Change the name of Israel

[Brian Peacock]

Allah vs YHWH: an angry god at war with herself.

[pErvinalia]

Unarmed and peaceful protests? That's ridiculous. They were using molotov cocktails and other weapons, they were cutting through the border fence. They brought tires in to set fire and make huge plumes of smoke to obscure vision, so they could get at the fence and the Israeli soldiers.

You tell me to "stop watching fox news" but you believe nonsense. One, I don't watch Fox News, and two, you'd have to be really dishonest to say that these riots were peaceful.

I didn't say the riots were peaceful. You'd have to be really dishonest to say that I did.

Oh, good I stand corrected.

Thank you. Appears there's a first for everything..

[Forty Two]

LOL - you did say "there were peaceful protesters there. stop watching fox news"

Was the riot peaceful and unarmed?

[pErvinalia]

Of course not. That doesn't mean there weren't peaceful protesters there. Can you not understand simple English??

[Forty Two]

I never said there weren't peaceful protesters there. What I said was that the riots were violent, and armed, and therefore Israel was justified in responding to that. The response "there were peaceful protesters there" in no way contradicts the assertion that the protests themsleves were neither peaceful, nor unarmed.

Peacock had said the protest were predominently unarmed and peaceful. I responded that the protests were not peaceful.

"They aren't unarmed protesters. These were not "peaceful protests." There is no reason for 8 year olds, or infants, to be at violent protests on the border, where they're attacking the fence and Israeli soldiers. Most of the people shot were Hamas men, not women and children and the women and children who were there are dead because of Hamas.

Hamas admits that most of those killed were Hamas members - https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/ ... v13aaQvzIU"

You see, obviously, I know full well that there were unarmed people there, because I referred to the women an dchildren who were dead because Hamas caused civilians to show up to create exactly this very situation. They use them has human shields. I've made this point several times, and you just choose to ignore it, trying make your stupid and juvenile points. I've many times acknowledged - and you know this because you've responded to my posts - that civilians were there, women and children included -- of course they are unarmed and peaceful.

Your response to my point, that the riots were neither unarmed, nor peaceful, was to point out the obvious - and you idiotically stated "there were peaceful protesters there - stop watching fox news." If you understood English, or were in any way an honest participant in conversation, you'd have seen that in the same post you responded to, I - as I said - acknowedged there were unarmed and peaceful protests there. I acknowledged that as part of the problem.

Your response "there were peaceful protesters there" does not negate or contradict or even respond to, my assertion that the protests were neither unarmed nor peaceful. It's a nonsequitur. A diversion.

Learn to talk to people like a human being, and stop being so damn immature, and dodgy.

[pErvinalia]

There's something really wrong with you. I said there were peaceful protesters there. Which there were. You replied with "Unarmed and peaceful protests? That's ridiculous."

I never said the protests were peaceful or unarmed. I never implied it. I was responding to your direct claim that "They [the ones who were killed] aren't unarmed protesters."

[Forty Two]

You're missing the context of the conversation you invaded. I was talking to Peacock, not you, and my comment was in response to his comment, not yours. You responded to my comment by stating the bleeding obvious - that there were unarmed protesters there.

So, maybe next time, just stay out of the conversation, because you bring bad air with you, along with your purposefully antagonistic commentary designed to do the exact opposite have an interesting discussion.

You're just so monumentally disagreeable, impolite, nasty, and a troll. It's never ending with you.

[pErvinalia]

Did you, or did you not say that the ones killed "aren't unarmed protesters"?? This has nothing to do with who was conversing with who. If you said it, then you said it. Own your fucking words, ffs. You implied that I was being dishonest for saying that the protests weren't violent. I never said the protests weren't violent. Stop trying to make this about me. It's about your fucked reading ability and/or your dishonest replies.

[Forty Two]

No, please link to the post where you think I said that "the ones killed aren't unarmed protesters..."

My position on it is -- as I mentioned above - multiple times - obviously a woman killed and an 8 year old killed and an infant were probably unarmed, but they were killed because they are used by Hamas as human shields, and sent into the fray by Hamas to create exactly this type of incident.

I said most of those killed were Hamas members, out there to fight Israel. Hamas admitted that.

I made not conclusory statement declaring that every single casualty was armed.

If you understood otherwise, then you misread my post. I'm not lying. I'm telling you what I think. Instead of posting in the manner that you do, why not just fucking ask if that's what I mean? Oh, wait, I know why - because you're not interested in discussing, you just want to start fights and make yourself think you've scored points.

[pErvinalia]

I'm interested in holding your statements to account. Link to follow in a second.

[pErvinalia]

They aren't unarmed protesters.

[Forty Two]

Right, but that's not referring to every single person that was shot. You snip that out, and lose the context of me pointing out people who were, in fact, unarmed.

This is what you do, though, to suit your purpose. You like to snip one clause out, and claim that's the literal meaning of a paragraph of material. You want to make it look like what I said was that every, single, casualty was armed. Obviously, such absolutes generally don't exist in the world. I was obviously and plainly referring to the riots on the whole, and noting that what Israel was trying to deal with were not "unarmed protesters." They were dealing with armed and non-peaceful protesters attacking the wall and Israeli positions. I was also very clear that unarmed people were, unfortunately, there too - some of them were placed in harms way by Hamas on purpose, which they are wont to do.

I've clarified this more than once now. You know what I mean. You know that you took that blurb out of context. You know that in the next sentence I talk about the unarmed woman, the 8 year old adn the infant. You know I was not saying that every casualty was armed. That was clear when I first made post. It's clear now.

[pErvinalia]

Jesus you are interminable. You were replying to Brian who said: "...making them entirely responsible for Israel's killing of predominantly unarmed protesters on the Gaza side of the exclusion zone."

You unequivocally said they weren't unarmed. You are wrong. Own your fucking words, ffs.

[Forty Two]

Read the entirety of the fucking post. You dishonestly snip out most of it. You've even done it in mid-sentence before. At least this time, it's not as bad as that.

Remember that? When I wrote something to the effect of "X is the case, except Y" and you stopped at the comma, eliminated the exception, and tried to convince the forum that the entirety of my post was the main clause, and that the "except" bit didn't matter.

You're doing that again here, albeit not in mid-sentence. I did post "they are not unarmed..." but what is important, too, is what follows, which clearly discusses individuals who were unarmed. I explained fully what I was talking about. I've clarified and re-explained more than once since then. But, you being you, just want to argue that what I've said isn't what I really said.

Now fuck off.

[laklak]

Israel, Shmisrael.