Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license,
I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was when the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas aterrorist organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be taken to court
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license,
I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become
increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been
anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke.
Hi,when the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license, I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be taken to court
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license,
I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become
increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it
has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke.
The last straw was when the BBC could not bring themselves
to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the
Western world doing so. My question is how can I register
my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in
thinking that at seventy-seven years of age that I would
be unlikely to be taken to court
Hi,when the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license, I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be taken to court
Hi,when the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license, I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be taken to court
Aren't you eligible for a free TV licence?
Why do you want the BBC to refer to Hamas as terrorist? Is it to relieve
you of the need to consider what their motivations might have been?
Relieve you of the need to consider Palestinians as humans? Humans, as
they are slaughtered and oppressed, from the river to the sea?
Hi,when the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license, I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be taken to court
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the channel
then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the TV. The law
has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged in and ready to
go but not necessarily on!...
<clemence.john@gmail.com> wrote in message news:08f81ad0-d5b5-4651-9b2c-d5226c22ea55n@googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license,
I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become
increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it
has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke.
The last straw was when the BBC could not bring themselves
to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the
Western world doing so. My question is how can I register
my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
If your only objection is to BBC News programmes, which only
take up a very small percentage of air-time, then I can't
see you've got much to complain about, quite frankly.
All the rest of the time you can watch hours of TV without
having programmes interrupted by mind numbing commercials,
often for mattresses. Is there anyone left in the UK
by now, who doesn't yet know about Dormeo mattresses ?
On 02/11/2023 08:28, Pancho wrote:
Why do you want the BBC to refer to Hamas as terrorist? Is it to relieve
you of the need to consider what their motivations might have been?
Relieve you of the need to consider Palestinians as humans? Humans, as
they are slaughtered and oppressed, from the river to the sea?
I have no doubt Hamas is a terrorist organisation. None of what you have written about the grievances of the Palestinians suggests otherwise.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
<clemence.john@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08f81ad0-d5b5-4651-9b2c-d5226c22ea55n@googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license,
I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become
increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it
has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke.
The last straw was when the BBC could not bring themselves
to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the
Western world doing so. My question is how can I register
my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
If your only objection is to BBC News programmes, which only
take up a very small percentage of air-time, then I can't
see you've got much to complain about, quite frankly.
All the rest of the time you can watch hours of TV without
having programmes interrupted by mind numbing commercials,
often for mattresses. Is there anyone left in the UK
by now, who doesn't yet know about Dormeo mattresses ?
Erm, me? Is there something important I have missed? (I assume not).
On 02/11/2023 08:28, Pancho wrote:
Why do you want the BBC to refer to Hamas as terrorist? Is it to
relieve you of the need to consider what their motivations might have
been? Relieve you of the need to consider Palestinians as humans?
Humans, as they are slaughtered and oppressed, from the river to the sea?
I have no doubt Hamas is a terrorist organisation. None of what you have written about the grievances of the Palestinians suggests otherwise.
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
On 02/11/2023 in message <ui18kj$2e7p0$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
In English law Hamas is a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266038/List_of_Proscribed_organisations.pdf
As such the best way to describe them could be a "proscribed terrorist organisation".
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
On 01/11/2023 21:25, clemence.john@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license, I am 77
years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly
disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti
establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was when
the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas a terrorist
organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question
is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking
that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be
taken to court
I stopped paying for a TV Licence 2 years ago because of the reasons you quote. As long as you don't watch live TV or stream BBC including BBC iPlayer, you're fine.
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
On 02/11/2023 in message <ui18kj$2e7p0$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
In English law Hamas is a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266038/List_of_Proscribed_organisations.pdf
As such the best way to describe them could be a "proscribed terrorist organisation".
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
On 3 Nov 2023 at 08:35:08 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 02/11/2023 in message <ui18kj$2e7p0$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
In English law Hamas is a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act >>2000:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266038/List_of_Proscribed_organisations.pdf
As such the best way to describe them could be a "proscribed terrorist >>organisation".
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how >>badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
If we were Russia or China it would be compulsory for news organisations to >toe the government line on foreign policy and government description of >foreign and opposition politicians. But since we're not, why do you expect
an
independent news organisation to do so?
On 03/11/2023 in message <kqjupmF1n6vU1@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 08:35:08 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 02/11/2023 in message <ui18kj$2e7p0$1@dont-email.me> Pancho wrote:
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
In English law Hamas is a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act >>> 2000:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266038/List_of_Proscribed_organisations.pdf
As such the best way to describe them could be a "proscribed terrorist
organisation".
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
If we were Russia or China it would be compulsory for news organisations to >> toe the government line on foreign policy and government description of
foreign and opposition politicians. But since we're not, why do you expect >> an
independent news organisation to do so?
I was merely making a suggestion that might work for everybody. It is a government minister who complained I think.
I was merely making a suggestion that might work for everybody. It is a >>government minister who complained I think.
Well it wouldn't work for me. I understand that there is really no such
thing
as unbiassed news, but if I thought a news organisation was obliged to just >repeat government propaganda I would have even less trust in the honesty of >its news reporting.
In the real world a designation of being a terrorist organisation is not >factual information it is a political opinion. Whether or not I share that >opinion does not change that.
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
On 03/11/2023 in message <kqk27dF2c34U1@mid.individual.net> Roger Hayter wrote:
I was merely making a suggestion that might work for everybody. It is a
government minister who complained I think.
Well it wouldn't work for me. I understand that there is really no such
thing
as unbiassed news, but if I thought a news organisation was obliged to just >> repeat government propaganda I would have even less trust in the honesty of >> its news reporting.
In the real world a designation of being a terrorist organisation is not
factual information it is a political opinion. Whether or not I share that >> opinion does not change that.
Except that in English law it is factually correct to describe Hamas as a "proscribed terrorist organisation" because our law describes it as such.
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is
not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews. That wish has been stated repeatedly for many years - for example:
'Haj Amin al-Husseini [Muslim leader in Palestine] said in March 1948 to
an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not
intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until
the Zionists were annihilated."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
There's similar in the Hamas constitution.
A 2 state Palestine ought to be workable, but not easily with such
attitudes, unfortunately.
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kqhnflFhjcuU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
<clemence.john@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08f81ad0-d5b5-4651-9b2c-d5226c22ea55n@googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license,
I am 77 years old and for the last few years I have become
increasingly disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it
has been anti establishment, left wing and extremely woke.
The last straw was when the BBC could not bring themselves
to call Hamas a terrorist organisation despite most of the
Western world doing so. My question is how can I register
my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
If your only objection is to BBC News programmes, which only
take up a very small percentage of air-time, then I can't
see you've got much to complain about, quite frankly.
All the rest of the time you can watch hours of TV without
having programmes interrupted by mind numbing commercials,
often for mattresses. Is there anyone left in the UK
by now, who doesn't yet know about Dormeo mattresses ?
Erm, me? Is there something important I have missed? (I assume not).
There's loads of different features and benefits*. Just watch "Talking Pictures TV" for a bit. Channel 82 on Freeview
Who do feature some interesting old films - and usually with added
subtitles 24 hours a day - around the only 24 hour channel ** - and all financed by mattress ads And with comprehensive listings as well;
date director stars and plot for every single film, Unlike the BBC
who nowadays treat viewers like children.
bb
* One big USP seems to be that they deliver them rolled up to
your door. Quite what you're supposed to do with the old mattress
isn't shown on the TV. Possibly waiting until it gets dark and
then dumping them around the corner.
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is
not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews.
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is
not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews.
That seems rather a big reach. Do you have any evidence that that is
what the majority of people mean when they say it? Especially in this country? I seem to recall Suella Braverman has also made this claim,
which means my starting position is that it's almost certainly false.
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how >>badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is not >quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate the >Jews. That wish has been stated repeatedly for many years - for example:
'Haj Amin al-Husseini [Muslim leader in Palestine] said in March 1948 to
an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend >merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the
Zionists were annihilated."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
There's similar in the Hamas constitution.
A 2 state Palestine ought to be workable, but not easily with such
attitudes, unfortunately.
On 03/11/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how >>>> badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is
not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews.
That seems rather a big reach. Do you have any evidence that that is
what the majority of people mean when they say it? Especially in this
country? I seem to recall Suella Braverman has also made this claim,
which means my starting position is that it's almost certainly false.
I hope we can agree that 'from the river to the sea' does not envisage a two-state solution, but I suppose different people can interpret the
phrase as they wish.
It would be true to say that Hamas is proscribed by the British government, but there seems to no obvious reason to mention it every time Hamas is referred to.
On 03/11/2023 in message <ui2qdq$2pipv$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is not >> quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate the
Jews. That wish has been stated repeatedly for many years - for example:
'Haj Amin al-Husseini [Muslim leader in Palestine] said in March 1948 to
an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend >> merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the
Zionists were annihilated."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
There's similar in the Hamas constitution.
A 2 state Palestine ought to be workable, but not easily with such
attitudes, unfortunately.
It is really important we don't confuse Hamas with the Palestinian people
who probably just want to live in peace somewhere they won't be bombed and their olive groves won't be burned. It seems to me Hamas is pretty well
the equivalent of the Israeli settlers living in Palestinian territory and some of whom are happy to attack Palestinian civilians.
I think we should also be careful of equating "Israeli" with "Jew", 20% of the people living in Israel are Muslim (I have no idea if they can or do
call themselves Israeli).
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how >>>>> badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is >>>> not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews.
That seems rather a big reach. Do you have any evidence that that is
what the majority of people mean when they say it? Especially in this
country? I seem to recall Suella Braverman has also made this claim,
which means my starting position is that it's almost certainly false.
I hope we can agree that 'from the river to the sea' does not envisage a
two-state solution, but I suppose different people can interpret the
phrase as they wish.
I don't think it necessarily says anything about how many states there
should be, nor what kind of states (except they should not be unjust).
I think we should also be careful of equating "Israeli" with "Jew",
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and
how badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is
not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews.
example:
'Haj Amin al-Husseini [Muslim leader in Palestine] said in March 1948 to
an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not
intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until
the Zionists were annihilated."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
There's similar in the Hamas constitution.
A 2 state Palestine ought to be workable, but not easily with such
attitudes, unfortunately.
Pancho wrote:
Do you think the BBC should call Hamas terrorist, if so why?
What's the difference between Boko Haram and Hamas?
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07j7011>
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate the Jews.
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the channel
then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the TV. The
law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged in and
ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French TV.
I must clear out some of the junk one day.
Viewing the government's propaganda department as "anti-establishment"
is an... interesting... viewpoint.
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the channel
then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the TV. The
law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged in and
ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French TV.
I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for reception in
the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast from
outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or
distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed
programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as sporting
events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-live -online-and-on-mobile
On 03/11/2023 16:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 13:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how >>>>>> badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is >>>>> not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate >>>>> the Jews.
That seems rather a big reach. Do you have any evidence that that is
what the majority of people mean when they say it? Especially in this
country? I seem to recall Suella Braverman has also made this claim,
which means my starting position is that it's almost certainly false.
I hope we can agree that 'from the river to the sea' does not envisage a >>> two-state solution, but I suppose different people can interpret the
phrase as they wish.
I don't think it necessarily says anything about how many states there
should be, nor what kind of states (except they should not be unjust).
Maybe, it's just an instruction for google maps? 'from the river to the
sea'- how long will it take, given current traffic?
That's about as likely as your suggestion.
I'm sure that wasn't what MP Andy McDonald had in mind, and he took the trouble to make that clear. One suspects that if a Labour MP wished for "World Peace and an end to hunger", Kier would suspend them for denying Israel its divine right to lay their vengeance upon Gaza.
Was Greta's toy comforter, that looked like an octopus, also a coded
message to kill all Jews?
My suggestion is *vastly* more likely than your suggestion that
there have been hundreds of thousands of people across Europe
participating in marches explicitly calling for the extermination
of the Jews - which is an utterly ludicrous idea.
On 2023-11-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
I'm sure that wasn't what MP Andy McDonald had in mind, and he took the
trouble to make that clear. One suspects that if a Labour MP wished for
"World Peace and an end to hunger", Kier would suspend them for denying
Israel its divine right to lay their vengeance upon Gaza.
Was Greta's toy comforter, that looked like an octopus, also a coded
message to kill all Jews?
It's a bit concerning if so, because my children have the exact same toy,
and I would hate to have to turn them in for re-education.
On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 15:17:13 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I think we should also be careful of equating "Israeli" with "Jew",
Isn't that in and of itself "anti-Semitic" ?
I am not a big fan of Israel and some of it's actions. But can't say it
out loud obviously.
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the
TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged
in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast
from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or
distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed
programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as
sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l
ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
On 03/11/2023 19:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
I'm sure that wasn't what MP Andy McDonald had in mind, and he took the
trouble to make that clear. One suspects that if a Labour MP wished for
"World Peace and an end to hunger", Kier would suspend them for denying
Israel its divine right to lay their vengeance upon Gaza.
Was Greta's toy comforter, that looked like an octopus, also a coded
message to kill all Jews?
It's a bit concerning if so, because my children have the exact same toy,
and I would hate to have to turn them in for re-education.
I feel that I am being put at an unfair disadvantage here, as I have not
the faintest idea what "Greta's toy comforter" is, except that it
apparently "looked like an octopus".
That raises the question of what it looks like now, and how it changes
its shape?
On 03/11/2023 19:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My suggestion is *vastly* more likely than your suggestion that
there have been hundreds of thousands of people across Europe
participating in marches explicitly calling for the extermination
of the Jews - which is an utterly ludicrous idea.
There's an Al Jazeera article about it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
It means different things to different people.
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the
TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged
in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast
from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or
distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed
programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as
sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l
ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
On 3 Nov 2023 at 16:51:29 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Well not in the Labour Party you can't. Any criticism of Israel's
actions is anti-semitic
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:I feel that I am being put at an unfair disadvantage here, as I have
I'm sure that wasn't what MP Andy McDonald had in mind, and he took
the trouble to make that clear. One suspects that if a Labour MP
wished for "World Peace and an end to hunger", Kier would suspend
them for denying Israel its divine right to lay their vengeance upon
Gaza.
Was Greta's toy comforter, that looked like an octopus, also a coded
message to kill all Jews?
It's a bit concerning if so, because my children have the exact same
toy,
and I would hate to have to turn them in for re-education.
not the faintest idea what "Greta's toy comforter" is, except that it
apparently "looked like an octopus".
That raises the question of what it looks like now, and how it changes
its shape?
It doesn't change shape, but it does turn inside out (like a reversible jacket), changing between a pink happy octopus and a blue sad octopus. I
have heard that autistic people can use them to indicate emotions,
although we got it just because it was a fun toy that our child wanted.
Some people claimed Greta's video was "anti-semitic" because there was
an octopus toy in the background of wherever she was filming, and it
seems that octopuses are secretly anti-semitic symbols. (Just as
Christmas hats are secretly Palestinian flags, apparently.)
Some people claimed Greta's video was "anti-semitic" because there was
an octopus toy in the background of wherever she was filming, and it
seems that octopuses are secretly anti-semitic symbols.
I feel that I am being put at an unfair disadvantage here, as I have not
the faintest idea what "Greta's toy comforter" is, except that it
apparently "looked like an octopus".
That raises the question of what it looks like now, and how it changes
its shape?
It doesn't change shape, but it does turn inside out (like a reversible jacket), changing between a pink happy octopus and a blue sad octopus.
I have heard that autistic people can use them to indicate emotions,
although we got it just because it was a fun toy that our child wanted.
Some people claimed Greta's video was "anti-semitic" because there was
an octopus toy in the background of wherever she was filming, and it
seems that octopuses are secretly anti-semitic symbols. (Just as
Christmas hats are secretly Palestinian flags, apparently.)
And until we can return to an objective dictionary definition of words,
we are forever going to be in the thrall of the next bunch of chancers
who have mischief to spread.
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My suggestion is *vastly* more likely than your suggestion that
there have been hundreds of thousands of people across Europe
participating in marches explicitly calling for the extermination
of the Jews - which is an utterly ludicrous idea.
There's an Al Jazeera article about it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
It means different things to different people.
So... I was right? ;-)
On 03/11/2023 22:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 19:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My suggestion is *vastly* more likely than your suggestion that
there have been hundreds of thousands of people across Europe
participating in marches explicitly calling for the extermination
of the Jews - which is an utterly ludicrous idea.
There's an Al Jazeera article about it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
It means different things to different people.
So... I was right? ;-)
It clearly does mean different things to different people, and the authorities in several European countries are taking a dim view of it:
"Austrian police took a similar stance, banning a pro-Palestine protest
on the basis of the chant and claiming that the slogan, originally
formulated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), had been
adopted by the armed group Hamas. German authorities declared the slogan forbidden and indictable and called on schools in the capital, Berlin,
to ban the use of keffiyehs, the Palestinian scarf."
From my POV, the key point in the article is this one:
"Upon its creation by diaspora Palestinians in 1964 under the leadership
of Yasser Arafat, the PLO called for the establishment of a single state
that extend from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to encompass
its historic territories."
Unless you can see how a single state with both Jews and Palestinians is possible in the reasonably foreseeable future, how do you interpret that?
In the meantime, a two state solution seems workable, but the UN has
been pushing that for 75 years, without success.
Netanyahu's attitude is simple enough: We can't make peace with these people, unfortunately, so the weaker they are the less trouble they can cause.
Unless you can see how a single state with both Jews and Palestinians
is possible in the reasonably foreseeable future, how do you interpret
that?
I see it as very similar to apartheid South Africa. Israel gives up
being a racist ethnocracy, a "Jewish State", and transforms to a
democracy, with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians. Seems like a
good idea to me.
In the meantime, a two state solution seems workable, but the UN has
been pushing that for 75 years, without success.
I think the idea of a two-state solution died, when Israel sliced up and colonised the West Bank.
Nowadays, the two-state solution just seems to
be some nonsense that politicians spout in order to avoid acknowledging reality.
Netanyahu's attitude is simple enough: We can't make peace with these
people, unfortunately, so the weaker they are the less trouble they
can cause.
But you seem to be accusing the Palestinians of wanting to do the same
thing, while at the same time suggesting it is morally "wrong".
There just seems to be the most astonishing double standard,
On 03/11/2023 22:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I feel that I am being put at an unfair disadvantage here, as I have not >>> the faintest idea what "Greta's toy comforter" is, except that it
apparently "looked like an octopus".
That raises the question of what it looks like now, and how it changes
its shape?
It doesn't change shape, but it does turn inside out (like a reversible
jacket), changing between a pink happy octopus and a blue sad octopus.
I have heard that autistic people can use them to indicate emotions,
although we got it just because it was a fun toy that our child wanted.
Some people claimed Greta's video was "anti-semitic" because there was
an octopus toy in the background of wherever she was filming, and it
seems that octopuses are secretly anti-semitic symbols. (Just as
Christmas hats are secretly Palestinian flags, apparently.)
Thank you for explaining so patiently.
I am not aware of any antisemitic Christmas hats, although it would be possible to produce one, I dare say. Similarly, a Christmas hat in the colours of the Palestinian flag could easily be made, although I would
not regard that as antisemitic. It might offend a religious Muslim, though.
A green Christmas hat covered in rather loopy white writing could easily
be mistaken as support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, so be
careful what you buy in the market this Christmas.
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the
TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged
in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast
from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or
distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed
programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as
sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l
ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
On 2023-11-03, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That completely ignores the reasons the organisation was formed and how
badly Israel has treated Palestinians for many years of course.
I agree that the Palestinians have had a very rough deal. But, that is
not quite the whole story.
The phrase 'from the river to the sea' implies the wish to annihilate
the Jews.
That seems rather a big reach. Do you have any evidence that that is
what the majority of people mean when they say it? Especially in this country?
I seem to recall Suella Braverman has also made this claim,
which means my starting position is that it's almost certainly false.
On 03/11/2023 08:57 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the >>>>>> TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged >>>>>> in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast >>>> from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or >>>> distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed
programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as
sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l
ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
The only channels in the news section of Freeview are BBC News, BBC Parliament, Sky News, Al Jazeera, GB News and Talk TV.
On 04/11/2023 14:44, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:57 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the >>>>>>> TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged >>>>>>> in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast >>>>> from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or >>>>> distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed >>>>> programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as
sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l >>>>> ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
In parts of the country closest to France it may be possible to receive
the broadcasts direct, if you have a suitable TV set, just as it is
possible to watch UK TV in near parts of continental Europe.
On 2023-11-04, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:watching-l
On 04/11/2023 14:44, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:57 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of >>>>>>>> the TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are >>>>>>>> plugged in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French >>>>>>> TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for >>>>>> reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes
broadcast from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are
broadcast or distributed from. This includes satellite or >>>>>> online streamed programmes from outside the UK or Channel >>>>>> Islands, such as sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/
ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
In parts of the country closest to France it may be possible to receive
the broadcasts direct, if you have a suitable TV set, just as it is
possible to watch UK TV in near parts of continental Europe.
Indeed. I was in Kent recently, and my phone connected to a French
mobile network! Fortunately, of course, due to our membership of the EU,
this did not cause me to incur any extra charg... oh, wait.
On 04/11/2023 14:44, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:57 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the >>>>>>> TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged >>>>>>> in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast >>>>> from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or >>>>> distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed >>>>> programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as
sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l >>>>> ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
In parts of the country closest to France it may be possible to receive
the broadcasts direct, if you have a suitable TV set, just as it is
possible to watch UK TV in near parts of continental Europe.
The only channels in the news section of Freeview are BBC News, BBC
Parliament, Sky News, Al Jazeera, GB News and Talk TV.
On 2023-11-04, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 04/11/2023 14:44, JNugent wrote:
On 03/11/2023 08:57 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of the >>>>>>>> TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are plugged >>>>>>>> in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French >>>>>>> TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for >>>>>> reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes broadcast
from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast or
distributed from. This includes satellite or online streamed >>>>>> programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands, such as >>>>>> sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-l >>>>>> ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World News
tv channel.
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
In parts of the country closest to France it may be possible to receive
the broadcasts direct, if you have a suitable TV set, just as it is
possible to watch UK TV in near parts of continental Europe.
Indeed. I was in Kent recently, and my phone connected to a French
mobile network! Fortunately, of course, due to our membership of
the EU, this did not cause me to incur any extra charg... oh, wait.
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would be true to say that Hamas is proscribed by the British
government,
but there seems to no obvious reason to mention it every time Hamas is
referred to.
The OP's issue is that the BBC don't ever refer to Hamas as terrorists.
Yet, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they don't shrink from describing Boko Haram as terrorists, eg "Boko Haram, one of the world's deadliest terrorist groups"**
So, the logical steps are:
1. The BBC is prepared to describe some groups as terrorists..
2. Hamas are terrorists.
3. So, why does the BBC treat Hamas differently from Boko Haram?
Anyone?
** https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07j7011
On 04/11/2023 12:01, Pancho wrote:
Unless you can see how a single state with both Jews and Palestinians
is possible in the reasonably foreseeable future, how do you
interpret that?
I see it as very similar to apartheid South Africa. Israel gives up
being a racist ethnocracy, a "Jewish State", and transforms to a
democracy, with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians. Seems like a
good idea to me.
Why do you single out Israel as a racist ethnocracy, but not Iran, or
Saudi Arabia, for example?
Supposing the borders open, and however many million Palestinians enter Israel and ... what, exactly? Where will they live? What jobs will they
do? And, everyone will get along and live happily ever after?
You are not being very practical.
In the meantime, a two state solution seems workable, but the UN has
been pushing that for 75 years, without success.
I think the idea of a two-state solution died, when Israel sliced up
and colonised the West Bank.
Without looking it up, what percentage of the West Bank land do you
think has Jewish settlements on it?
Nowadays, the two-state solution just seems to be some nonsense that
politicians spout in order to avoid acknowledging reality.
Netanyahu's attitude is simple enough: We can't make peace with
these people, unfortunately, so the weaker they are the less trouble
they can cause.
But you seem to be accusing the Palestinians of wanting to do the same
thing, while at the same time suggesting it is morally "wrong".
There just seems to be the most astonishing double standard,
You have clearly misunderstood me.
On 03/11/2023 08:57 pm, Pamela wrote:one/topics/watching
On 18:54 3 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 03/11/2023 13:21, Pamela wrote:
On 12:49 2 Nov 2023, Colin Bignell said:
On 02/11/2023 09:16, Omega wrote: .....
If your intention is to never watch television, whatever the
channel then unplug both mains and aerial leads and get rid of
the TV. The law has been known to get a bit vague when TVs are
plugged in and ready to go but not necessarily on!...
One of my TVs is only analogue, the other only works with French
TV. I must clear out some of the junk one day.
You still need a license if you watch live TV from any source
including satellite channels (whether or not they are intended for
reception in the UK). See:
"Do I need a TV Licence to watch satellite programmes
broadcast from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence no matter where they are broadcast
or distributed from. This includes satellite or online
streamed programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands,
such as sporting events and foreign shows."
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
-l ive -online-and-on-mobile
The analogue TV simply won't pick anything up and nobody in their
right mind would want to watch French TV. I only had the set in
France to watch DVDs. However, I do have a TV licence, as I
occasionally watch BBC iPlayer.
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24, France's
international service in English. I prefer it to the BBC's World
News tv channel.
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
The only channels in the news section of Freeview are BBC News, BBC Parliament, Sky News, Al Jazeera, GB News and Talk TV.
On 04/11/2023 12:01, Pancho wrote:
Unless you can see how a single state with both Jews and Palestinians
is possible in the reasonably foreseeable future, how do you
interpret that?
I see it as very similar to apartheid South Africa. Israel gives up
being a racist ethnocracy, a "Jewish State", and transforms to a
democracy, with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians. Seems like a
good idea to me.
Why do you single out Israel as a racist ethnocracy, but not Iran, or
Saudi Arabia, for example?
Supposing the borders open, and however many million Palestinians enter Israel and ... what, exactly? Where will they live? What jobs will they
do? And, everyone will get along and live happily ever after?
You are not being very practical.
;
In the meantime, a two state solution seems workable, but the UN has
been pushing that for 75 years, without success.
I think the idea of a two-state solution died, when Israel sliced up
and colonised the West Bank.
Without looking it up, what percentage of the West Bank land do you
think has Jewish settlements on it?
JNugent said:
Pamela wrote:
I don't suppose your old telly receives France 24
Isn't that only available via Sky (or cable, I suppose)?
The only channels in the news section of Freeview are BBC News, BBC
Parliament, Sky News, Al Jazeera, GB News and Talk TV.
I get France 24 from the Eutelsat "Hotbird"
On 03/11/2023 15:31, GB wrote:
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would be true to say that Hamas is proscribed by the British
government,
but there seems to no obvious reason to mention it every time Hamas is
referred to.
The OP's issue is that the BBC don't ever refer to Hamas as
terrorists. Yet, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they don't
shrink from describing Boko Haram as terrorists, eg "Boko Haram, one
of the world's deadliest terrorist groups"**
So, the logical steps are:
1. The BBC is prepared to describe some groups as terrorists..
2. Hamas are terrorists.
3. So, why does the BBC treat Hamas differently from Boko Haram?
Anyone?
** https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07j7011
One of the definitions of a terrorist group is that it isn't aligned
with a state. This has already been mentioned.
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Gazza Strip and so how can
they be terrorists when they attack those who have occupied their
(perceived or otherwise) land?
Whereas Irgun and Lehi were by definition terrorists and just goes to
show that terrorism pays off. All you need is a just cause, such as the liberation of an oppressed minority, Nelson Mandela would surely agree.
Ah yes, another successful terrorist.
On 03/11/2023 15:31, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
One of the definitions of a terrorist group is that it isn't aligned
with a state
On 04/11/2023 21:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/11/2023 15:31, GB wrote:
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would be true to say that Hamas is proscribed by the British
government,
but there seems to no obvious reason to mention it every time Hamas is >>> referred to.
The OP's issue is that the BBC don't ever refer to Hamas as
terrorists. Yet, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they don't
shrink from describing Boko Haram as terrorists, eg "Boko Haram, one
of the world's deadliest terrorist groups"**
So, the logical steps are:
1. The BBC is prepared to describe some groups as terrorists..
2. Hamas are terrorists.
3. So, why does the BBC treat Hamas differently from Boko Haram?
Anyone?
** https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07j7011
One of the definitions of a terrorist group is that it isn't alignedIf that were the BBC's justification, it might have some merit. But, it isn't. The reason they give is that they don't want to be seen to be
with a state. This has already been mentioned.
taking sides.
So, that takes us back full circle. Why are they prepared to take sides against Boko Haram?
On 03/11/2023 15:31, GB wrote:
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider.
Whereas Irgun and Lehi were by definition terrorists and just goes to
show that terrorism pays off. All you need is a just cause, such as the
liberation of an oppressed minority, Nelson Mandela would surely agree.
Ah yes, another successful terrorist.
You may have a good historical point there, but what about the here and now?
On 03/11/2023 15:31, GB wrote:
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but when
you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider.
A view which is supported by many in the free world.
Whereas Irgun and Lehi were by definition terrorists and just goes to
show that terrorism pays off. All you need is a just cause, such as the
liberation of an oppressed minority, Nelson Mandela would surely agree.
Ah yes, another successful terrorist.
You may have a good historical point there, but what about the here and now?
And then, of course, there was Israel's own Menachem Begin.
But on top of that there is still the illegal occupation by Israel.
"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" - Thomas Jefferson
On 04/11/2023 21:58, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/11/2023 15:31, GB wrote:
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would be true to say that Hamas is proscribed by the British
government,
but there seems to no obvious reason to mention it every time Hamas is >>>> referred to.
The OP's issue is that the BBC don't ever refer to Hamas as
terrorists. Yet, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they don't
shrink from describing Boko Haram as terrorists, eg "Boko Haram, one
of the world's deadliest terrorist groups"**
So, the logical steps are:
1. The BBC is prepared to describe some groups as terrorists..
2. Hamas are terrorists.
3. So, why does the BBC treat Hamas differently from Boko Haram?
Anyone?
** https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07j7011
One of the definitions of a terrorist group is that it isn't aligned
with a state. This has already been mentioned.
If that were the BBC's justification, it might have some merit. But, it isn't. The reason they give is that they don't want to be seen to be
taking sides.
So, that takes us back full circle. Why are they prepared to take sides against Boko Haram?
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Gazza Strip and so how can
they be terrorists when they attack those who have occupied their
(perceived or otherwise) land?
When it suits people on this NG, Hamas is the legitimate government of
Gaza.
When it suits people to absolve the ordinary Gazan population for
any responsibility for what Hamas do, then we are told the elections are rigged, etc, so Hamas is not the legitimate government of Gaza.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but
when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider.
Whereas Irgun and Lehi were by definition terrorists and just goes to
show that terrorism pays off. All you need is a just cause, such as
the liberation of an oppressed minority, Nelson Mandela would surely
agree. Ah yes, another successful terrorist.
You may have a good historical point there, but what about the here and
now?
On 05/11/2023 10:43, GB wrote:
On 04/11/2023 21:58, Fredxx wrote:
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Gazza Strip and so how can
they be terrorists when they attack those who have occupied their
(perceived or otherwise) land?
When it suits people on this NG, Hamas is the legitimate government of
Gaza.
Simply not true. Most here don't approve of the fire-bombing of Dresden
and other cities in WW2.
I don't approve of Hamas targeting anyone who is unlikely to be an
Israeli reservist such as children and women with children or the over
40s. You may have forgotten that until recently the US regarded any man
of military age in a conflict zone an enemy combatant and not to be
treated as a civilian.
When it suits people to absolve the ordinary Gazan population for
any responsibility for what Hamas do, then we are told the elections are
rigged, etc, so Hamas is not the legitimate government of Gaza.
It is unreasonable to hold a whole population responsible, and
ethnically cleanse a country of a race you don't like on account of the actions of the ruling party.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate
government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
Some might call it a terrorist act, others a war. It is time to make up
your mind. It is friends of Israel who want to annihilate and bomb
refugee camps in Gazza rather than giving them a homeland.
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but
when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider.
What legitimacy?
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but >>> when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider.
What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
On 2023-11-06, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 05/11/2023 10:43, GB wrote:
On 04/11/2023 21:58, Fredxx wrote:
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Gazza Strip and so how can
they be terrorists when they attack those who have occupied their
(perceived or otherwise) land?
When it suits people on this NG, Hamas is the legitimate government of
Gaza.
Simply not true. Most here don't approve of the fire-bombing of Dresden
and other cities in WW2.
I don't approve of Hamas targeting anyone who is unlikely to be an
Israeli reservist such as children and women with children or the over
40s. You may have forgotten that until recently the US regarded any man
of military age in a conflict zone an enemy combatant and not to be
treated as a civilian.
When it suits people to absolve the ordinary Gazan population for
any responsibility for what Hamas do, then we are told the elections are >>> rigged, etc, so Hamas is not the legitimate government of Gaza.
It is unreasonable to hold a whole population responsible, and
ethnically cleanse a country of a race you don't like on account of the
actions of the ruling party.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate
government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
Some might call it a terrorist act, others a war. It is time to make up
your mind. It is friends of Israel who want to annihilate and bomb
refugee camps in Gazza rather than giving them a homeland.
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but >>> when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider.
What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
So, that takes us back full circle. Why are they prepared to take
sides against Boko Haram?
Because Boko Haram are not in government in a country. This has been explained to you countless times. Whereas Hamas is.
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Gazza Strip and so how can
they be terrorists when they attack those who have occupied their
(perceived or otherwise) land?
When it suits people on this NG, Hamas is the legitimate government of
Gaza.
Simply not true.
Most here don't approve of the fire-bombing of Dresden
and other cities in WW2.
I don't approve of Hamas targeting anyone who is unlikely to be an
Israeli reservist such as children and women with children or the over
40s.
You may have forgotten that until recently the US regarded any man
of military age in a conflict zone an enemy combatant and not to be
treated as a civilian.
When it suits people to absolve the ordinary Gazan population for any
responsibility for what Hamas do, then we are told the elections are
rigged, etc, so Hamas is not the legitimate government of Gaza.
It is unreasonable to hold a whole population responsible,
and
ethnically cleanse a country of a race you don't like on account of the actions of the ruling party.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate
government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
Some might call it a terrorist act, others a war. It is time to make up
your mind.
It is friends of Israel who want to annihilate and bomb
refugee camps in Gazza rather than giving them a homeland.
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this,
but when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to
reconsider.
What legitimacy?
What I have said is that land grabs through terrorism without a
political settlement are never going to work, and provide decades of
misery for all concerned.
That's a good question. Sometimes history prevents a solution, including those who hang onto those historical events as if they were a legitimate cause in the name of religion.
It is unreasonable to hold a whole population responsible, and
ethnically cleanse a country of a race you don't like on account of the actions of the ruling party.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate
government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
Some might call it a terrorist act, others a war. It is time to make up
your mind. It is friends of Israel who want to annihilate and bomb
refugee camps in Gazza rather than giving them a homeland.
On 06/11/2023 13:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but >>>> when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider. >>>What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
I was actually referring there to the legitimacy of the Israeli action
in Gaza. Fred is, unintentionally, arguing strongly that the Israeeli
action is 100% legitimate.
I'd reckon that it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to go after an organisation which is dedicated to removing Israel from the map. The
problem arises in the methods employed and how to minimise innocent casualties.
Looking at the situation from the point of view of the battlefield
commander, he has two conflicting responsibilities: The protection of non-combatants and the protection as far as possible of his troops.
Given the situation in Gaza, a softly-softly approach is likely to
result in frequent ambushes as troops enter, looking for their targets -
so does the commander sacrifice his troops for the sake of civilians, or
does he call in the air force to flatten buildings before the approach?
I can understand the current actions under such circumstances.
On 2023-11-06, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
I'd reckon that it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to go after an
organisation which is dedicated to removing Israel from the map. The
problem arises in the methods employed and how to minimise innocent
casualties.
Looking at the situation from the point of view of the battlefield
commander, he has two conflicting responsibilities: The protection of
non-combatants and the protection as far as possible of his troops.
Given the situation in Gaza, a softly-softly approach is likely to
result in frequent ambushes as troops enter, looking for their targets -
so does the commander sacrifice his troops for the sake of civilians, or
does he call in the air force to flatten buildings before the approach?
I can understand the current actions under such circumstances.
"The enemy troops are dispersed throughout the civilian population,
therefore wiping out the entire population is a legitimate act"
is not a great argument, to put it mildly.
On 6 Nov 2023 at 13:01:08 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-06, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
It depends what you mean by legitimate. They are the de facto government. Note
that our present government only received about 40% support of the 70% who actually voted. One could argue that you need proportional representation to have any legitimate government in a democracy.
On 06/11/2023 09:27, Fredxx wrote:
So, that takes us back full circle. Why are they prepared to take
sides against Boko Haram?
Because Boko Haram are not in government in a country. This has been
explained to you countless times. Whereas Hamas is.
It's odd that you say countless. It's been stated once, by you. I'm not
sure anyone else agrees with that definition?
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Gazza Strip and so how can
they be terrorists when they attack those who have occupied their
(perceived or otherwise) land?
When it suits people on this NG, Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza.
Simply not true.
What is not true?
Most here don't approve of the fire-bombing of Dresden and otherAgreed
cities in WW2.
I don't approve of Hamas targeting anyone who is unlikely to be an
Israeli reservist such as children and women with children or the over
40s.
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists? You
are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
You may have forgotten that until recently the US regarded any man of
military age in a conflict zone an enemy combatant and not to be
treated as a civilian.
I didn't know that, no.
When it suits people to absolve the ordinary Gazan population for any
responsibility for what Hamas do, then we are told the elections are
rigged, etc, so Hamas is not the legitimate government of Gaza.
It is unreasonable to hold a whole population responsible,
Why is it unreasonable? It's what happens all the time in warfare.
The leaders of Hamas, with their families, are safely ensconced in
Qatar, and they don't care at all about the hell they have intentionally brought down on their own population.
and ethnically cleanse a country of a race you don't like on account
of the actions of the ruling party.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate
government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
Some might call it a terrorist act, others a war. It is time to make
up your mind.
I called it a terrorist act by a terrorist organisation. It's you who is calling Hamas a legitimate government, and I'm merely pointing out that
you are thereby legitimising the Israeli attack on Hamas in Gaza.
You simply don't like the consequences of your specious claim.
It is friends of Israel who want to annihilate and bomb refugee camps
in Gazza rather than giving them a homeland.
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this,
but when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to
reconsider.
What legitimacy?
Do you really deny the right of a nation to defend itself against acts
of war by a neighbouring country?
I fear you are tying yourself in knots here.
What I have said is that land grabs through terrorism without a
political settlement are never going to work, and provide decades of
misery for all concerned.
So, is Hamas the legitimate government of Gaza or not? You keep saying
yes, but do not want to accept the consequences.
That's a good question. Sometimes history prevents a solution,
including those who hang onto those historical events as if they were
a legitimate cause in the name of religion.
Well, you seem to agree with Netanyahu. He says there's no chance of
peace in the foreseeable future. I'm sure that he'll be chuffed.
On 2023-11-06, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 13:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing this, but >>>>> when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to reconsider. >>>>What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
I was actually referring there to the legitimacy of the Israeli action
in Gaza. Fred is, unintentionally, arguing strongly that the Israeeli
action is 100% legitimate.
What do you mean by that last sentence then?
On 2023-11-06, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
I'd reckon that it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to go after an
organisation which is dedicated to removing Israel from the map. The
problem arises in the methods employed and how to minimise innocent
casualties.
Looking at the situation from the point of view of the battlefield
commander, he has two conflicting responsibilities: The protection of
non-combatants and the protection as far as possible of his troops.
Given the situation in Gaza, a softly-softly approach is likely to
result in frequent ambushes as troops enter, looking for their targets -
so does the commander sacrifice his troops for the sake of civilians, or
does he call in the air force to flatten buildings before the approach?
I can understand the current actions under such circumstances.
"The enemy troops are dispersed throughout the civilian population,
therefore wiping out the entire population is a legitimate act"
is not a great argument, to put it mildly.
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists? You
are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps.
On 06/11/2023 14:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-06, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 13:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing
this, but when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may
have to reconsider.
What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
I was actually referring there to the legitimacy of the Israeli action
in Gaza. Fred is, unintentionally, arguing strongly that the Israeeli
action is 100% legitimate.
What do you mean by that last sentence then?
In wars between nations, it's legitimate to continue until one side surrenders. I'm not saying that is laudable, or a great idea, but it's
what usually happens.
Fred is arguing that Hamas is the government of Gaza, so the present
action is a legitimate use of force.
On 06/11/2023 14:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-06, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:I would not describe either as desirable or legitimate - just pointing
I'd reckon that it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to go after an
organisation which is dedicated to removing Israel from the map. The
problem arises in the methods employed and how to minimise innocent
casualties.
Looking at the situation from the point of view of the battlefield
commander, he has two conflicting responsibilities: The protection of
non-combatants and the protection as far as possible of his troops.
Given the situation in Gaza, a softly-softly approach is likely to
result in frequent ambushes as troops enter, looking for their targets - >>> so does the commander sacrifice his troops for the sake of civilians, or >>> does he call in the air force to flatten buildings before the approach?
I can understand the current actions under such circumstances.
"The enemy troops are dispersed throughout the civilian population,
therefore wiping out the entire population is a legitimate act"
is not a great argument, to put it mildly.
out the choices. I'd be interested to know what choice you would make if
in command of the troops?
On 06/11/2023 14:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-06, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
I'd reckon that it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to go after an
organisation which is dedicated to removing Israel from the map. The
problem arises in the methods employed and how to minimise innocent
casualties.
Looking at the situation from the point of view of the battlefield
commander, he has two conflicting responsibilities: The protection of
non-combatants and the protection as far as possible of his troops.
Given the situation in Gaza, a softly-softly approach is likely to
result in frequent ambushes as troops enter, looking for their targets - >>> so does the commander sacrifice his troops for the sake of civilians, or >>> does he call in the air force to flatten buildings before the approach?
I can understand the current actions under such circumstances.
"The enemy troops are dispersed throughout the civilian population,
therefore wiping out the entire population is a legitimate act"
is not a great argument, to put it mildly.
Al Jazeera report that 45% of Gaza homes have been flattened.**
That can be compared to around 0.2% of the population killed.
** https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/4/want-to-die-with-my-family-from-gaza-stuck-in-west-bank-fearing-arrest
I think we all would! However that is sadly not possible, until timeI would not describe either as desirable or legitimate - just pointing
out the choices. I'd be interested to know what choice you would make if
in command of the troops?
Well I would start from a different place.
On 06/11/2023 14:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-06, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 13:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My own view has been that I don't think Israel should be doing
this, but
when you argue so strongly for its legitimacy I may have to
reconsider.
What legitimacy?
He's talking about your claim that Hamas is the legitimate government
of Gaza. Which I personally don't entirely understand since my brief
research seems to indicate that they took power in a military coup
in 2007 and have never held any elections since.
I was actually referring there to the legitimacy of the Israeli action
in Gaza. Fred is, unintentionally, arguing strongly that the Israeeli
action is 100% legitimate.
What do you mean by that last sentence then?
In wars between nations, it's legitimate to continue until one side surrenders. I'm not saying that is laudable, or a great idea, but it's
what usually happens.
Fred is arguing that Hamas is the government of Gaza, so the present
action is a legitimate use of force.
On 06/11/2023 15:47, Fredxx wrote:
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists?
You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps.
So, you definitely are expressing support for Hamas in killing unarmed Israelis aged between say 18 and 40. Wow!
Simply not true. Most here don't approve of the fire-bombing of Dresden
and other cities in WW2.
On 06/11/2023 09:27, Fredxx wrote:
It is unreasonable to hold a whole population responsible, and
ethnically cleanse a country of a race you don't like on account of
the actions of the ruling party.
Your view seems to be that the people of Gaza, through its legitimate
government, have chosen to wage war against a much more powerful
neighbour. So, you are absolutely okay with that neighbour waging war
until there is an unconditional surrender?
Some might call it a terrorist act, others a war. It is time to make
up your mind. It is friends of Israel who want to annihilate and bomb
refugee camps in Gazza rather than giving them a homeland.
I'd reckon that it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to go after an organisation which is dedicated to removing Israel from the map. The
problem arises in the methods employed and how to minimise innocent casualties.
Looking at the situation from the point of view of the battlefield
commander, he has two conflicting responsibilities: The protection of non-combatants and the protection as far as possible of his troops.
Given the situation in Gaza, a softly-softly approach is likely to
result in frequent ambushes as troops enter, looking for their targets -
so does the commander sacrifice his troops for the sake of civilians, or
does he call in the air force to flatten buildings before the approach?
I can understand the current actions under such circumstances.
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
Simply not true. Most here don't approve of the fire-bombing of Dresden
and other cities in WW2.
What ‘most people on here don’t approve of’ regarding the Allies bombing of
Axis cities is really a form of virtue-signalling based on enemy propaganda put out at the time. This is particularly so when Dresden in mentioned.
That city suffered no more than many other German cities, but the Nazis
were quick to add an extra zero to the number of those killed and put that out as fact, with the effects that can still be seen today.
On 03/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't think the occupation was illegal, after all it was a legitimate defence to the war its neighbours started.[1] But it is what it has done to the people it captured and its colonisation of the occupied territories that is illegal.
[1] It could be said the Israelis started the actual shooting, but a pre-emptive strike when people are massing invasion forces on your borders is probably within the rules.
I note it has been presented in this thread that Gaza is a separate
country to Israel, it isn't.
On 06/11/2023 22:18, Pancho wrote:
I note it has been presented in this thread that Gaza is a separate
country to Israel, it isn't.
Interesting. What do you think it is? Why do you think that? And, does
anyone else agree with you?
On 06/11/2023 18:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:30, GB wrote:
On 06/11/2023 15:47, Fredxx wrote:
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists?
You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps.
So, you definitely are expressing support for Hamas in killing
unarmed Israelis aged between say 18 and 40. Wow!
And you are endorsing the dropping of bombs on refugee camps in
occupied territory. Wow
Even were that true, it would not be a criminal offence on my part. You,
on the other hand ...
On 07/11/2023 11:20, GB wrote:
On 06/11/2023 18:30, Fredxx wrote:Even if you don't agree that Hamas fits your definition of a terrorist organisation, you are relying on rather a technical point, and the fact
On 06/11/2023 17:30, GB wrote:
On 06/11/2023 15:47, Fredxx wrote:
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists? >>>>>> You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps.
So, you definitely are expressing support for Hamas in killing
unarmed Israelis aged between say 18 and 40. Wow!
And you are endorsing the dropping of bombs on refugee camps in
occupied territory. Wow
Even were that true, it would not be a criminal offence on my part. You,
on the other hand ...
is that it is proscribed.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion forum
such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone on the
internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your defence that you
had no chance at all of influencing me to support Hamas.
(1A)A person commits an offence if the person—
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression
is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.
On 06/11/2023 17:30, GB wrote:
On 06/11/2023 15:47, Fredxx wrote:
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists?
You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps.
So, you definitely are expressing support for Hamas in killing unarmed
Israelis aged between say 18 and 40. Wow!
And you are endorsing the dropping of bombs on refugee camps in occupied territory. Wow
Fred is arguing that Hamas is the government of Gaza, so the present
action is a legitimate use of force.
I take it you endorse the bombing of refugee camps. That's quite
something, even for you.
Of course, my disillusionment extended to not actually wanting to watch broadcast TV, so I don't. But TV licencing have no way of knowing that.
Pancho wrote:
Of course, my disillusionment extended to not actually wanting to
watch broadcast TV, so I don't. But TV licencing have no way of
knowing that.
They do if you let them know
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/easy-read/what-to-do-if-you-dont-need-a-TV-Licence
On 06/11/2023 22:18, Pancho wrote:
I note it has been presented in this thread that Gaza is a separate
country to Israel, it isn't.
Interesting. What do you think it is? Why do you think that? And, does
anyone else agree with you?
On 07/11/2023 11:20, GB wrote:
On 06/11/2023 18:30, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:30, GB wrote:
On 06/11/2023 15:47, Fredxx wrote:
Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists? >>>>>> You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!
Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps.
So, you definitely are expressing support for Hamas in killing
unarmed Israelis aged between say 18 and 40. Wow!
And you are endorsing the dropping of bombs on refugee camps in
occupied territory. Wow
Even were that true, it would not be a criminal offence on my part.
You, on the other hand ...
Even if you don't agree that Hamas fits your definition of a terrorist organisation, you are relying on rather a technical point, and the fact
is that it is proscribed.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion forum
such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone on the
internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your defence that you
had no chance at all of influencing me to support Hamas.
(1A)A person commits an offence if the person—
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression
is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.
On 06/11/2023 18:29, Fredxx wrote:
Fred is arguing that Hamas is the government of Gaza, so the present
action is a legitimate use of force.
I take it you endorse the bombing of refugee camps. That's quite
something, even for you.
You know perfectly well that I don't. As you put it earlier, I have said
that countless times.
However, we are discussing here the legitimacy of the Israeli actions
under the rules of war. So far, you have not put a good case at all
against legitimacy.
For example, if Hamas have a command HQ, do you agree that is a
legitimate military target? If they decide to set up their command HQ in
the middle of a refugee camp, does it cease to be a legitimate military target?
On 06/11/2023 18:29, Fredxx wrote:
Fred is arguing that Hamas is the government of Gaza, so the
present action is a legitimate use of force.
I take it you endorse the bombing of refugee camps. That's quite
something, even for you.
You know perfectly well that I don't. As you put it earlier, I have
said that countless times.
However, we are discussing here the legitimacy of the Israeli actions
under the rules of war. So far, you have not put a good case at all
against legitimacy.
For example, if Hamas have a command HQ, do you agree that is a
legitimate military target? If they decide to set up their command HQ
in the middle of a refugee camp, does it cease to be a legitimate
military target?
Even were that true, it would not be a criminal offence on my part.
You, on the other hand ...
The difference between you and I is that I have already condemned the
actions of Hamas in Israel. I equally condemn the killing of innocents
by a state that should no better, and who is better armed for
discriminating between civilian and military opponents.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a
very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion forum
such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone on the
internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your defence that you
had no chance at all of influencing me to support Hamas.
I have no idea how I am trying to enlist your support for Hamas, any
more than I am trying to enlist support for Likud.
(1A)A person commits an offence if the person—
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation.
Looks as if I and marches in support of the Palestinian situation is a criminal. Hasn't free speech gone a long way.
Israel agrees Gaza is not a separate country, in so far as it does not recognise Palestine as a state, and exercises control over Gaza.
On 11:18 7 Nov 2023, GB said:
On 06/11/2023 18:29, Fredxx wrote:
Fred is arguing that Hamas is the government of Gaza, so the
present action is a legitimate use of force.
I take it you endorse the bombing of refugee camps. That's quite
something, even for you.
You know perfectly well that I don't. As you put it earlier, I have
said that countless times.
However, we are discussing here the legitimacy of the Israeli actions
under the rules of war. So far, you have not put a good case at all
against legitimacy.
For example, if Hamas have a command HQ, do you agree that is a
legitimate military target? If they decide to set up their command HQ
in the middle of a refugee camp, does it cease to be a legitimate
military target?
I read that the "refugee camps" in Gaza are not camps in the sense most people would understand with tents or temporary buildings. Instead these "camps" are said to provide resdiential housing in permanent structures.
A further question arises about whether the children of refugees are themselves refugees. That wouldn't be true in this country. Different definitions of refugee are leading to very different figures for Gaza.
The UN defines a "Palestine refugee" as a person "whose normal place of residence was Mandatory Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli conflict".
https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees
You also know perfectly well I do not endorse the indiscriminate killing
of women of children, by Hamas, or by your friends.
For example, if Hamas have a command HQ, do you agree that is a
legitimate military target? If they decide to set up their command HQ
in the middle of a refugee camp, does it cease to be a legitimate
military target?
That is a good question.
The difference is how many bombs have been
dropped by Israeli forces and how many HQs does Hamas really have?
On 07/11/2023 12:28, Fredxx wrote:
You also know perfectly well I do not endorse the indiscriminate
killing of women of children, by Hamas, or by your friends.
No, but you did endorse the killing by Hamas of Israeli people of the nate bombing
age when they could have been reservists in the Israel army. That would,
of course, include women, although you now deny that.
For example, if Hamas have a command HQ, do you agree that is a
legitimate military target? If they decide to set up their command HQ
in the middle of a refugee camp, does it cease to be a legitimate
military target?
That is a good question.
So, what's your answer?
The difference is how many bombs have been dropped by Israeli forces
and how many HQs does Hamas really have?
On 07/11/2023 12:19, Fredxx wrote:
Even were that true, it would not be a criminal offence on my part.
You, on the other hand ...
The difference between you and I is that I have already condemned the
actions of Hamas in Israel. I equally condemn the killing of innocents
by a state that should no better, and who is better armed for
discriminating between civilian and military opponents.
No, you supported the killing by Hamas of unarmed civilians who might
have been reservists. If I have misunderstood your message, now would be
a great opportunity for you to set things straight.
Incidentally, "A senior Hamas leader has refused to acknowledge that his group killed civilians in Israel, claiming only conscripts were targeted." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67321241
You could make your very valid point that a child killed by an Israeli
bomb is just as dead as a child who had his head chopped off by a Hamas
guy with a knife. But, you seem to have gone well beyond that by
expressing support for the Oct 7 Hamas raid, and for Hamas generally.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a
very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion forum
such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone on the
internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your defence that
you had no chance at all of influencing me to support Hamas.
I have no idea how I am trying to enlist your support for Hamas, any
more than I am trying to enlist support for Likud.
You are broadcasting your messages of support for Hamas on the internet,
to be read by anyone interested, including GCHQ, MI5, etc. I doubt
they'll note you down as a dangerous activist, though.
In terms of S 12 1A, your message of support for a proscribed
organisation can be read by anyone who reads this group, so that may
satisfy the recklessness condition of part b.
(1A)A person commits an offence if the person—
(a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed
organisation, and
(b)in doing so is reckless as to whether a person to whom the
expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed
organisation.
Looks as if I and marches in support of the Palestinian situation is a
criminal. Hasn't free speech gone a long way.
Complain to your MP. But, before you do that, you need to be clear that supporting Palestinians is perfectly legal. Hamas is a proscribed organisation, and supporting them is not legal.
On 01/11/2023 21:25, clemence.john@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can a pensioner be summonsed for not having a TV license, I am 77
years old and for the last few years I have become increasingly
disillusioned with the BBC. In my opinion it has been anti
establishment, left wing and extremely woke. The last straw was when
the BBC could not bring themselves to call Hamas a terrorist
organisation despite most of the Western world doing so. My question
is how can I register my displeasure and avoid subsidising them.
I would like to stop paying the TV license am I right in thinking
that at seventy-seven years of age that I would be unlikely to be
taken to court
You should ask, not, can a pensioner be summonsed, but is it likely.
I haven't had a licence for many years, they send me a letter
threatening me once a month, every month, but that is it. Sometimes they
send it to the neighbours by “mistake”. They once sent an investigator
to investigate. I asked him to leave immediately and he did.
Of course, my disillusionment extended to not actually wanting to watch broadcast TV, so I don't. But TV licencing have no way of knowing that.
Why do you want the BBC to refer to Hamas as terrorist? Is it to relieve
you of the need to consider what their motivations might have been?
Relieve you of the need to consider Palestinians as humans? Humans, as
they are slaughtered and oppressed, from the river to the sea?
On 7 Nov 2023 at 11:09:41 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 22:18, Pancho wrote:
I note it has been presented in this thread that Gaza is a separate
country to Israel, it isn't.
Interesting. What do you think it is? Why do you think that? And, does
anyone else agree with you?
I'm pretty sure no-one thinks Gaza is an independent country. Even if the >Israelis say it is I really don't think they believe it. It is totally >blockaded by land and sea and has no right to its own choices on imports or >exports, no right to armed forces (other than smuggled rifles and IEDs), and >most other rights an independent state would have.
Personally I condemn all death, but I also understand that hatred breeds hatred. And it seems that is forgotten by many.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a
very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion
forum such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone on
the internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your defence
that you had no chance at all of influencing me to support Hamas.
I have no idea how I am trying to enlist your support for Hamas, any
more than I am trying to enlist support for Likud.
You are broadcasting your messages of support for Hamas on the
internet, to be read by anyone interested, including GCHQ, MI5, etc. I
doubt they'll note you down as a dangerous activist, though.
That's quite a statement, one I believe should never have got through moderation.
I don't support Hamas, and I am tired of repeating myself.
On 08/11/2023 13:30, Fredxx wrote:
Personally I condemn all death, but I also understand that hatred breeds
hatred. And it seems that is forgotten by many.
I think it is a vicious circle, and it is why I was against any action
by Israel at all over the Oct 7 raid. The best response to terrorism is
not to be provoked by the provocation.
However, it is easier to say that from a distance. If my father/mother/sister/cousin had been butchered in the raid, I might well
feel differently.
I don't think Hamas are at all reasonable folk to deal with. For
example, they continue to hold around a dozen Thai agricultural workers hostage.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a
very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion
forum such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone on >>>>> the internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your defence
that you had no chance at all of influencing me to support Hamas.
I have no idea how I am trying to enlist your support for Hamas, any
more than I am trying to enlist support for Likud.
You are broadcasting your messages of support for Hamas on the
internet, to be read by anyone interested, including GCHQ, MI5, etc. I
doubt they'll note you down as a dangerous activist, though.
That's quite a statement, one I believe should never have got through
moderation.
I don't support Hamas, and I am tired of repeating myself.
I am particularly referring to this:
"I don't approve of Hamas targeting anyone who is unlikely to be an
Israeli reservist such as children and women with children or the over 40s."
I then said: "Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists? You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!" And, you
replied: "Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps."
A statement supporting the killing by Hamas of unarmed reservists is a statement supporting terrorism. It's no good saying you don't support
Hamas unless you also retract your statement in support of their actions
in killing unarmed civilians.
A statement supporting the killing by Hamas of unarmed reservists is a
statement supporting terrorism. It's no good saying you don't support
Hamas unless you also retract your statement in support of their actions
in killing unarmed civilians.
What he was implying (and I have no idea if there is any truth in it) is that an attack which aimed primarily at reservists, while it would be an undeclared
act of war and justification for retaliatory military action, would not in fact be terrorism. I think it *is* true that an attack on primarily active military personnel, no matter how perfidious and evil, would *not* be terrorism.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some aspects of that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
On 09/11/2023 19:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
A statement supporting the killing by Hamas of unarmed reservists is a
statement supporting terrorism. It's no good saying you don't support
Hamas unless you also retract your statement in support of their actions >>> in killing unarmed civilians.
What he was implying (and I have no idea if there is any truth in it) is that
an attack which aimed primarily at reservists, while it would be an undeclared
act of war and justification for retaliatory military action, would not in >> fact be terrorism. I think it *is* true that an attack on primarily active >> military personnel, no matter how perfidious and evil, would *not* be
terrorism.
You'd need a very odd definition of 'active military personnel' to
include unarmed civilians sitting at home, even if some of them may have
been in the army reserve? Given that Israel has a citizen's army, that's effectively a justification for murdering all civilians.
And, of course, there are reservists in this country, so there can't be
any terrorist attacks against this country, ever, as there may be
'active military personnel' amongst the targetted group.
If you go down that route, don't you inadvertently justify the bombing
of all civilians in Gaza, on the basis that some of them may be in
Hamas, or may join in the future?
In practice, Hamas slaughtered or took hostage everyone they could find. Children, old folk, and foreign agricultural workers, included.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually
happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some aspects of >> that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
I suppose you want photographic proof of some sort. How strong is your stomach?
On 08/11/2023 13:30, Fredxx wrote:
Personally I condemn all death, but I also understand that hatred
breeds hatred. And it seems that is forgotten by many.
I think it is a vicious circle, and it is why I was against any action
by Israel at all over the Oct 7 raid. The best response to terrorism is
not to be provoked by the provocation.
However, it is easier to say that from a distance. If my father/mother/sister/cousin had been butchered in the raid, I might well
feel differently.
I don't think Hamas are at all reasonable folk to deal with. For
example, they continue to hold around a dozen Thai agricultural workers hostage.
I very much doubt that there will be any consequences, as this is a
very quiet corner of the internet, but I still find it surprising.
The get-out might be that S 12 1A doesn't apply to a discussion
forum such as this, although it can in theory be viewed by anyone
on the internet. If it helps, I will happily testify in your
defence that you had no chance at all of influencing me to support
Hamas.
I have no idea how I am trying to enlist your support for Hamas, any
more than I am trying to enlist support for Likud.
You are broadcasting your messages of support for Hamas on the
internet, to be read by anyone interested, including GCHQ, MI5, etc.
I doubt they'll note you down as a dangerous activist, though.
That's quite a statement, one I believe should never have got through
moderation.
I don't support Hamas, and I am tired of repeating myself.
I am particularly referring to this:
"I don't approve of Hamas targeting anyone who is unlikely to be an
Israeli reservist such as children and women with children or the over
40s."
I then said: "Are you saying it's okay for Hamas to gun down unarmed reservists? You are saying that, aren't you? Good grief!" And, you replied: "Far better than dropping bombs into refugee camps."
A statement supporting the killing by Hamas of unarmed reservists is a statement supporting terrorism.
It's no good saying you don't support
Hamas unless you also retract your statement in support of their actions
in killing unarmed civilians.
On 09/11/2023 19:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
A statement supporting the killing by Hamas of unarmed reservists is a
statement supporting terrorism. It's no good saying you don't support
Hamas unless you also retract your statement in support of their actions >>> in killing unarmed civilians.
What he was implying (and I have no idea if there is any truth in it)
is that
an attack which aimed primarily at reservists, while it would be an
undeclared
act of war and justification for retaliatory military action, would
not in
fact be terrorism. I think it *is* true that an attack on primarily
active
military personnel, no matter how perfidious and evil, would *not* be
terrorism.
You'd need a very odd definition of 'active military personnel' to
include unarmed civilians sitting at home, even if some of them may have
been in the army reserve? Given that Israel has a citizen's army, that's effectively a justification for murdering all civilians.
And, of course, there are reservists in this country, so there can't be
any terrorist attacks against this country, ever, as there may be
'active military personnel' amongst the targetted group.
If you go down that route, don't you inadvertently justify the bombing
of all civilians in Gaza, on the basis that some of them may be in
Hamas, or may join in the future?
In practice, Hamas slaughtered or took hostage everyone they could find. Children, old folk, and foreign agricultural workers, included.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually
happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some
aspects of
that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
I suppose you want photographic proof of some sort. How strong is your stomach?
On 08/11/2023 13:30, Fredxx wrote:
Personally I condemn all death, but I also understand that hatred breeds
hatred. And it seems that is forgotten by many.
I think it is a vicious circle, and it is why I was against any action
by Israel at all over the Oct 7 raid. The best response to terrorism is
not to be provoked by the provocation.
However, it is easier to say that from a distance. If my >father/mother/sister/cousin had been butchered in the raid, I might well
feel differently.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:57:49 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/11/2023 13:30, Fredxx wrote:
Personally I condemn all death, but I also understand that hatred breeds >>> hatred. And it seems that is forgotten by many.
I think it is a vicious circle, and it is why I was against any action
by Israel at all over the Oct 7 raid. The best response to terrorism is
not to be provoked by the provocation.
However, it is easier to say that from a distance. If my
father/mother/sister/cousin had been butchered in the raid, I might well
feel differently.
I think you might also feel differently if your father/mother/sister/cousin had been taken hostage. The violent death of a loved one is always hard to take, but wanting immediate revenge isn't an automatic response. But if
there was a chance of getting them back, you'd almost certainly want everything possible done to achieve it. And that, I think, is one of the bigger drivers of the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks. And, equally, that is precisely what Hamas wants.
Mark
On 10/11/2023 11:27, GB wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
A statement supporting the killing by Hamas of unarmed reservists is a >>>> statement supporting terrorism. It's no good saying you don't support >>>> Hamas unless you also retract your statement in support of their actions >>>> in killing unarmed civilians.
What he was implying (and I have no idea if there is any truth in it)
is that
an attack which aimed primarily at reservists, while it would be an
undeclared
act of war and justification for retaliatory military action, would
not in
fact be terrorism. I think it *is* true that an attack on primarily
active
military personnel, no matter how perfidious and evil, would *not* be
terrorism.
You'd need a very odd definition of 'active military personnel' to
include unarmed civilians sitting at home, even if some of them may have
been in the army reserve? Given that Israel has a citizen's army, that's
effectively a justification for murdering all civilians.
I suppose an argument is if a reservist can be called up and is versed
and trained in fighting, does that make them a legitimate target in a conflict?
https://aoav.org.uk/2019/military-age-males-in-us-drone-strikes/
indicates the "The metric of deciding who is a legitimate target in
effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
Perhaps Hamas was taking the leaf out of the US instruction books? Of
course any 'posthumous' evidence is hardly any comfort to those families
so affected.
And, of course, there are reservists in this country, so there can't be
any terrorist attacks against this country, ever, as there may be
'active military personnel' amongst the targetted group.
If you go down that route, don't you inadvertently justify the bombing
of all civilians in Gaza, on the basis that some of them may be in
Hamas, or may join in the future?
In practice, Hamas slaughtered or took hostage everyone they could find.
Children, old folk, and foreign agricultural workers, included.
We've been over this, and repeating it isn't helpful.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually
happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some
aspects of
that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
I suppose you want photographic proof of some sort. How strong is your
stomach?
Do you need proof that babies are being targetted in Gaza? When
residential tower blocks are hit by bombs I don't see the difference.
Unless you think the style of an execution of a baby matters that much?
What he was implying (and I have no idea if there is any truth in it) is that >an attack which aimed primarily at reservists, while it would be an undeclared >act of war and justification for retaliatory military action, would not in >fact be terrorism. I think it *is* true that an attack on primarily active >military personnel, no matter how perfidious and evil, would *not* be >terrorism.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually >happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some aspects of >that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
On 9 Nov 2023 19:41:30 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
What he was implying (and I have no idea if there is any truth in it) is that
an attack which aimed primarily at reservists, while it would be an undeclared
act of war and justification for retaliatory military action, would not in >> fact be terrorism. I think it *is* true that an attack on primarily active >> military personnel, no matter how perfidious and evil, would *not* be
terrorism.
There's no evidence that the attack was aimed primarily at reservists, though. Even if a significant proportion of those killed were reservists, with other casualties being collateral damage, the fact that people who are not, and could not reasonably have been mistaken for, reservists were taken hostage demonstrates that at least that aspect of the attack was indiscriminate.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually
happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some aspects of >> that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
The reports of beheaded babies have come from individuals on the ground, which have then been repeated by the media and politicians. It isn't a claim that Israel has officially made, and the IDF in particular has been careful not to make it. But even if those who claim to have seen the bodies of beheaded babies are accurately reporting what they have seen, the reality is that it could just as easily be caused by grenades and rockets rather than deliberate individual attacks. Bodies do tend to disintegrate when subject
to strong explosive forces. So it's entirely reasonable that, if there haven't been any deliberate beheadings of babies, the accounts of beheaded babies are misreported rather than mendacious.
That said, I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that the actions of Hamas were utterly indefensible and anyone who attempts to defend them is beneath contempt. The real question is not whether Hamas is in the wrong, it's whether Israel's response to the attacks is proportionate, particularly given the effect on Gazan civilians. That is a valid debate, and it isn't necessary to be either a supporter of Hamas nor a mindless warmonger to take a position on either side of the argument.
Mark
On 10 Nov 2023 at 20:41:28 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That said, I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that the actions of
Hamas were utterly indefensible and anyone who attempts to defend them is
beneath contempt. The real question is not whether Hamas is in the wrong,
it's whether Israel's response to the attacks is proportionate, particularly >> given the effect on Gazan civilians. That is a valid debate, and it isn't
necessary to be either a supporter of Hamas nor a mindless warmonger to take >> a position on either side of the argument.
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making excuses for their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to tell further lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
I suppose an argument is if a reservist can be called up and is versed
and trained in fighting, does that make them a legitimate target in a conflict?
https://aoav.org.uk/2019/military-age-males-in-us-drone-strikes/
indicates the "The metric of deciding who is a legitimate target in
effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
Perhaps Hamas was taking the leaf out of the US instruction books? Of
course any 'posthumous' evidence is hardly any comfort to those families
so affected.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually
happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some
aspects of
that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
I suppose you want photographic proof of some sort. How strong is your
stomach?
Do you need proof that babies are being targetted in Gaza? When
residential tower blocks are hit by bombs I don't see the difference.
Unless you think the style of an execution of a baby matters that much?
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making excuses for their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to tell further lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
I don't need to retract anything I didn't say.
On 10/11/2023 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli
government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches
recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making
excuses for their intended atrocities, they would not feel it
necessary to tell further lies about what was already an indefensible
attack.
You have proof that the beheadings didn't happen? Show us your sources, please.
On 10/11/2023 14:05, Fredxx wrote:
I suppose an argument is if a reservist can be called up and is versed
and trained in fighting, does that make them a legitimate target in a
conflict?
https://aoav.org.uk/2019/military-age-males-in-us-drone-strikes/
indicates the "The metric of deciding who is a legitimate target in
effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants,
according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit
intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
Perhaps Hamas was taking the leaf out of the US instruction books? Of
course any 'posthumous' evidence is hardly any comfort to those families
so affected.
I never approved of the US policy of extra-judicial killings, still less
if it involved what was euphemistically termed 'collateral damage'.
I have yet to be shown any justification for the Hamas attack on Israel
that cannot also apply to justify Israel bombing Gaza.
Military age are legitimate targets? Lots of those in Gaza.
Children are unfortunate collateral damage? Yes, lots of those in Gaza.
Old folk, likewise.
And so on.
These, clearly, are legal arguments somewhat distant from what actually >>>> happened (and we have to remember Israel may be lying about some
aspects of
that - beheading babies?) but it is a legal group, isn't it?
I suppose you want photographic proof of some sort. How strong is your
stomach?
Do you need proof that babies are being targetted in Gaza? When
residential tower blocks are hit by bombs I don't see the difference.
Unless you think the style of an execution of a baby matters that much?
Is that question aimed at Roger Hayter?
On 10/11/2023 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli
government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making excuses for
their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to tell further >> lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
You have proof that the beheadings didn't happen? Show us your sources, please.
On 10/11/2023 14:05, Fredxx wrote:
I suppose an argument is if a reservist can be called up and is versed
and trained in fighting, does that make them a legitimate target in a
conflict?
https://aoav.org.uk/2019/military-age-males-in-us-drone-strikes/
indicates the "The metric of deciding who is a legitimate target in
effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants,
according to several administration officials, unless there is
explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
Perhaps Hamas was taking the leaf out of the US instruction books? Of
course any 'posthumous' evidence is hardly any comfort to those
families so affected.
I never approved of the US policy of extra-judicial killings, still less
if it involved what was euphemistically termed 'collateral damage'.
I have yet to be shown any justification for the Hamas attack on Israel
that cannot also apply to justify Israel bombing Gaza.
Military age are legitimate targets? Lots of those in Gaza.
Children are unfortunate collateral damage? Yes, lots of those in Gaza.
Old folk, likewise.
And so on.
I have yet to be shown any justification for the Hamas attack on
Israel that cannot also apply to justify Israel bombing Gaza.
That's an odd statement. Maybe your argument should be directed at Hamas spokesmen, if you can find any.
What you seem to imply is that if a terrorist group attacks and kills
(and maybe tortures) innocent Israeli civilians, the Israeli government
is justified in attacking and killing some other innocent civilians, in
far greater numbers. Probably ten times the number.
On 11 Nov 2023 at 12:56:43 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 10/11/2023 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli
government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making excuses for
their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to tell further >>> lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
You have proof that the beheadings didn't happen? Show us your sources,
please.
I have no proof that European Jews didn't steal Christian babies, but I am quite sure it was just lying propaganda. I don't believe in God until someone gives me useful proof of it, I don't need negative proof. Equally, I don't need proof about no-one beheading babies, but if positive proof turned up I'd have to consider changing my mind.
On 11/11/2023 16:26, The Todal wrote:
I have yet to be shown any justification for the Hamas attack on
Israel that cannot also apply to justify Israel bombing Gaza.
That's an odd statement. Maybe your argument should be directed at
Hamas spokesmen, if you can find any.
What you seem to imply is that if a terrorist group attacks and kills
(and maybe tortures) innocent Israeli civilians, the Israeli
government is justified in attacking and killing some other innocent
civilians, in far greater numbers. Probably ten times the number.
No. I am responding to the statements much further back in this thread
that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation because it is the legitimate government of Gaza. If that is the case, then a state of war exists
between the two countries until one surrenders or there's an armistice.
I agree with you that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, in which case
none of the above applies.
On 11/11/2023 13:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Nov 2023 at 12:56:43 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 10/11/2023 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli >>>> government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making excuses for
their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to tell further
lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
You have proof that the beheadings didn't happen? Show us your sources,
please.
I have no proof that European Jews didn't steal Christian babies, but I am >> quite sure it was just lying propaganda. I don't believe in God until someone
gives me useful proof of it, I don't need negative proof. Equally, I don't >> need proof about no-one beheading babies, but if positive proof turned up I'd
have to consider changing my mind.
I haven't seen videos of ISIS beheadings, but I understand videos of
those were posted on social media. You may well have sought them out, as
you appear to want proof of things that I am prepared to take on trust.
If you accept that beheading is a modus operandi for some Muslim
terrorists, could you explain how you are so certain it did NOT happen
on 7 October? After all, you have said that anyone referring to such beheadings is lying.
It just seems very odd to be expressing such certainty that the alleged
Oct 7 beheadings did not happen. After all, as Jon says, it's difficult
to prove a negative. Expressing certainty about something you can't
prove simply perplexes me.
On 12/11/2023 11:48, GB wrote:
On 11/11/2023 16:26, The Todal wrote:
I have yet to be shown any justification for the Hamas attack on
Israel that cannot also apply to justify Israel bombing Gaza.
That's an odd statement. Maybe your argument should be directed at
Hamas spokesmen, if you can find any.
What you seem to imply is that if a terrorist group attacks and kills
(and maybe tortures) innocent Israeli civilians, the Israeli
government is justified in attacking and killing some other innocent
civilians, in far greater numbers. Probably ten times the number.
No. I am responding to the statements much further back in this thread
that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation because it is the
legitimate government of Gaza. If that is the case, then a state of
war exists between the two countries until one surrenders or there's
an armistice.
I agree with you that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, in which case
none of the above applies.
Yet Israel has declared war on Hamas. Isn't declaring war on a terrorist organisation an oxymoron?
On 12 Nov 2023 at 10:56:17 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/11/2023 13:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Nov 2023 at 12:56:43 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 10/11/2023 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some Israeli >>>>> government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not making excuses for
their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to tell further
lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
You have proof that the beheadings didn't happen? Show us your sources, >>>> please.
I have no proof that European Jews didn't steal Christian babies, but I am >>> quite sure it was just lying propaganda. I don't believe in God until someone
gives me useful proof of it, I don't need negative proof. Equally, I don't >>> need proof about no-one beheading babies, but if positive proof turned up I'd
have to consider changing my mind.
I haven't seen videos of ISIS beheadings, but I understand videos of
those were posted on social media. You may well have sought them out, as
you appear to want proof of things that I am prepared to take on trust.
Not babies, however. Anyway, ISIS have very little indeed in common with Iran-backed Shia militias.
If you accept that beheading is a modus operandi for some Muslim
terrorists, could you explain how you are so certain it did NOT happen
on 7 October? After all, you have said that anyone referring to such
beheadings is lying.
It just seems very odd to be expressing such certainty that the alleged
Oct 7 beheadings did not happen. After all, as Jon says, it's difficult
to prove a negative. Expressing certainty about something you can't
prove simply perplexes me.
I have never expressed "certaninty".
I said it was a rebuttable assumption of
mine.
It is normal to be assume something unlikely
is not true in the absence of any evidence for it.
On 12/11/2023 17:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Nov 2023 at 10:56:17 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 11/11/2023 13:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Nov 2023 at 12:56:43 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/11/2023 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, the actions of Hamas were indefensible, but at least some
Israeli
government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in
speeches recently.
If they were so sure of their position, if they were not
making excuses for
their intended atrocities, they would not feel it necessary to
tell further
lies about what was already an indefensible attack.
You have proof that the beheadings didn't happen? Show us your
sources,
please.
I have no proof that European Jews didn't steal Christian babies,
but I am
quite sure it was just lying propaganda. I don't believe in God
until someone
gives me useful proof of it, I don't need negative proof. Equally, I
don't
need proof about no-one beheading babies, but if positive proof
turned up I'd
have to consider changing my mind.
I haven't seen videos of ISIS beheadings, but I understand videos of
those were posted on social media. You may well have sought them out, as >>> you appear to want proof of things that I am prepared to take on trust.
Not babies, however. Anyway, ISIS have very little indeed in common with
Iran-backed Shia militias.
If you accept that beheading is a modus operandi for some Muslim
terrorists, could you explain how you are so certain it did NOT happen
on 7 October? After all, you have said that anyone referring to such
beheadings is lying.
It just seems very odd to be expressing such certainty that the alleged
Oct 7 beheadings did not happen. After all, as Jon says, it's difficult
to prove a negative. Expressing certainty about something you can't
prove simply perplexes me.
I have never expressed "certaninty".
You said:
'but at least some Israeli government ministers have referred to
"beheading babies" in speeches recently. ... they would not feel it
necessary to tell further lies...'
I haven't snipped it - it's quoted in full above, in case you want to
see the context.
You are stating unequivocally that the beheadings are a lie.
I said it was a rebuttable assumption of
mine.
So, on what basis did you say the Israeli ministers were lying?
It is normal to be assume something unlikely
is not true in the absence of any evidence for it.
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-hamas-war-mutilated-charred-remains-bear-witness-to-the-extreme-barbarity-of-militant-attack-13001153
You said:
'but at least some Israeli government ministers have referred to "beheading babies" in speeches recently. ... they would not feel it necessary to tell further lies...'
I haven't snipped it - it's quoted in full above, in case you want to see the context.
You are stating unequivocally that the beheadings are a lie.
I said it was a rebuttable assumption of
mine.
So, on what basis did you say the Israeli ministers were lying?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:15:12 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,266 |