Weird comment. I wasn't saying there would be a terrorist attack in Manchester, I was referencing the one that already happened?Will the attack in Manchester be before or after London has fallen ?
Apologies , Libby.
Thought that the post was by IOAG
Will the attack in Manchester be before or after London has fallen ?
Thought that it was a post by our regular genocide apologist.That’s not really making this any less weird!
Thought that it was a post by our regular genocide apologist.
"This constantly shifting application of the term genocide appears to have settled on one particular target. Critics of Israel now relentlessly denounce the Jewish State, accusing it of the very crime that necessitated its creation."
Well, yeah. That’s precisely the argument; that the State of Israel is guilty of a similar level of atrocity against the civilian populations of her Arab neighbours, as the Nazis were guilty of against Europe’s Jews. Or if not that, then the intent is the same; both Hitler and Netanyahu envisaged a final solution to an old problem; a solution involving unimaginable violence against civilian populations.
Hitler told his generals, during the invasion of Russia, that they were engaged in a war of annihilation. Is it hard to imagine Netanyahu saying the same thing to his generals? It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination, to recognise some equivalence th
Comparing what the Nazis did to the Jews in WW2 with the war in Gaza is not only exaggerating Israel's recent conduct but playing down the inhuman behaviour of Nazi Germany. Using the word genocide to describe Israel's operations in Gaza is not by chance. The anti Israeli/antisemites are deliberately using the word knowing full well it's sensitivity to Jews, purely to antagonise them.Well, yeah. That’s precisely the argument; that the State of Israel is guilty of a similar level of atrocity against the civilian populations of her Arab neighbours, as the Nazis were guilty of against Europe’s Jews. Or if not that, then the intent is the same; both Hitler and Netanyahu envisaged a final solution to an old problem; a solution involving unimaginable violence against civilian populations.
Hitler told his generals, during the invasion of Russia, that they were engaged in a war of annihilation. Is it hard to imagine Netanyahu saying the same thing to his generals? It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination, to recognise some equivalence there.
I certainly can blame them. Watching their soldiers kill people as they queue for hours for food is hardly something that can't be blamed. Bombing hospitals and schools I can certainly blame them. Systematically killing journalists I can blame them. Lovely that they provided bottles of water after bombing all their infrastructure into oblivion. Death penalty for one race of people, destruction of crops I can blame them for. I spoke to a Jewish friend of mine about comparing it to the holocaust and the use of that word and she educated me into why it wouldn't be right to use which made me think about sensitivities regarding language used. I can see why the UN, Amnesty International, scholors etc call it a genocide. You can argue that Israel's conduct hasn't been as bad as the Nazis but there's a lot of people using that as an excuse to give Israel carte blancheComparing what the Nazis did to the Jews in WW2 with the war in Gaza is not only exaggerating Israel's recent conduct but playing down the inhuman behaviour of Nazi Germany. Using the word genocide to describe Israel's operations in Gaza is not by chance. The anti Israeli/antisemites are deliberately using the word knowing full well it's sensitivity to Jews, purely to antagonise them.
In regards to Netanyahu calling on his generals to annihilate Gazans, it doesn't stand up in reality. The Israeli's have regularly informed the people there when and where they are going to attack. Despite accusations to the contrary Israel facilitates and allows humanitarian aid—including food, water, medicine, and fuel—to enter Gaza through various crossings.
As of 2026, Israel has been involved in distributing over 14 million bottles of water and installing purification stations.
Incidentally, much of the food shortages are reported to have been caused by UN convoys being hijacked by various militia groups within Gaza who then sell on their surplus to the Gazan people. The UN are quite happy for Israel to get blamed for the shortages.
I post all of that because none of it sounds like a country whose aim is, with regards to the Gazans/Palestinians, the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
If you are referring to Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis identified for annihilation, that's a different matter because I would agree they are looking to eradicate the terrorists that have been trying to eradicate them. October 7th 2023 was the point when Israel decided enough was enough and who can blame them? That event seems to be glossed over when blame for this crisis is being apportioned. "Yeah it was terrible what Hamas did but......" Then it's back to Jew bashing.
Rather than Israel operating a genocide you don't have to look much further than Iran to see who is promoting it. It is openly their objective. Israel is surrounded by terrorist organisations, funded by Iran that want to "wipe them off the map". Israel's response is calculated, ruthless and quite often brutal. Again, who can blame them?
From 2005 when the Guardian was more balanced.
![]()
Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president
Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would...www.theguardian.com
I am getting totally hacked off with this Mandelson inquiry, it seems everything is based on hindsight, they ask a witness a question, get his/her answer, then ask the same question two or three times with a different slant, to try to get a different answer? They keep asking hypothetical questions which are totally meaningless.
We can all move on when Starmer's out of office. He's not fit to be PM.Totally agree mate. People care about the state of the country, broken public services, wages falling way behind inflation, and yeah, immigration, (which imo many are brainwashed into thinking is to blame for the rest of it).
But only the media cares about Peter ****ing Mandelson. Appointing him was a mistake, Starmer has said as much; now let’s move on ffs.
Whereas Boris Johnson was? Ps. Starmer isn't great but we don't need to destabilise this country further.We can all move on when Starmer's out of office. He's not fit to be PM.
Yes and he resigned after he was found to have lied to MP's. There's no reason to think a change in PM will destabilise the country.Whereas Boris Johnson was? Ps. Starmer isn't great but we don't need to destabilise this country further.