Robin Hood wrote:Here you go yet again, proving my point and waffling on about everything except what the thread is about ...... in case it missed you .... it's about
GAZA! Although over time you have managed to divert it onto anything about Gaza/Jews/Zionists/Zionism/anti-semitism (
as opposed to anti-Semitism)/ HAMAS/ Palestinians ...... etc. etc. and of course your signature personal attacks on those you disagree with.
BTW: You have never substantiated your claim that a reference to Zionists or Zionism is nothing more than a derogatory term for Jews, have you? In all those years you have denied that Zionists actually exist at all ..... except in my mind. How about demonstrating your knowledge on the subject and tell us where this '
derogatory term' came from? Then your inane ramblings on something you obviously have little knowledge of, would at least give you a bit of credibility.
Nonsense. I've posted about Gaza quite a bit. You just don't like what I've said so have ignored it. Instead, having hissy fits about what's basically just retaliation for your obnoxious insults. That's what you do.
FWIW, using large, bold lettering and doing the bully-boy act doesn't really help your case. It comes across as a bit deranged and certainly has no effect on me.
I can't actually recall denying the existence of Zionism. I don't. What I've said is, it's a euphemistic term you hide behind in order to legitimise your hatred of the Jewish State of Israel. Your - you don't seem to realise - anti-semitism.
You don't address my point, that you've either ignored or even defended Iranian high level declarations about destroying Israel. Clearly, you don't have a problem with them. BTW, it's been a long time but did you ever come up with substantiation for your claim that Israel had threatened Iran with Nuclear retaliation?
Unfortunately, repetition is a standard thing when engaging with you. Although, however many times points worthy of reasonable consideration are made they seldom get addressed. You just blank them. Then, you go into the deranged mode should it happen to you.
This war started on 7th October when Hamas attacked Israel and killed over 1200 people. In what can reasonably be said to be a barbaric manner. Moreover, they abducted 253, dragging them back into Gaza to be held as hostages. It could be argued, they were in a sense the lucky ones.
So, your first port of call was to come up with something that presents the widely reported accounts of that day as not being the "real truth". Because of course, no nation could fail to respond to such an act with anything other than a total retaliatorial commitment. So, off you popped to the Conspiracy Theory shop and got yourself some total nonsense about it all being part of an Israeli - Netanyahu (that's how you spell it Lordo
) - cunning plan to justify their attacking Gaza, annexing the land and committing "Genocide" on the Palestinian population. Despite the fact that what happened was political suicide for Netanyahu.
Next, the killing of all those Israelis - including many kids at a music festival, shot and rocketed to death as they attempted to flee - had to be dealt with. So, we get the usual, tired ole "false flag" argument. It was the Israelis wot dun it to make Hamas look bad. At least you're intelligent enough to realise that the Forum idiot's claim there's no proof Hamas had anything to do with the events of 7th October is absurd.
On the subject of credibility. What in the context of these "discussions" does that exactly mean? You've said quite a few times that you only post things you've carefully researched and know to be absolutely correct. So, you're obviously somebody who can never be wrong and, ipso facto, anybody who disagrees obviously is - and thus, clearly, has no "credibility". Even those who support you - like your sycophantic friend - are really just members of the congregation, sheepishly following your line. Obviously, they can't have any credibility, either. Credibility then is clearly a moveable feast.
Do you want to know something? I've followed your forum "career" for a long time. Long enough to recognise that whenever you find yourself in a sustained conflict with somebody who disagrees with your views it always ends up in the same place. You invariably take it to where we are with this. For the umpteenth time. It's actually always you that precipitates the exit from reasoned and reasonable discourse to a ranting, slag-fest. Do you understand why? It's because you enjoy it.