Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2024, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

My God.

it's called self defense, not war mongering.

Don't believe me? Check your dictionary.

Secretary Austin gets it. He must have a dictionary at his disposal

it was really wanted. You're not that naive.

Yet, the accusations of warmongering only fly one way.

Who is on record for continuously pledging to destroy Israel since 1988?

Who has been pledging allegiance to Iran and the destruction of Israel since 1988?

How do you propose peace could have been had with Hamas and Hezbollah when both literally signed documents stating they don't want peace?

No, I am not naiive. Not at all. What about you?

Let's be honest with each other. You know I've said it many times in my posts that Hamas must be eliminated.

What else does "it's not a one-way street going on over there" mean?

No gas-lighting,pls.

I quote: " More warmongering. And to the Defense Sec'y of the nation which can cut off the weapons. My God."

How is this not an obvious and overly dramatic one-way street comment? Certainly you didn't suggest that the US can cut off weapons to Hezbollah!

No deflecting, please.

Do I have to say every time that a Likud warmonger has the outrageous chuzpah to say what this one did recently to Sec'y Austin's face...basically, and let's not kid ourselves, he intimated that "we're itching to start bombing not just Gaza, but in the West Bank and Lebanon too."

Do I also have to say to you that Hamas and Hezbollah are also warmongers too every time...as if we both don't already know that?

Instead, I get a whole bunch of them

First, the OP describes a conversation between Gallant and Austin. There is no Netanyahu in this picture. Besides, gallant is Netanyahu's nemesis. You absolutely didn't have to refer to netanyahu in this context: it wouldn't have been entirely out of place. So was the mention of warmongering that you associate with Netanyahu.

Second, Gallant did the opposite of intimating warmongering. From the OP: ""The possibility for an agreed framework in the northern arena is running out," Gallant told Austin in a phone call, according to a statement from his office." Clearly, this is a literal expression of concern that time to come to an agreement in order to avoid military escalation is running out. It takes a lot of imagination to see any hint of anyone itching for a confrontation in the entire post.

Third, Hamas is not even the subject of the conversation between Gallant and Austin. It is Hezbollah they are talking about. So no, you don't have to say anything about hamas when the conversation is not about Hamas. That is self-evident.

You absolutely do, however, have to acknowledge Hezbollah continuous attacks on Israeli civilians, causing deaths and injuries to Israeli children and adults, and the 100,000 Israelis displaced by their warmongering when the subject of the thread is Hezbollah's warmongering. That is self-evident too.

Please, you know this as well as I do, lest you create an impression of being entirely partial and disingenuous.

Aren't you sick of that war, and arguing about it? Let the warmongers do what they do.

I think you know as well as I do that if they were anyway sincere about wanting a ceasefire, hostage release and serious negos for a two-state solution it would've happened already.

It looks like there will be no solution. They want to keep fighting and don't give a fuck because they're in their secure locations and not in the line of fire.

There can be no solution if the parties don't want one.

I don't usually comment on the war, except to push against the normalization of this bias, wherever it comes from.

And just an observation: people who are sincere about cease fires do not create conditions that require the need for a cease fire. They do not break previous cease fires in order to take hostages and kill hundreds of civilians. People who are sincere about cease fires don't start fires.

And you are right: there will be no cease fire until Hamas releases all the hostages, alive and dead. They can do it tomorrow.

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2024, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

On both sides. Can you say the same? And can you deny all the operatives in our discussions today are warmongers who want the war to continue, which maintains their positions of power?

No war, no power, no security...court for some, maybe even captivity/war crimes for some too.

And you won't find any post of mine where I have not been impartial, even though because I call them all warmoners...Bibi, Galant and Likud too (Hamas, Hezbollah etc). I don't lie. It may seem a lie to you because of your bias.

Again, end it.

I want it done with. No more killing on both sides.

Your bias is more evident than you think. Apparently you don't like me calling Bibi, Galant. Likud warmongers...but I call it as their conduct has shown. And of course Hamas and Hezbollah are the same.

End it.

At the same time I don't claim to have no bias. On the contrary, I stated that my mission is to resist normalizing bias which almost ny definition implies bias in favor of the opposite.
Can you say you cn honestly acknowledge your bias as I do mine? Can you even say you are aware the bias in your first response? It appears that you are attempting to switch the discussion towards generalities now in hopes they will divert attention from that post.

And you are right: I don't like you calling Bibi and Galant warmongers, but only because you are purposely steering clear of applying the same standards to Sinwar, Nasrallah and Khameni in the same context. Unless you are repeatedly called out to do so, which is what I am doing.

by all parties? And calling all of the combatants on both sides warmongers? It's obvious you don't want to hear it because you have ot know that the Likud, IDF Bibi side took the killing to extremes by just about obliterating Gaza.

It's just not justifiable.

Again I say stop the killing of Jews, stop the killing of Palestinians.

And I thought we were more or less in agreement about the situation, but now I don't know.

" More warmongering. And to the Defense Sec'y of the nation which can cut off the weapons. My God."

in response to a post titled "Israeli minister says time running out for diplomatic solution with Hezbollah in Lebanon"

The anti-Israel bias implied in this response is undeniable (the response is directed at Israel's defense minister and no one but Israel's defense minister, even though his statement concerns aggression by Hezbollah), and it is on record, notwithstanding your later attempts to walk away from it when challenged.

The "bad people on both sides" argument does nothing to detract from what you stated, and I will not let it be used to change the subject.