Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Holocaust deniers also, Pro-Hamas supporters etc...

So protest about the lax security that resulted in the deaths of 800 civilians, but don't protest the deaths of 13000 civilians.

For those on the 9/11 system, that's 8x vs 562x

Who is that directed at?

Just nonsensical posting.

Who expressly said Israelis protesting means nothing? Can you point out where?

Who said people representing another - or any - group is an "excuse" to murder thousands of children? Can you also point out where anyone excused the death of thousands of civilians/children?

This level of infantile nonsense is contributing exactly zero to the debate.

It's the first time I've seen someone argue that families of Israel want more bombs fired at the areas where their family members are being held.

Hamas offered to exchange hostages within a week after they were captured, Nethanyahu refused but instead started a genocide.

Surely you accept that the people who want their family members returned would have preferred he didn't act as he did but instead pushed the return of hostages.

Where did that poster argue that?

Because they did not, or anything close.

Literally pointing out a fact, that the protest is about families wanting the Government to do more in no way, shape or form says, suggests, or implies that families are demanding that Israel unload more bombs on Gaza.

Only the families can know what greater effort means. Someone pointing out that they want greater effort, whatever form that might take, is just pointing out an objective fact.

This sort of utter crap would be akin to claiming that someone taking part in a pro-palestinian march is advocating for a repeat of Oct 7th.

Could you maybe actually stop and consider what you're saying before you post such complete and utter drivel.

Sorry, but you are arguing in bad faith.

They simply stated facts, but you don't like those facts so you invented scenarios instead.

The poster pointed out an absolute fact. The protest isn't opposition to the war, it's calling for more to be done to release hostages.

They did not "imply" they are in favour of the war. They said nothing about that whatsoever. They simply stated a fact - and the fact is that the protest is calling for more to be done to free hostages, and it doesn't say anything about opposition to the war.

Are some the crowd against the war? I'm sure they are. But nobody can draw any facts from the photo save for the fact they the placards call for more action.

What does more action mean? We have no idea. Only the protestors can answer that. Yet you came along and claimed that the poster was arguing that families are calling for more bombs to be dropped!

It's complete fiction based on nothing whatsoever save your own bias.

You can dance around that simple truth whatever way you like, but it is the truth.

It's a general statement at how picky and choosy everyone is when it comes to viewing marches, reading polls, or determining a citizenry's deserved punishment for their government's actions.

What I've noticed is that people in democratic countries are excellent at distancing themselves from the actions of their governments, even though they vote for them. "Not my president" etc. or people completely separating themselves from the actions of their armies.

But at the same time, they look at authoritarian regimes where people do not have a vote and hold every citizen responsible for the actions of the government. Regular Russians and Palestinians being those people in the last couple of years, even though they don't vote for their leaders.

Polls are viewed with healthy scepticism in democratic countries because we know it depends on who runs the poll and who asks. The Express's polls are going to lean one way while the Guardian's lean another. But people latch onto any poll coming out of an authoritarian country, where you cannot get a valid poll result, and then take that result which will always support their government, and use it to justify the abuse of those people.

You're right, this doesn't really add much to the thread, but neither does 99% of the other posts here. This is a discussion forum, not Wikipedia. Go hangout there if you do not like discussion.

See previous post.

You don't get to call your opinions or those of others 'facts' just because you claim them as such to try to shut down conflicting opinions.

You literally claimed a poster said something they did not regarding the motives of the protest.

A fact is a fact. It's objective.

The fact is the protest has placards calling for more action to release hostages.

We have no idea what more action means. I wouldn't even speculate. I have no idea. Maybe it means more diplomatic effort. Maybe they want more bombs. I have no idea and I wouldn't even pretend to suppose.

Maybe every single one of those protestors is against the war. Maybe every single one is in favor. I have zero idea. Once again I wouldn't pretend otherwise, nor would I make any assumptions.

I can only go by logic and fact, and the fact is the placards call for more action. They don't say "we support the war". They don't say "drop more bombs on Gaza".

But you expressly said, the poster argued that families want more bombs to be dropped.

It's an incredibly bad faith argument with zero basis. It's nothing to do with opinion. The poster literally pointed out an actual fact. No opinion. Just fact.

Of course you could easily solve this discussion by pointing out, precisely and specifically, where the poster argued that families want more bombs dropped on Gaza by pointing out that the placards demand more action on releasing hostages, and not opposition to the war.

Can you do that? Would clear it up nicely.

The poster pointed out that the placards show they are demanding more action to free hostages. Made zero comment on what that action might be. Probably because the poster, like myself, have no idea and wouldn't presume to know.

And simply observed that they are not protesting against the war as might have been assumed from the video without that context.

It says nothing whatsoever about their stance on the actual war. The poster claimed nothing whatsoever about their motives. In fact the poster claimed nothing whatsoever, save the fact that the protest seems centered around freeing hostages.

To be quite frank, if you insist on claiming that the poster implied they expressly support the war simply by pointing out that objective fact, you have serious bias.

With that logic, any Palestinian not expressly condemning Hamas completely backs Hamas. Except no-one with a shred of logic would ever argue such a warped thing.

Sad reflection of the online world. Everything has to be binary, you're either on my side or their side. No allowance whatsoever for nuance, context, middle ground, observers, et al.

I would say I am interested in facts.

Poster saying "The crowd are carrying banners demanding more action on releasing hostages, it's not an anti-war rally".

My take on that? Poster is conveying a fact. My take on their motives or opinion on the war? None, because you can't possibly take any motive whatsoever from that apart from that they want more action on releasing hostages.

It's entirely possible every single person in that crowd is pro war or anti war. I have no idea. No-one does, except those people.

Your opionion? Poster was arguing families were demanding more bombs on Gaza and that they support the war.

Once again. That is completely a bad faith argument. Trying to dismiss it as "opinion" or "interpretation" is nonsense.

By the logic displayed in that argument, I could claim that someone holding a placard in Dublin, London, Berlin or Madrid that says "stop the killing of Palestinian children" is expressly supprorting Hamas because the placard doesn't say they don't.

But I wouldn't. Because it wouldn't make any sense. It's an absurd, bad-faith, nonsensical logic to deduce.

Also, if this march, in honor of the hostages and victims of the Hamas attack, took place in Dublin or London, it would be branded pro Israel and certainly not anti semitic. Not sure where you're getting that idea from. A bit like your claim that I "argued that families of Israel want more bombs fired at the areas where their family members are being held." when I did no such thing. Both nonsense

"This is a day of enormous joy and relief for Emily Hand and her family. An innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief. Our prayers have been answered "

Yeah, found it a bit nauseating.

Fact, she was kidnapped

despicable how?

It seems an adequate word to summarise… it’s a soundbite, he can’t do a homily.

Originally that child was reported as presumed dead. Then kidnapped.

Then unsure if she was to be released. Then on the list. Then delayed.

And finally released.

Lost to them and now found seems succinctly put.

So you mean not inflammatory enough.

You would prefer when men are lost in wars we should say slaughtered… etc.

It is deliberately chosen language to encourage peaceful resolution. To extend a cease fire and take a baby step towards stopping the killing. I call that experienced political statesmanship, not despicable.

Great news, a bit of happiness.