Jump to content

Pro-Hamas Rallies in Canada


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

But we're not talking about "active duty". You have to keep adding these qualifiers to obfuscate the fact that I'm right ans you, as always, are dumber than a donkey's dick.

 

No, active duty just means you cannot target people who are not part of the military force currently. You couldn't target civilians who had not been called up as part of the national guard or recruited. You couldn't target retired soldiers who were no longer active.

This is easily one of your stupidest dodges so far. Trying desperately to look like somehow you have a valid point by suggesting we should include non-active soldiers like retired veterans or national guard who haven't been activated or the like is purely !diotic :)

I think we can all see how desperate you are with that. In your previous comment you proved yourself entirely wrong and that the Israelis are following the law, and you can't think of any way to defend yourself so this was the best you could do  ;) 

kid, sometimes you are better off to keep your mouth shut rather than prove yourself a fool :)  For you that might turn out to be always but sometimes for sure :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Sounds like you're just lashing out because I've shown you up again. Sad.

Your keffiyeh needs a wash.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

This just means any Israeli who is a member of the IDF or security forces, whether on active duty or not, is a viable military target,

Wrong.

Israelis always wear their uniform while they're in a war zone, and engaging lawful military targets, and even during their work days back home. At any point in time while they're wearing their uniform, they're viable targets. 

Hamas attack lawful military targets while they themselves are dressed like civilians, and then they run and hide behind women and children. The dividing line between when they are/aren't lawful targets is blurred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes it's always hilarious listening to you people sneer about these rights due to an ancient 150 year old claim while jumping up and down about a 4000 year old land claim like it happened yesterday or on Oct 7th or something.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. Are you on drugs again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Black Dog said:

You don't know the backstory here, keep your yap shut.

No i don't know the back story, and i don't have to, your over reaction to every post you post to says it all....what i do know , the black dog i once knew would not get involved in post like you have in the recently. And you now sound no better than the people your conversing with...one of the reasons you left this forum was for those very reasons, and now you have become one of them. Bravo zulu.

I thought your being here would elevate the conversation, spark some meaningful debates,  instead i was wrong...your just another guy with a chip on his shoulder and access to the internet ...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2024 at 8:48 PM, eyeball said:

By the same sword, if Israelis stop beating on Palestinians...

Oh what's the use, it'll just go around and round an round again...ad nauseum.

If we just wait for them it'll be this way for generations. Peace will have to be forced on them if we ever expect this to end in our lifetimes.

You don't get it, and most Canadians are also having the same problem....you don't understand the issues, you don't understand what it takes to defend your nation from terrorist...this will never end because of the hate that is breed everyday on both sides. This will stop one side is pushed into the sea....

Peace will never be forced upon them...ever...one side will have to be destroyed for this to end, in the next couple generations...and people like you will rejoice in the streets...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kick them out. Demonstration in support of murderous Islamic Republic by terrorist lover immigrants who have their loyalty to Hamas and Islamic Republic carrying their flags on Canadian soil supporting the terrorists. 

 

I personally don't believe that multiculturalism is not working as an immigrant myself, Canada and its interests is first and foremost in my mind however, it is the Liberal approach to multiculturalism which is not working. That is opening the door to everyone and not deporting those who have their loyalties to foreign terrorist organizations. 

KICK THE TRAITORS OUT.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Black Dog said:

To Israel, a civilian apartment block that has a single Hamas member living in it is a military target, the term is utterly meaningless.

Your failure here is to understand the rules of war, and the conventions, which clearly state what can and can not be attacked, and which buildings or special areas such as ( hospitals, schools, religious sites, etc) can not be attacked, however all these sites  can loss their special status by having enemy troops operate from or near this areas, once these places have lost their status they can be attacked at will. In today's combat a drone over head can provide clearance for targets to be engaged in a matter of a couple minutes...

Or if the value of the target is worth more than the collateral damage which is often the case...( for instance a high valued target would be someone in the high chain of command or bomb maker, etc...). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your failure here is to understand the rules of war, and the conventions, which clearly state what can and can not be attacked, and which buildings or special areas such as ( hospitals, schools, religious sites, etc) can not be attacked, however all these sites  can loss their special status by having enemy troops operate from or near this areas, once these places have lost their status they can be attacked at will. In today's combat a drone over head can provide clearance for targets to be engaged in a matter of a couple minutes...

Or if the value of the target is worth more than the collateral damage which is often the case...( for instance a high valued target would be someone in the high chain of command or bomb maker, etc...). 

 

Precisely. Or as I noted if the building is being used to store military equipment or supplies. Or how's military soldiers. Etc etc

Hamas knows this. Hamas is deliberately trying to get its people killed and their homes destroyed because they believe that the international community will come out and say that what is happening to them is terrible and grant them strong political concessions and status while slapping Israel in the face.

And this is precisely what has happened before. Which is why Hamas is emboldened to behave as it does today. I'm sure they are quite shocked that the UN is not jumping up and down to give them goodies this time around.

If Israel is allowed to continue and wipes Hamas out to the best of their ability and controls Gaza to prevent a military buildup in the future then we can hope that the people of Gaza will realize that it does matter who they have as a leader and Hamas will realize that human shields and getting your own people killed while launching terrorist attacks doesn't pay very well anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

This just means any Israeli who is a member of the IDF or security forces, whether on active duty or not, is a viable military target, which I bet would include a not insignificant number of the 650 or so fighting aged civilians killed on Oct. 7.

No it's not you retarded ape, not unless they;'re actively engaged in combat at the time.

Thats not how that works...sorry...Israelis soldiers have to be in uniform or performing a military function to be targeted ...if your dressed in civvies cloths and do not have some sort of indentation that marks you as a combatant and take part in military activities, that is a war crime "see hamas".........

But Hamas has not got the guts to attack a Israelis soldier performing their duties... they prefer to attack unarmed civilians, old men and women and children they move much slower, these are known as terrorist attacks, terrorist are not afforded any protection under the Geneva convention......

No once again that is not how that works, take the hospitals that are under special protection, meaning NO military operations allowed near or in the hospital, however if you use the hospital to store weapons, munitions, military supplies, then it voids those special protection laws, and the are now can be targets for military operations...If you launch rockets next to a school it losses it's protection values, and can be targeted...if you set up a military hq's or barracks that building can be attacked...Have you read the Geneva conventions ?

The answer to your question can a hamas terrorist be targeted becasue of where he lives...Not unless he is a high valued target...if he is not then he is still subject to arrest, if he resists then force will be used, very unlikely they would waste a bomb on one person, unless he was a high value target...

 

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, active duty just means you cannot target people who are not part of the military force currently. You couldn't target civilians who had not been called up as part of the national guard or recruited. You couldn't target retired soldiers who were no longer active.

Lol again, you completely made up this "active duty" thing. There's no such distinction made in international law.

Quote

This is easily one of your stupidest dodges so far. Trying desperately to look like somehow you have a valid point by suggesting we should include non-active soldiers like retired veterans or national guard who haven't been activated or the like is purely !diotic :)

You're saying a Hamas members' house is a military objective regardless of whether that person is participating in any military operations and therefore "on active duty." You are simply too stupid to understand the implications of your own argument. Again, that's a you being stupid problem.

Quote

 

 think we can all see how desperate you are with that. In your previous comment you proved yourself entirely wrong and that the Israelis are following the law, and you can't think of any way to defend yourself so this was the best you could do  ;) 

kid, sometimes you are better off to keep your mouth shut rather than prove yourself a fool :)  For you that might turn out to be always but sometimes for sure :) 

 

New record for b!tchmad emojis here.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lol again, you completely made up this "active duty" thing. There's no such distinction made in international law.

You're saying a Hamas members' house is a military objective regardless of whether that person is participating in any military operations and therefore "on active duty." You are simply too stupid to understand the implications of your own argument. Again, that's a you being stupid problem.

New record for b!tchmad emojis here.

Yes there is in both inter national law and the conventions they state it very clearly who can be targeted and who can not...

The difference is one is a soldier, when a soldier does there duty they can be freely targeted, they must be in uniform and carrying out military operations of some sort. unless they have done something criminal then they are subject to arrest.....unless they are wounded or surrendering then treated as per the conventions. ...

A terrorist is not afforded any protections under the conventions or inter national law, except once taken prisoner they must be afforded protection. clothed and feed...terrorist are criminals and can be arrested , detained, at anytime... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lol again, you completely made up this "active duty" thing. There's no such distinction made in international law.

Sorry kid but there is, and your desperation is really showing through :) But sure, whatever.  :) 

 

Quote

You're saying a Hamas members' house is a military objective regardless of whether that person is participating in any military operations and therefore "on active duty."

Active duty simply means they're actively part of the military, not a reservist of veteran.  i'm sorry - i forgot words confuse you a lot. 

If a person is serving as a soldier in the 'gazan military' (which is just the hamas terrorist group) then he's a valid target.  Night and day. 

As far as his house goes - if it's housing militants such as himself or being used to store weapons or supplies then it's perfectly valid 

And thats the kind f thing they're blowing up. 

This is so simple anyone with an iq over 7 gets it.  Maybe find someone like that who can explain it to you in person with crayons. 

 

Quote

You are simply too stupid to understand the implications of your own argument. Again, that's a you being stupid problem.

LOL !!!!  Awww little guy  - you're always cute when you're projecting your own inadequacies on others :) 

There's no 'implications'.  If you use a building to house military goods, people, etc or if that home has a strategic value for some reason or meets any of the other criteria then it's a valid target and gets blown up.  

The "Implication" is "don't house your soldiers in civvie homes without evacuating them first. Hamas wants to get as many of their people killed as possible so they do the opposite :) 

And you're right back to the beginning - israel is only hitting military targets, your side rapes and kills women and children. You're on the wrong side bud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

My best guess is that there will be a cease-fire by the end of summer. For a few months.. relative peace. And then by late 2024.. there will be a major terrorist attack by Hamas and this debate will start over. Same people saying the same things. 

It takes a while for Hamas to accumulate 15,000 rockets, and now they know that it takes more than that to overwhelm the iron dome.

Credit where it's due, the carrier task forces parked off the coast of Lebanon might have prevented Hezbollah from firing their 150,000 rockets.

It's also possible that Lebanon knew that Israel would have launched massive strikes against them if Hezbollah was allowed to let loose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Lol again, you completely made up this "active duty" thing. There's no such distinction made in international law.

Yeah, there is, and anyone with a brain understands that.

Uniformed soldiers can be fired on. 

You fail to take into account the fact that they make legal targets of themselves by wearing that uniform - it literally says "shoot me if you can" - and by having the courage and honour to wear that uniform they are lawful combatants, thereby protected by/subject to the provisions of the Geneva conventions. 

Military bases are always legal targets, but obviously lawful soldiers who are not in uniform or on bases are not lawful targets.

And keep in mind, in order for a soldier to be considered a lawful target, it has to be a uniformed member of an actual military shooting at them. And not someone who snuck around in civies and changed into a uniform in a phone booth... A person who attacks that way is considered a spy and they aren't protected by the conventions either. They can get the death penalty for that.

Hamas doesn't send uniformed soldiers into legal battles, and they don't have military bases. So... if their "soldiers" (we both know that they're terrorists) had the protections of the Geneva conventions then technically they could never be fired on because they're never in uniform and they're never in military bases, right? 

Actual terrorists have a big advantage, in that they can walk around incognito and conduct surprise attacks, but the flipside of that is that they are legal targets for life. 

Quote

You're saying a Hamas members' house is a military objective regardless of whether that person is participating in any military operations and therefore "on active duty."

No, that wasn't what he said there.

He said that schools and hospitals lose their protected status when soldiers are using them as firing positions, bases, etc. 

Hamas terrorists are targets 24/7 as international criminals who don't have the protections of the Geneva conventions.

FWIW rank and file Hamas aren't going to be targeted at home, but people who commit a terrorist attack and then are tracked while they are trying to sneak away from the scene of a crime draw legal fire.  

One thing that you keep on trying to dodge is the fact that terrorists shouldn't shelter with innocent civilians. The last thing I'd do if I was involved in that kind of shit is bring it back on my wife and kids. 

Quote

You are simply too stupid to understand the implications of your own argument. Again, that's a you being stupid problem.

You don't even understand what you're being told, dummy.

You don't know the laws of legal warfare and you're arguing with someone who lived under them. 

And it's not like he belched out 4 concepts awash in twenty pages of legalese either, he laid it all out for you in layman's terms but you completely misinterpreted it all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Kick them out. Demonstration in support of murderous Islamic Republic by terrorist lover immigrants who have their loyalty to Hamas and Islamic Republic carrying their flags on Canadian soil supporting the terrorists. 

I personally don't believe that multiculturalism is not working as an immigrant myself, Canada and its interests is first and foremost in my mind however, it is the Liberal approach to multiculturalism which is not working. That is opening the door to everyone and not deporting those who have their loyalties to foreign terrorist organizations. 

KICK THE TRAITORS OUT.

Paul Collier wrote a book called Exodus some years ago which described the pitfalls of large scale immigration to the West from the third world. He pointed out that the degree to which immigrants assimilate is a function of the similarity of their native culture to that of the land they journey to. Thus European immigrants can immigrate into Canadian society relatively smoothly. However, the further away the culture and its values, the less likely immigrants are to adopt the ways of the new land and integrate. Instead they form diaspora communities to retain their old ways. And these diaspora communities can last generations without external pressure (of which there is currently very little in Canada). 

Bluntly speaking, the Middle Eastern Muslim communities are not going to integrate. Some individuals within might, but communities with such vastly different values, beliefs, and cultural histories are simply not going to integrate with a culture they regard as not just immoral but inferior. Especially when the cultural representatives of that (our) culture spend most of their time running their own culture down, self-accusing themselves of all manner of terrible things, and constantly apologizing to the newcomers for their shortcomings. 

We should never have taken this many Muslims in. And we should never have taken ANY Muslims in without careful screening for attitudes and beliefs. No screening is how we got the Khadrs, and how we get all these people in the streets screaming death to Jews. 

Of course, the irony is so many Jews were among the biggest supporters of immigration, and of multiculturalism and making allowances for the cultural issues involving newcomers. I guess they thought if they showed Muslims a welcoming embrace and helped them this might diffuse thousands of years of hatred. 

It didn't.

Edited by I am Groot
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It takes a while for Hamas to accumulate 15,000 rockets, and now they know that it takes more than that to overwhelm the iron dome.

Credit where it's due, the carrier task forces parked off the coast of Lebanon might have prevented Hezbollah from firing their 150,000 rockets.

It's also possible that Lebanon knew that Israel would have launched massive strikes against them if Hezbollah was allowed to let loose. 

They do not need 15,000 rockets in order to attack. They could have a far smaller number and still feel that it was worth pursuing. Again, this conflict is never going to end as long as the state of israel exists in its current state and the Palestinians think that they are the rightful masters of the same land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Bluntly speaking, the Middle Eastern Muslim communities are not going to integrate. Some individuals within might, but communities with such vastly different values, beliefs, and cultural histories are simply not going to integrate with a culture they regard as not just immoral but inferior. Especially when the cultural representatives of that (our) culture spend most of their time running their own culture down, self-accusing themselves of all manner of terrible things, and constantly apologizing to the newcomers for their shortcomings. 

The islamic superpower is claiming victim status like no other, and never accepting criticism.

The day after their terrorist attack on Oct 7th they were all out crying like professional soccer players. If you tell the truth about their prophet they cry like they've been dropped in acid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to end the court proceedings of the convoy leaders. What the Gov has allowed these terrorists supporters to get away with,is worse than anything the convoy did. Least the convoy was canadians voicing real concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, PIK said:

Least the convoy was canadians voicing real concerns.

...against the Trudeau gov't...

He's a sacred cow. Reporters get roughed up just for getting within 100 yards of Trudeau, or asking his cabinet minsters questions that they don't like. 

What were they thinking protesting the divine decrees of the golden boy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 

We should never have taken this many Muslims in. And we should never have taken ANY Muslims in without careful screening for attitudes and beliefs. No screening is how we got the Khadrs, and how we get all these people in the streets screaming death to Jews. 

 

Yes and yes. We should not have taken so many Muslim immigrants without very careful selection, The religious fanatic ones not only some support terrorism but they multiply like viruses trying to become a majority and take over

But the question remains how to fairly select those who are not religious and as good as Westerners and will positively contribute to Canadian society and its well being? I have contributed over half a million to Canadian treasury so far and educated thousands at university level to help building this country and many others will become doctors and nurses saving  many lives over years. Are you going to ban me because of where I was born for which I had no choice? and all my life have been advocating women's rights and human right and secular societies? What about all those women in Iran who are  risking their lives fighting Islamist for their rights What about highly educated Westernized people who happen to have been born in Mid East and wish to leave the Islamist territories?

Careful selection criteria. But what is the criteria and how to enforce them?

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Sure. Call it what you want. 

If you think that killing genocidal Hamas lowlifes is important, or if you love them and you think that they should be protected, I guess it makes a big difference to your "acceptable level of collateral damage" calculations.

Are we in agreement?

I doubt it, I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There are one or two people making the "4,000 years ago claim", but don't paint us all with brush. Most of us don't care about 2024 BC. 

Yup, you people are all over the map. You never seem to take the time to put a cogent consistent argument together, you're not working with any set of common facts or history and you apparently just nod, wink and like one anothers posts and points simply for the sake of disagreeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

×
×
  • Create New...