Kicking off in Israel

[C69]

Fuck me, even if it runs just for a couple of hours emergency use, is that not better than nothing? If it sets up a potential for more fuel to be offered? Israel is never going to give them thousands of litres in one go, for fear of Hamas grabbing it for their own generators.

"Yeah, Israel offered some fuel, that they desperately need, what arseholes..."

It's a gesture. Read what I have posted earlier and what Glaston has posted. Turning systems on for short periods tha have been off for long periods can cause many more problems than imagined.
This is the reason.

Then leave those ones off, and at least turn the lights on so you can see what you're doing when trying to treat people at night time? Even just having lighting has surely got to be quite handy for a hospital? And it's not going to use up that much energy.. No, you're right, let's just sit in the dark and let people die, because the Israeli's offered us fuel we need, but didn't do it how we wanted.

I'm not going to get into an argument about this.
Having worked in ITU for over 30 years I think I know a little bit about the workings of a hospital
Part of my job at present involves me recommending home generators for ventilators btw.
We can agree to differ over what an impact such a small amount of fuel will have.

[Raggs]

I'm not going to get into an argument about this.
Having worked in ITU for over 30 years I think I know a little bit about the workings of a hospital
Part of my job at present involves me recommending home generators for ventilators btw.
We can agree to differ over what an impact such a small amount of fuel will have.

I'm sure you do.

Is working in the dark, better than working in light? That's it. Leave everything else turned off, turn the lights on. What is preferable? Forget the ventilators, forget any other machinery, even if everything else stays off, just lights. Better or worse? Even if it's a single one off thing (and there's no suggestion it would be). It's a hospital, there will not be natural light in every section even during the day.

[Calculon]

I haven’t followed this particular story but wasn't the fuel rejected because the Hamas controlled hospital didn't want the Israeli army delivering it, not because C69 told them the amount was insultingly little?

[Raggs]

I haven’t followed this particular story but wasn't the fuel rejected because the Hamas controlled hospital didn't want the Israeli army delivering it, rather than because C69 told them the amount was insultingly little?

Israel claimed Hamas told the hospital not to claim it. The head of the hospital said that they want the Red Cross to deliver it instead.

[Calculon]

OK, so they still wanted the fuel despite the fact that it was “going to cause more problems than imagined”

[Raggs]

OK, so they still wanted the fuel despite the fact that it was “going to cause more problems than imagined”

Personally I suspect that the head of the hospital had to come up with some excuse as to why they couldn't take it, without pissing off Hamas. But that's me tending to believe the Israeli version of events in this case.

[C69]

Is it true that Israel has suggested Blair be a chief negotiator in the conflict?
Really?I thought this may be mischief making.

[Glaston]

Is it true that Israel has suggested Blair be a chief negotiator in the conflict?
Really?I thought this may be mischief making.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-sa ... ordinator/

"With pressure on Jerusalem growing to do more for Strip’s civilians, Netanyahu reportedly hopes former British PM will take on task, providing war effort with greater legitimacy"

F'me what a day

[Raggs]

Is it true that Israel has suggested Blair be a chief negotiator in the conflict?
Really?I thought this may be mischief making.

Blair has been very active on the middle east peace process for a fair while now. Reading up on it (I thought he had been, didn't realise how much). He was the middle east envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia for 8 years, and there's a thing called the Tony Blair institute too.

[Simian]

LOL

Stop this kind of posting

What "kind" of posting? Laughably fake propaganda videos?

Am I allowed to quote them if they are posted by another poster?

https://x.com/astraiatwt/status/1722899 ... 47409?s=20

They repeated the video with a new actor after they apparently realise that Mr fafo is now too famous...

This is the second video that calculon posted. Same scene, same actors, just a new lead.

Just a thought, but maybe say you think it’s fake.

I think we can all agree that there’s not much going on in this space that should make us ‘laugh out loud’.

[C69]

Is it true that Israel has suggested Blair be a chief negotiator in the conflict?
Really?I thought this may be mischief making.

Blair has been very active on the middle east peace process for a fair while now. Reading up on it (I thought he had been, didn't realise how much). He was the middle east envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia for 8 years, and there's a thing called the Tony Blair institute too.

Err many in the UK think he may be a war criminal

I believe it is a sentiment that may be felt by all but Israel.

[Raggs]

Is it true that Israel has suggested Blair be a chief negotiator in the conflict?
Really?I thought this may be mischief making.

Blair has been very active on the middle east peace process for a fair while now. Reading up on it (I thought he had been, didn't realise how much). He was the middle east envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia for 8 years, and there's a thing called the Tony Blair institute too.

Err many in the UK think he may be a war criminal

I believe it is a sentiment that may be felt by all but Israel.

Yet the EU, UN etc still felt that he was the right choice for middle East envoy.

[C69]

Blair has been very active on the middle east peace process for a fair while now. Reading up on it (I thought he had been, didn't realise how much). He was the middle east envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia for 8 years, and there's a thing called the Tony Blair institute too.

Err many in the UK think he may be a war criminal

I believe it is a sentiment that may be felt by all but Israel.

Yet the EU, UN etc still felt that he was the right choice for middle East envoy.

What do the ME think about this?
The press ànd the populace?

[Raggs]

Err many in the UK think he may be a war criminal

I believe it is a sentiment that may be felt by all but Israel.

Yet the EU, UN etc still felt that he was the right choice for middle East envoy.

What do the ME think about this?
The press ànd the populace?

I don't know, have you tried looking it up?

[C69]

Yet the EU, UN etc still felt that he was the right choice for middle East envoy.

What do the ME think about this?
The press ànd the populace?

I don't know, have you tried looking it up?

Really?
That response is below you.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I'm not a huge Blair fan, albeit I was never as vexed with going to war in Iraq as many, but if he's a voice Israel will listen to and it helps get some much needed aid in then concerns about what it looks like can piss right off.

As the decades roll on it continues to be the case nobody has a good idea what to do, but it is at least something if you've got someone who can start to have a conversation

[Raggs]

Really?
That response is below you.

Why? I'm serious, you ask questions and seem to expect someone else to keep handing you answers. If it had been something to do with Israel, fair enough, this though? Your search bar works as well as mine. A quick search would suggest Saudi Arabia give his foundation cash. Jordan seems to endorse the institute at a governmental level as well, sending representatives to the graduations. Blair and his institute seem to interact with the Egyptian government too.

Why couldn't you have looked that up?

If you mean is there reaction to a rumour that doesn't get seem to have been announced officially, no, I can't be bothered to try andfind that. Maybe you can?

Edit - oh, and if we're being picky, better working in a hospital with the lights on or off?

[Guy Smiley]

Really?
That response is below you.

Why? I'm serious, you ask questions and seem to expect someone else to keep handing you answers. If it had been something to do with Israel, fair enough, this though? Your search bar works as well as mine. A quick search would suggest Saudi Arabia give his foundation cash. Jordan seems to endorse the institute at a governmental level as well, sending representatives to the graduations. Blair and his institute seem to interact with the Egyptian government too.

Why couldn't you have looked that up?

If you mean is there reaction to a rumour that doesn't get seem to have been announced officially, no, I can't be bothered to try andfind that. Maybe you can?

Edit - oh, and if we're being picky, better working in a hospital with the lights on or off?

Perhaps he was looking for an opinion from someone with local knowledge, as opposed to 'looking it up'... media being the treacherous beast we all know it to be.

[Calculon]

I'm not a huge Blair fan, albeit I was never as vexed with going to war in Iraq as many, but if he's a voice Israel will listen to and it helps get some much needed aid in then concerns about what it looks like can piss right off.

As the decades roll on it continues to be the case nobody has a good idea what to do, but it is at least something if you've got someone who can start to have a conversation

He’s also a hero in Kosovo with babies named after him, and he played an important role in securing peace in Northern Ireland. To think he is seen as a war criminal everywhere outside of Israel is profoundly ignorant.

[Raggs]

Really?
That response is below you.

Why? I'm serious, you ask questions and seem to expect someone else to keep handing you answers. If it had been something to do with Israel, fair enough, this though? Your search bar works as well as mine. A quick search would suggest Saudi Arabia give his foundation cash. Jordan seems to endorse the institute at a governmental level as well, sending representatives to the graduations. Blair and his institute seem to interact with the Egyptian government too.

Why couldn't you have looked that up?

If you mean is there reaction to a rumour that doesn't get seem to have been announced officially, no, I can't be bothered to try andfind that. Maybe you can?

Edit - oh, and if we're being picky, better working in a hospital with the lights on or off?

Perhaps he was looking for an opinion from someone with local knowledge, as opposed to 'looking it up'... media being the treacherous beast we all know it to be.

He literally asks about what the press thinks about it (and also the populace). Given the nature of this forum, if he genuinely wanted to know, and isn't willing to look it up, this might not be the best place to ask the question hoping for people of local knowledge of the various different ME countries?

[Ymx]

headshot from Raggs.

[Ymx]

Gotta love the bee

[Uncle fester]

Interesting series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Austr ... prov=sfla1

Some eerie parallels with modern times.

[Tichtheid]

Interesting series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Austr ... prov=sfla1

Some eerie parallels with modern times.

I haven't heard of it, though I see it's available on BBC iplayer.

[Guy Smiley]

Interesting series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Austr ... prov=sfla1

Some eerie parallels with modern times.

I haven't heard of it, though I see it's available on BBC iplayer.

Brutal colonisation coupled with dehumanising the opponent. It's a well tried and proven formula. Goes hand in hand with mass denial.

(a mate of mine from WA has published on the subject of colonisation and suppression in Western Australia, he continues to work in the field and constantly has to deal with the usual online abuse that goes with the territory

https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/every- ... -1882-1905)

[Ymx]

I had mistakenly thought Al Jazeera wasn’t too dodgy



But I think it was one of the ones implicated to have journalists following the terrorists pre attack.

[Eugenius]

You think ?

Evidence please .

[Raggs]

Happily posting their war crimes, civilian clothing, protected buildings.

[Slick]

Happily posting their war crimes, civilian clothing, protected buildings.

Before I click play, should I?

[sockwithaticket]

Happily posting their war crimes, civilian clothing, protected buildings.

Before I click play, should I?

Nothing graphic. Just footage of what seems to be someone rigging a device and then soldiers walking past it without incident.

[Ymx]

Was that not the point where the device was triggered, based on the text.

[Ymx]

You think ?

Evidence please .

From a quick search, they were not one of the bunch based on this



Another set of outlets listed.

[Raggs]

Happily posting their war crimes, civilian clothing, protected buildings.

Before I click play, should I?

I wouldn't post anything graphic normally, and if I did, it would be spoilered with warning. Saw an image of one of the female captives being taken into Gaza, blood at the back of her trousers making it rather apparent what she'd been through, as well as an obvious slash across her achilles to make sure she couldn't run off. It's really not that graphic in many senses, but extremely disturbing.

The video shows the booby trap being placed, and then the Israeli's coming in after it's been set off (a large portion of the lower level of the 2nd part has been heavily blurred, maybe the camera just isn't working well, or maybe there's something there). Multiple Israeli solders have been reported killed due to booby traps.

[Uncle fester]

So Arab countries won't be playing kapo for Israel.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... -israel-us

[Guy Smiley]

So Arab countries won't be playing kapo for Israel.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... -israel-us

Safadi, in a no-holds-barred attack on Israel and the cover being provided by the US, said faith in peaceful negotiation and international law was being destroyed by the west’s refusal to rein in Israel.

The credibility of international law had fallen victim to its selective application, he said. “If any other country in the world did a fragment of what Israel did, it would have sanctions imposed on it from every corner of the world.”

He said even those who accepted Israel was acting in self-defence “keep telling Israel to act within international law. It is not, so where do we go from here? Keep telling them to do it? They keep refusing to do it. People are being killed day in and day out.”

He said: “International law has to apply to all. The message seems to be that Israel can do whatever it wants. That is what the world is seeing, [that] Israel is above the law.”

The US needs to find a way out of this mess. China and Russia are sitting back watching yet another theatre descend into chaos.

[Tichtheid]

As far as I understand it, this is the oder of events of something that happened this week, Piers Morgan, someone who has portrayed himself as a beacon in the battle for free speech, he interviewed Jeremy Corbyn for a pod cast in which he repeatedly asked Corbyn to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Corbyn apparently avoided the question several times.

I saw in the Guardian earlier that Starmer was saying Corbyn's days as a Labour MP were over, he'd never be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate again.

No matter what you think of Corbyn, he has not donned a bandanna and picked up an AK47, he has not planted any bombs nor, as far as I'm aware, has he condoned the atrocities on 7th of October or incited armed aggression of any sort.

From his wiki page, the people of his constituency have elected him at every opportunity since 1983.

These bastions of free speech have denied the people of the constituency of Islington North the opportunity to vote for the same candidate they have shown faith in for 40 years. I'm not asking anyone to like Corbyn and I'm certainly not asking anyone to agree with him, but shouldn't his constituents decide if he should represent them or not? - that is the argument I've heard the likes of Rees-Mogg trot out when asked if he should step down after being found out for one thing and another.

My recollection of Corbyn's association with Hamas and other groups is that he has always advocated dialogue, you know, just like Thatcher did in private with groups in Northern Ireland whilst proscribing them in public.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Corbyn can run in Islington, which doesn't mean Labour is obliged to have the disgusting creep as their candidate.

[sockwithaticket]

As far as I understand it, this is the oder of events of something that happened this week, Piers Morgan, someone who has portrayed himself as a beacon in the battle for free speech, he interviewed Jeremy Corbyn for a pod cast in which he repeatedly asked Corbyn to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Corbyn apparently avoided the question several times.

I saw in the Guardian earlier that Starmer was saying Corbyn's days as a Labour MP were over, he'd never be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate again.

No matter what you think of Corbyn, he has not donned a bandanna and picked up an AK47, he has not planted any bombs nor, as far as I'm aware, has he condoned the atrocities on 7th of October or incited armed aggression of any sort.

From his wiki page, the people of his constituency have elected him at every opportunity since 1983.

These bastions of free speech have denied the people of the constituency of Islington North the opportunity to vote for the same candidate they have shown faith in for 40 years. I'm not asking anyone to like Corbyn and I'm certainly not asking anyone to agree with him, but shouldn't his constituents decide if he should represent them or not? - that is the argument I've heard the likes of Rees-Mogg trot out when asked if he should step down after being found out for one thing and another.

My recollection of Corbyn's association with Hamas and other groups is that he has always advocated dialogue, you know, just like Thatcher did in private with groups in Northern Ireland whilst proscribing them in public.

Starmer has tried very, very hard to clamp down on even the appearance of anti-semitism given how the allegations of it threatened the party under Corbyn. Refusing to brand Hamas a terrorist organisation was always going to create a shitstorm and to have it centred on the man who, rightly or wrongly, was deemed to be at the heart of Labour's apparent anti-semitism problem at the current moment in time is deeply unhelpful to Labour.

It could also be reaching the end of one's tether over Corbyn's needless and rather naive interjections into foreign policy from the back benches. He came out with some incredibly tone deaf, unrealistic peacenik rhetoric around the war in Ukraine not so long ago. And of course the right wing press lapped it up as they will this. There is not enough prominent left wing media to counterract what the right will do with this and the sorts of people Labour need to maintain their healthy poll lead are Corbyn sceptics at the best of times.

The people of Islington North would be denied the chance to vote for Corbyn as a Labour candidate, it's up to him whether he might choose to stand as an independent and see whether they were voting for man or rosette.

[Tichtheid]

Those first responses were entirely predictable.

The point I am making has a few layers, one of which is the hypocrisy, where free speech is only allowed if it is something we agree with, which is really not free speech at all.
Any views which do not incite violence or discrimination are allowed under free speech, no matter how much you dislike them. With the freedom comes responsibility of course, ie you are not free to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema.

Another point is linked, someone like Morgan, more tv personality than journalist, should not be allowed to hound someone out of any political party, which is what has happened here. There was no investigation which turned up evidence which was not previously known, it's just that right now you dare not resist the consensus opinion. If Starmer didn't chuck Corbyn out then he was going to face front pages accusing him of siding with those beheading babies. Just like we get here.

[Tichtheid]

As far as I understand it, this is the oder of events of something that happened this week, Piers Morgan, someone who has portrayed himself as a beacon in the battle for free speech, he interviewed Jeremy Corbyn for a pod cast in which he repeatedly asked Corbyn to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Corbyn apparently avoided the question several times.

I saw in the Guardian earlier that Starmer was saying Corbyn's days as a Labour MP were over, he'd never be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate again.

No matter what you think of Corbyn, he has not donned a bandanna and picked up an AK47, he has not planted any bombs nor, as far as I'm aware, has he condoned the atrocities on 7th of October or incited armed aggression of any sort.

From his wiki page, the people of his constituency have elected him at every opportunity since 1983.

These bastions of free speech have denied the people of the constituency of Islington North the opportunity to vote for the same candidate they have shown faith in for 40 years. I'm not asking anyone to like Corbyn and I'm certainly not asking anyone to agree with him, but shouldn't his constituents decide if he should represent them or not? - that is the argument I've heard the likes of Rees-Mogg trot out when asked if he should step down after being found out for one thing and another.

My recollection of Corbyn's association with Hamas and other groups is that he has always advocated dialogue, you know, just like Thatcher did in private with groups in Northern Ireland whilst proscribing them in public.

Starmer has tried very, very hard to clamp down on even the appearance of anti-semitism given how the allegations of it threatened the party under Corbyn. Refusing to brand Hamas a terrorist organisation was always going to create a shitstorm and to have it centred on the man who, rightly or wrongly, was deemed to be at the heart of Labour's apparent anti-semitism problem at the current moment in time is deeply unhelpful to Labour.

It could also be reaching the end of one's tether over Corbyn's needless and rather naive interjections into foreign policy from the back benches. He came out with some incredibly tone deaf, unrealistic peacenik rhetoric around the war in Ukraine not so long ago. And of course the right wing press lapped it up as they will this. There is not enough prominent left wing media to counterract what the right will do with this and the sorts of people Labour need to maintain their healthy poll lead are Corbyn sceptics at the best of times.

The people of Islington North would be denied the chance to vote for Corbyn as a Labour candidate, it's up to him whether he might choose to stand as an independent and see whether they were voting for man or rosette.

I agree act Corbyn is naive, he's not a heavyweight political player, Morgan knew what he was doing. Another layer to my point is that I think that undermines democracy - Thatcher was never portrayed as a terrorist sympathiser, let alone ousted for it, but she probably had more engagement than Corbyn ever had - albeit at arm's length with deniability etc