Israel v Hamas

Just been reading a post Reform put up on FB about this condoning it & of the reactions, 207(& counting) were the laughing emoji all with 'foreign' names. The amount of people posting were cheering it & they wern't 'foreign' names, disgusting how the left react, shouldn't be surprised really.

That's the left in a nutshell really. They champagne violence and try to rationalise it.

Perhaps it might be time to start a thread to discuss the dangerous left?
 
That's the left in a nutshell really. They champagne violence and try to rationalise it.

Perhaps it might be time to start a thread to discuss the dangerous left?
Hahaha!

What do you mean 'start a thread to discuss the dangerous left?'

There's nothing else on this site.

You do make me chuckle. 🙂🤣
 
Killing more terrorists and their support groups.
Fine. But what are your views on the tens of thousands who are not within those groups but end up collateral deaths, injuries and displaced?

It is becoming as amoral and disingenuous a defence as the standard and obvious "Jew hating" lie that Hamas bear sole responsibility for that. They are dropping no bombs from afar on Gazans.
 
Fine. But what are your views on the tens of thousands who are not within those groups but end up collateral deaths, injuries and displaced?

It is becoming as amoral and disingenuous a defence as the standard and obvious "Jew hating" lie that Hamas bear sole responsibility for that. They are dropping no bombs from afar on Gazans.
That's war for you. Hamas now have an opportunity to end it, but of course they won't because they couldn't care less about the people they purport to represent. Similarly, apologists for their terrorism continue to try to undermine any peace moves.
 
That's war for you. Hamas now have an opportunity to end it, but of course they won't because they couldn't care less about the people they purport to represent. Similarly, apologists for their terrorism continue to try to undermine any peace moves.
Am I missing something?

I thought peace missions/ceasefires were generally after negotiations between the warring parties. This seems to be: "These are the terms. If you don't accept them, then tough." End of...

Am I getting it wrong?
 
Am I missing something?

I thought peace missions/ceasefires were generally after negotiations between the warring parties. This seems to be: "These are the terms. If you don't accept them, then tough." End of...

Am I getting it wrong?
If one side is going to win, then that's about the size of it. Unconditional surrender for example. It wasn't moral - it was the inevitability of it.
 
Am I missing something?

I thought peace missions/ceasefires were generally after negotiations between the warring parties. This seems to be: "These are the terms. If you don't accept them, then tough." End of...

Am I getting it wrong?
Yes, of course you, and all the other apologists, are getting it wrong.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top