Hamas mass-murderer Ahlam al-Tamimi

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Israel did not start this. They have been invaded several times in their history by surrounding countries and each time have had to defend themselves and annex some territory for strategic defensive purposes.

I understand the frustration regarding the West bank however I think Israel faced with such an existential threat has every right to do whatever it takes to protect themselves for the future, even if that means taking some land now. It sucks but faced with constant rhetoric about wiping them off the map driving then into the sea why should they wait for anyone else to take care of their families?

they did start it.
surrounding nations simply tried to stop them expanding their borders.
none of the land annexed has been so for strategic defense purposes, we know this because israel would still be able to defend themselves to the same standard if they stayed within their borders, and the fact they are happy to allow settlers to be there.
so it's clear that annexing land is about expansionism.
israel is not under any existential threat and has never been so in reality.
israel does not have any right to engage in ethnic cleansing, land theft, colonisation, expansionism and everything else in the aim of "deffending" themselves against a non-existent threat.

Zebra3

As regards "poor little Israel" constantly being invaded by its' Arab neighbours, let 's debunk that myth (i.e. zionist propagnda).

The first war involving Israel was when racist European colonists declared their own state on Palestinian land and ethnically cleansed 700,000 native Palestinian from their lands. Not sure how many Palestinians were raped and murdered by zionist terrorists.

The second war involving Israel was when Israel ganged up with Britain and France to attack just one Arab nation, Egypt. Why? Because Egypt wanted full sovereignty over its' own territory.

A supremacist country built on ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity didn't take long to get stuck in war crimes.

But poor little Israel against them horrible Arabs, eh? :rolleyes:

As for Hamas, well we all know the history of Hamas, don't we? Who supports the killing of all those involved in creating Hamas?

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

Israel did not start this. They have been invaded several times in their history by surrounding countries and each time have had to defend themselves and annex some territory for strategic defensive purposes.

I understand the frustration regarding the West bank however I think Israel faced with such an existential threat has every right to do whatever it takes to protect themselves for the future, even if that means taking some land now. It sucks but faced with constant rhetoric about wiping them off the map driving then into the sea why should they wait for anyone else to take care of their families?

I remember this from a few years ago

Israeli companies are using UK property shows to sell housing in illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, Guardian Unlimited can reveal. At the Israel Property Exhibition at Brent town hall, North London last Sunday, one company, Anglo-Saxon Real Estate, was offering for sale properties in Maale Adumim and Maccabim. Both West Bank settlements lie on the Palestinian side of the so-called green line, the pre-1967 boundary and often cited as the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/16/israel


"territory for strategic defensive purposes"???

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

As regards "poor little Israel" constantly being invaded by its' Arab neighbours, let 's debunk that myth (i.e. zionist propagnda).

The first war involving Israel was when racist European colonists declared their own state on Palestinian land and ethnically cleansed 700,000 native Palestinian from their lands. Not sure how many Palestinians were raped and murdered by zionist terrorists.

The second war involving Israel was when Israel ganged up with Britain and France to attack just one Arab nation, Egypt. Why? Because Egypt wanted full sovereignty over its' own territory.

A supremacist country built on ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity didn't take long to get stuck in war crimes.

But poor little Israel against them horrible Arabs, eh? :rolleyes:

As for Hamas, well we all know the history of Hamas, don't we? Who supports the killing of all those involved in creating Hamas

You conveniently omitted the 6 day war of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Are they propaganda myths as well? Both wars were started by Israel's neighbours. That makes at least 3 times that Israel was under threat of extinction. You could say they got red pilled back then and they see the enemy for what they actually like are rather than as the humble victims that they are portrayed in the media.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

You conveniently omitted the 6 day war of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Are they propaganda myths as well? Both wars were started by Israel's neighbours. That makes at least 3 times that Israel was under threat of extinction. You could say they got red pilled back then and they see the enemy for what they actually like are rather than as the humble victims that they are portrayed in the media.

I didn't conveniently omit anything.

I mentioned the first two wars involving Israel which were both started by Israel.

Meanwhile you "conveniently" have omitted to comment on Israeli crimes against humanity and Israeli war crimes, long before Israel was attacked by another country.

And no mention about Hamas now.

Do you think Israel should kill all those who were instrumental in forming Hamas? Yes or no?

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

I didn't conveniently omit anything.

I mentioned the first two wars involving Israel which were both started by Israel.

Meanwhile you "conveniently" have omitted to comment on Israeli crimes against humanity and Israeli war crimes, long before Israel was attacked by another country.

And no mention about Hamas now.

Do you think Israel should kill all those who were instrumental in forming Hamas? Yes or no?

You were referring to the war of 1948 and the suez crisis and did not refer to the 1967 or 1973 wars.

To answer your other question: No. Hamas have a political wing and should be spoken to in the same way Sinn Fein were brought to the table in the north.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

You were (...............................) north.

Any comment on this?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113995652&postcount=124

political analyst

circadian wrote: »

Yeah that first part is ****ing disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Wind up or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests#Legal_cases

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the protests were not unarmed protests but a part of an armed conflict which were used as a cover to carry out terror attacks against Israel and risk Israeli lives.

Timberrrrrrrr

political analyst wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests#Legal_cases

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the protests were not unarmed protests but a part of an armed conflict which were used as a cover to carry out terror attacks against Israel and risk Israeli lives.

Well they would say that wouldn't they?

And Wikipedia lol :rolleyes:

political analyst

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well they would say that wouldn't they?

And Wikipedia lol :rolleyes:

Wikipedia cited a source for the Israeli court judgement. Did you not bother to read the page?

Protesters were throwing missiles. For all the soldiers knew, there could have been suicide bombers in the crowd.

If the highest court says what the soldiers did was legal, then it was legal.

Zebra3

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You were referring to the war of 1948 and the suez crisis and did not refer to the 1967 or 1973 wars.

To answer your other question: No. Hamas have a political wing and should be spoken to in the same way Sinn Fein were brought to the table in the north.

Yes I referred to the fact that Israel is not some innocent victim of aggression as Israel started the first two wars it was involved in.

And of course nobody in the Israel camp wants to see all those involved in forming Hamas being killed or jailed because Israel played a large part in creating Hamas.

Something the supporters of the racist Zionists don’t want to mention.

end of the road

political analyst wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests#Legal_cases

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the protests were not unarmed protests but a part of an armed conflict which were used as a cover to carry out terror attacks against Israel and risk Israeli lives.

can be discounted given that the israely courts are never going to side with anyone but the IDF, israely people and government.
not to mention that the protesters were still civilians regardless of any judgement by the courts of the aggresser which as i said, are biassed.

political analyst

end of the road wrote: »

can be discounted given that the israely courts are never going to side with anyone but the IDF, israely people and government.
not to mention that the protesters were still civilians regardless of any judgement by the courts of the aggresser which as i said, are biassed.

That doesn't exempt them from the consequences of throwing missiles. They're what are known as 'francs-tireurs' and so it is legal to shoot them. If they hadn't been there they wouldn't have been shot.

Why do you hate the Jews?

Auguste Comte

political analyst wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests#Legal_cases

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the protests were not unarmed protests but a part of an armed conflict which were used as a cover to carry out terror attacks against Israel and risk Israeli lives.

A fascist government declaring something legal/illegal most certainly doesn't make it right. History should tell us all that.

Timberrrrrrrr

political analyst wrote: »

Wikipedia cited a source for the Israeli court judgement. Did you not bother to read the page?

Protesters were throwing missiles. For all the soldiers knew, there could have been suicide bombers in the crowd.

If the highest court says what the soldiers did was legal, then it was legal.

Do you think children in the north of Ireland should have been shot dead for trowing stones? What about the recent BLM protests? Should stone throwers have been shot by snipers?

end of the road

political analyst wrote: »

That doesn't exempt them from the consequences of throwing missiles. They're what are known as 'francs-tireurs' and so it is legal to shoot them. If they hadn't been there they wouldn't have been shot.

Why do you hate the Jews?

it does exempt them from being murdered cause expansionism however.
i don't care what they are known as by a terrorist government and their terrorist forces, that is irrelevant. what is relevant is what they actually were, and that is civilians.
the consequences of throwing "missiles" are arrest and trial.
it is not legal to murder civilians, period. it doesn't matter what stupid name the aggresser/occupier calls them in an attempt to justify slaughter for expansionist or other nonsense reasons.
if people who became victims hadn't been in the place where what happened to them happened then whatever bad thing that happened to them may not have happened to them but quite rightly that is ultimately irrelevant. it happened to them and they are still victims, suggesting otherwise is victim blaming.
you do know the jews are not one group who all think the same, feel the same things, believe the same things and have the same views on everything?
you do know that the "shur there all the same anyway" trope in the right context can be racist/phobic and even anti-semetic? so in actual fact your question of why i hate the jews, which i don't, would actually apply to you, because you are suggesting that criticism of israel based on the facts is anti-semetic which it isn't, that it equals hatred and criticism of all jews, which it doesn't, ergo in turn suggesting "shur the jews are all the same"

Zebra3

political analyst wrote: »

That doesn't exempt them from the consequences of throwing missiles. They're what are known as 'francs-tireurs' and so it is legal to shoot them. If they hadn't been there they wouldn't have been shot.

Why do you hate the Jews?

Why do you hate the Palestinian semites?

Cheerful Spring2

Deleted User wrote: »

You conveniently omitted the 6 day war of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Are they propaganda myths as well? Both wars were started by Israel's neighbours. That makes at least 3 times that Israel was under threat of extinction. You could say they got red pilled back then and they see the enemy for what they actually like are rather than as the humble victims that they are portrayed in the media.

6 day war was a preemptive strike by Israel after Egypt closed the strait of Tiran. Israel leaders admitted later they had no evidence Egypt was preparing to launch a war against them.

Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, in March 1972.

A year earlier, Mordechai Bentov, a member of the wartime government and one of 37 people to sign Israel’s Declaration of Independence, had made a similar admission. “This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon, a posteriori, to justify the annexation of new Arab territories,” he said in April 1971.

Even Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former terrorist and darling of the Israeli far right, conceded in a speech in August 1982 that “in June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/a-50-year-occupation-israels-six-day-war-started-with-a-lie/

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yes I referred to the fact that Israel is not some innocent victim of aggression as Israel started the first two wars it was involved in.

Actually that's not factually correct ,there was several countries involved in all of Israel's wars ,like that time when the king of Jordan annexed the west bank ,iran ,iraq, Syria ,Jordan , Egypt ,the British and American and Russians .

Got to love history .

political analyst

end of the road wrote: »

it does exempt them from being murdered cause expansionism however.
i don't care what they are known as by a terrorist government and their terrorist forces, that is irrelevant. what is relevant is what they actually were, and that is civilians.
the consequences of throwing "missiles" are arrest and trial.
it is not legal to murder civilians, period. it doesn't matter what stupid name the aggresser/occupier calls them in an attempt to justify slaughter for expansionist or other nonsense reasons.
if people who became victims hadn't been in the place where what happened to them happened then whatever bad thing that happened to them may not have happened to them but quite rightly that is ultimately irrelevant. it happened to them and they are still victims, suggesting otherwise is victim blaming.
you do know the jews are not one group who all think the same, feel the same things, believe the same things and have the same views on everything?
you do know that the "shur there all the same anyway" trope in the right context can be racist/phobic and even anti-semetic? so in actual fact your question of why i hate the jews, which i don't, would actually apply to you, because you are suggesting that criticism of israel based on the facts is anti-semetic which it isn't, that it equals hatred and criticism of all jews, which it doesn't, ergo in turn suggesting "shur the jews are all the same"

They're unlawful combatants, not civilians.

political analyst

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you think children in the north of Ireland should have been shot dead for trowing stones? What about the recent BLM protests? Should stone throwers have been shot by snipers?

Not the same. Northern Ireland was never an occupied or disputed territory - and neither is any part of the US - and I know that the Republic had a constitutional claim over NI but that claim never had international recognition.

end of the road

political analyst wrote: »

They're unlawful combatants, not civilians.

they're civilians, protesting in their own country against an aggressive, violent, occupying force.
it doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise, or try and justify what happened, they were civilians and were murdered.
you need to accept that the state you support, really isn't any better then those it claims to be better then, in fact in a number of ways it's way worse in terms of it's behavriour, and as we know the behaviour from some of it's neighbours is beyond contempt.

political analyst wrote: »

Not the same. Northern Ireland was never an occupied or disputed territory - and neither is any part of the US - and I know that the Republic had a constitutional claim over NI but that claim never had international recognition.

the circumstances of each case makes no difference, the question remains valid.
so, do you believe blm protesters and northern irish stone throwers fending off an aggressive force should have been slaughtered? yes or no will do.

political analyst

end of the road wrote: »

they're civilians, protesting in their own country against an aggressive, violent, occupying force.
it doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise, or try and justify what happened, they were civilians and were murdered.
you need to accept that the state you support, really isn't any better then those it claims to be better then, in fact in a number of ways it's way worse in terms of it's behavriour, and as we know the behaviour from some of it's neighbours is beyond contempt.



the circumstances of each case makes no difference, the question remains valid.
so, do you believe blm protesters and northern irish stone throwers fending off an aggressive force should have been slaughtered? yes or no will do.

Just because you say they were civilians it doesn't mean they were civilians. They moved towards the Gaza border first and so they're the aggressors. The circumstances of each case make every difference.

You and Goebbels would have gotten along splendidly.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Actually that's not factually correct ,there was several countries involved in all of Israel's wars ,like that time when the king of Jordan annexed the west bank ,iran ,iraq, Syria ,Jordan , Egypt ,the British and American and Russians .

Got to love history .

Yes, history is fascinating.

The war in 1948 started when zionist terrorists started a long, evil campaign of ethnic cleansing.

The war against Egypt in 1956 started when Israel joined with Britain and France, two other racist states, in their war crimes adventure.

Other countries may have been involved, but "poor little innocent Israel" was in at the start.

Straight in with ethnic cleansing in 48 and straight in with war crimes in 56.

Odhinn

political analyst wrote: »

They're unlawful combatants, not civilians.

They're protestors, and they've a great deal to protest about.

The IDF doing any little thing they can to make life as miserable possible for ordinary palestinians.
https://www.btselem.org/firearms/20200527_soldiers_shoot_holes_in_water_tanks_at_kafr_qadum


Of course there's a different attitude towards colonists throwing stones

On Saturday evening, 6 June 2020, at around 6:30 P.M., about five settlers were standing on a hilltop overlooking ‘Asirah al-Qibliyah. Beside them were a military jeep and several soldiers. The settlers started making their way towards houses in the village, as did the jeep. Then the settlers began throwing stones at the houses. When the residents came out to defend themselves and their property – the soldiers responded by hurling stun grenades and tear-gas canisters and firing live fire in the air.

https://www.btselem.org/settler_violence_updates/during-corona-crisis


...and theres many similar incidents on a regular basis. Two sets of laws, administered by an occupational government - apartheid, essentially.

Adam9213

political analyst wrote: »

Not the same. Northern Ireland was never an occupied or disputed territory - and neither is any part of the US - and I know that the Republic had a constitutional claim over NI but that claim never had international recognition.

" Never a disputed territory"

Do you not know the meaning of the word disputed?

Adam9213

political analyst wrote: »

Just because you say they were civilians it doesn't mean they were civilians. They moved towards the Gaza border first and so they're the aggressors. The circumstances of each case make every difference.

You and Goebbels would have gotten along splendidly.

Do you have any idea what Gaza is like? Gaza is known as the world's largest prison.

Do you expect them to just sit back in the conditions they're living in and just accept it?

This may come as a surprise to people like you but some people in this world actually have a set of balls.

biko

Adam9213 wrote: »

Do you have any idea what Gaza is like? Gaza is known as the world's largest prison.

Is it because there is a wall between Gaza and Egypt?

Although Hamas has taken several measures to boost security on the border with Egypt and prevent any attempt to infiltrate into the Egyptian territory, Egypt continues to build walls and destroy the tunnels.

Is it because Gaza has a massive obesity problem?

In the Gaza Strip, a high proportion of people suffer from obesity. “Only 18% to 25% of the Strip’s residents have a normal weight," Ata Qaisi, health care consultant and owner of Gaza City's Diet Center told Al Monitor.

hamsin

Adam9213 wrote: »

Do you have any idea what Gaza is like? Gaza is known as the world's largest prison.

With life expectancy higher than in Russia. :cool:

Timberrrrrrrr

political analyst wrote: »

Not the same. Northern Ireland was never an occupied or disputed territory - and neither is any part of the US - and I know that the Republic had a constitutional claim over NI but that claim never had international recognition.

It was literally occupied by the British army! Are you saying Palestinian children are more lethal stone throwers than Northern Irish children?