Infidel Dog

Something I always wanted to ask one of you guys. Is there any evidence of a successful, purely secular society? Seems to me when they try it, it ends in mass murder. I see on the other thread you're calling the burning down of the Catholic churches in the interior "a good start." Doesn't sound like it's going to bother you when there are people inside. So why am I to accept you as the superior and more rational moral being?

I like the idea though because it doesn't appear to involve rare earth metals. That would slow China down some.

Wouldn't that be great, but did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? Still...one can cross their fingers and hope.

Except you of course. Can Israel defend and counter-attack when attacked by Hamas or can't they. Because if, as you've appeared to claim they shouldn't then you are defending Hamas.

The psychological projection there is pretty chuckle-worthy. Might even rate a guffaw:

Ok, let's go through this and see how authoritative it actually is. First of all it's worth noting it's from Al Jazeera. It's also worth noting this all began in April during Ramadan. Escalations, confrontations and flare-ups always happen during Ramadan. Ignoring this ignores the obvious. The dispute over the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah goes back to 1948 as a lot of property disputes - not just in East Jerusalem - do. They often go before Israeli courts and the settlers don't always win. Nobody knows who actually threw the first punch (so to speak) this time either in Sheik Jarrah or the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al Jazeera is full of crap. Al Jazeera can call Hamas reacting to these two incidents by sending missiles into the populated areas of Israel "an ultimatum" all they want but it all comes down to what's clearly shown by one picture as explained in the video below: You'll notice the influencers at YouTube don't want you to see it but I'll tell you what it is. You can click it if you want. It's from Sky News in Australia and shows the missiles coming from Gaza looking to kill citizens in Israel. They are not targeting military targets. Iron Dome - Israel's missile defense system - is trying to shoot them down. That's how the military conflict actually began. Hamas attacked. Israel defended. Once military aggression is instigated counter-attack is just the way war is done. Don't want it? Don't start it?

"Exterminating" ideas sounds a lot like Cancel Culture to me.

And even if these "bad" ideas could be "exterminated" who's going to decide which ideas are bad? Lady di? No thank you.

Here's a Hamas poster encouraging people to stand on rooftops when they think Israel might want to launch a counter-attack. And apparently there are dummies that can be talked into it...unless they were herded up there.

Let's go through those 5 articles Marcus posted. He tells us we can learn something about human shields. The first one seems fair enough. Two sides went to war and both sides made claims against the other. Israel claimed Hamas used human shields. The second is from 2014. It tells us the IDF has admitted to using human shields for 5 years on 1200 occasions. It's the ol' leftie trick of lying a lot with a little bit of carefully selected truth. What they're actually talking about is what the IDF was calling "Early Warning Procedures" where they send a Palestinian in to tell the terrorists the IDF is outside and they'd be smart to just come out. It's true the IDF admitted to using the procedure 1200 times but what Marcus's socialist rag forgot to tell you was only 1 fatality resulted from those 1200 incidents. Also remember this was written in 2014. Another thing they forgot to tell you was this: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html So the "early warning procedure" ended in 2014. But that's the sort of thing Marcus is talking about when he says the IDF uses human shields. Here's a guy they claim is from Hamas giving us a little illustration of sort of thing the rest of us think of when we think of human shields: Could be false, I guess, but doesn't matter. I stand by my claim. That's the kind of thing most people think of when they think of Hamas human shields. Marcus's next link gives another example of what we think of as human shields. Remember that one where Hamas had people rushing the Israeli border to provoke an Israeli counter-attack? Marcus offers us an Al Jazeera opinion piece telling us not to believe our lying eyes on that one and apparently Marcus is impressed. The next link tells us this - "In 2005, the High Court of Justice ruled the practice unlawful, yet soldiers still occasionally used Palestinians as human shields, particularly during military operations." 2005 was about the time the second intifada was winding down. As I recall the second intifada was the one with the suicide bombers blowing up crowds in restaurants and such. Yeah, I can see the IDF say, sending a terrorist in to where they suspect a bomb might be during the second intifada. If that's still the case though or even was after 2005 Marcus hasn't shown us any evidence of it. So, is that 5? Whatever, you get the picture. Marcus offered up some twisted BS from partial factoids then puffed himself up and postured a pose thinking nobody would actually read them.

No Marcus, here's some reality: the reason people have stopped responding to you is you're beginning to sound like whatever that is at the end of the video below - entertaining but nuts.

You're such a "Joker. "

In fact in general, Myata you need to sit yourself down and have a deep think about what you mean by the word "objective." There are people, and I suspect you're one of them, who have no idea what objective really means when they consider the terms you listed - (hate, discrimination, genocide etc). Too often they only mean what somebody disagrees with. You hateful racist. (See what I mean?) If you're not free to challenge ideas you disagree with you're not free. Sure there needs to be boundaries. But your "simple" idea of where those are, are way off the mark. Here's an example for you. The Democrats and Fake Republicans thought Trump needed to be punished for what they called "inciting an insurrection" on January 6th. Others said (I would say knew) he incited nothing. Go ahead apply your "simple, objective" rules of free speech and tell me who's right. The kings of Facebook and Twitter applied theirs. Are they your model for free speech?

"Objective media report" You crack me up.

There may be arguable opportunities for finger pointing for both sides within the nuance of history but at the present calling what's happening "Apartheid" is nonsense and counter-attack can be marked off to self-defence. I won't ignore the obvious just to pander to the sanctimony of useful idiots being played by terrorists tricks of disinformation and the general agitprop coming from questionable global sources.

Neither are you. But as far as I know neither of us claimed to be. At least I didn't. My point is if somebody attacks you, you can attack back. I'm even for sucker punching them first if you're thinking an attack from them is inevitable. Not an Angel, Bud. How about you?

And if Jews are racist by the new Prog definition of racist for defending themselves from Muslim missile attacks aren't Muslims racist for attacking in the first place?

"No one informed about the situation..." ??? Gee, I hope you're not including yourself in that. Which 500 villages are these you're talking about? Are you talking about the Arab population that evacuated in 1948 under instructions from Arab invaders who planned to clean Israel out of Jews then allow return of Muslims and their Dhimmis? They lost that war. Big surprise for them but too bad, so sad. That's what happens when your invasion doesn't go according to plan. Hamas doesn't control their border from Gaza into Israel. Why should they? Egypt doesn't give them control of their border into Egypt either. They lost control of port access by bringing in Iranian munitions to attack their neighbor by sea. If Hamas doesn't want their command centers and weapons storage centers smashed they shouldn't attack a more powerful nation but they do it to get sympathy from the useful idiots by calling some hospitals and schools.

Look, you can quote commies and other far lefties at me all day. It's meaningless. We're all as capable of deciding whether a definition of a word applies to something as any of the redefiners of the far left are. I acknowledge that the left likes to canonize those two screwballs but I look at South Africa today and wonder how we're supposed to be impressed by what the shapers of the new South Africa have done. Glass houses and all that. If Israel is apartheid by the Mandela/Tutu redefinition what do we call what the new Mandela/Tutu birthed South Africa is doing to the whites and immigrant Africans in SA. I think, if Mandela and Tutu are or were redefining the word Apartheid to apply to Israel it is or was to divert attention from what they'd done to South Africa.

There's tons of evidence but how would you suggest it be given to you without the use of words? Would you prefer memes?