely (or to make it effectively uninhabitable, which is more or less the same thing).

Like I've said before I don't think the aim is to "kill the Muslims" per se. I don't think they particularly care if the population is dead or simply goes elsewhere. They just want them removed.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

We should clarify the situation a bit. Hamas have basically taken their own people hostage and are using them as human shields. Would any country just say, ok, we will just leave them to it. They can come back and slaughter our people, but thats just something we have to accept

Of course they wouldn't. Every country in the world would want to take out the terrorists. It's very sad if there are civilian casualties but the aim will always be to kill the terrorists

This is 100% what is happening there because Netanyahu the hospital bombing maniac, told us so. It's not like declaring it is just to relax the levels of violence permitted in that area.

Oh, and Iraq has WMD's.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

This is 100% what is happening there because Netanyahu, the hospital bombing maniac told us so. It's not like declaring it is just to relax the levels of violence permitted in that area.

Oh, and Iraq has WMD's.

Indeed - I posted a South Park clip a few pages back, proper OG South Park, Stan's uncle taking him hunting and his "it's coming right for us!" shout that allows him to legally shoot any animal.

It's literally all I can hear whenever someone says "There was Hamas in the building".

There was Hamas in the bus,
There was Hamas in the ambulances,
There was a Hamas tunnel network right under the playschool!

We literally HAD to bomb them.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Indeed - I posted a South Park clip a few pages back, proper OG South Park, Stan's uncle taking him hunting and his "it's coming right for us!" shout that allows him to legally shoot any animal.

It's literally all I can hear whenever someone says "There was Hamas in the building".

There was Hamas in the bus,
There was Hamas in the ambulances,
There was a Hamas tunnel network right under the playschool!

We literally HAD to bomb them.

Not sure if you've ever seen Brass Eye, but it reminds me of the paedophile episode, where a paedophile disguises himself as a whole school.

Youtube video

[bots]

there is hard evidence of hamas using their own people as human shields so i don't honestly know what the pair of you are babbling on about

[The Slim Reaper]

There was hard evidence of WMD's too.


Source: trust me, bro.

[Stu]

I love this fever dream that one of the most robust, well backed, intelligence based militaries in the world simply don't have the tactical nous to go in and take out strategic targets of a ramshackle, guerilla operation nowhere on their level without blowing thousands of kids heads off.

I mean based on the playbook so far I wouldn't go paintballing with the IDF.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is hard evidence of hamas using their own people as human shields so i don't honestly know what the pair of you are babbling on about

Yes there is, and I'm not saying that Hamas don't/wouldn't use their people as human shields... I'm saying that the fact that they are known for doing this makes it very easy/convenient to be able to justify ANY and ALL strikes. Hit a civilian convoy? There was Hamas in it. Bomb a block of flats and kill 50 children? One of the flats had Hamas in it.

It's a catch-all excuse that makes a mockery of the international laws designed to protect against targetting civilian targets with "a loophole". Like yeah sure have laws saying that targetting civilians is a war crime. But all you have to do to get around that is say you had intel that there was "baddies in there too" and all of a sudden, it's a legitimate target?

And even if they are - since when did we start saying "Ahh well, they were being used as a human shield" to morally justify the killing of innocent people? Imagine if the police turned up to an armed situation with a gunman holding a kid in front of them and just riddled the pair of them full of bullet holes then swaggered off saying "Ahh well, poor kid was a human shield, but we had to kill that crim!"

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Stu

I love this fever dream that one of the most robust, well backed, intelligence based militaries in the world simply don't have the tactical nous to go in and take out strategic targets of a ramshackle, guerilla operation nowhere on their level without blowing thousands of kids heads off.

I mean based on the playbook so far I wouldn't go paintballing with the IDF.

The most ludicrous claim I've seen yet was on TikTok where someone was claiming that no one should support Palestine because once Hamas "conquers Israel" they'd be coming for us in the West next(!). They said it with a straight face!! The "Army of Hamas" would invade the UK and US. .

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Yes there is, and I'm not saying that Hamas don't/wouldn't use their people as human shields... I'm saying that the fact that they are known for doing this makes it very easy/convenient to be able to justify ANY and ALL strikes. Hit a civilian convoy? There was Hamas in it. Bomb a block of flats and kill 50 children? One of the flats had Hamas in it.

It's a catch-all excuse that makes a mockery of the international laws designed to protect against targetting civilian targets with "a loophole". Like yeah sure have laws saying that targetting civilians is a war crime. But all you have to do to get around that is say you had intel that there was "baddies in there too" and all of a sudden, it's a legitimate target?

And even if they are - since when did we start saying "Ahh well, they were being used as a human shield" to morally justify the killing of innocent people? Imagine if the police turned up to an armed situation with a gunman holding a kid in front of them and just riddled the pair of them full of bullet holes then swaggered off saying "Ahh well, poor kid was a human shield, but we had to kill that crim!"

What are we classing as hard evidence?

Like you, I'm not saying they 100% haven't or wouldn't, I just haven't seen anything beyond propaganda suggesting or showing it.

Everything else, I 100% agree with.