okfine
Diamond Member
I think the death ratio is 1 Israeli for 565 arabs.Absolutely. Look at the abuse muslims get. You are living in a fantasy world.
And that is within the last 10 years.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think the death ratio is 1 Israeli for 565 arabs.Absolutely. Look at the abuse muslims get. You are living in a fantasy world.
That is pretty sobering.I think the death ratio is 1 Israeli for 565 arabs.
Nonsense.That is pretty sobering.
Israel has lost the moral high ground on this one.
Took one post later to show Islamophobia....Thanks. I was just guessing. Both are wrong. Both gain traction when events overseas stir up feelings.
so common sense dictates that someone shouldn't march against racism. Got it.Yep... BBC have reporters embedded and they want none of there staff marching in support of Jewish or Palestinian...
This is called Common Sense.
Isreal can help themselves squandering any goodwill shown to them... Yes, Ireland was at the forefront of asking Isreal to show moderation... This is how Isreal behave..That is pretty sobering.
Israel has lost the moral high ground on this one. The blood lust is not selling well in any part of the world. The politicians have misjudged the mood of people. The Israeli response is diproportionate.
Their next step seems to be to clear Gaza of all Palestinians. I dont think the western world will put up with that.
Of course I could be wrong.
Only an idiot would think that march was about racism... The UK public and the BBC know a word called 'Context'....so common sense dictates that someone shouldn't march against racism. Got it.
Only an idiot would decide that a march against anti-Semitism is not about a march against anti-Semitism. Welcome to reality.Only an idiot would think that march was about racism... The UK public and the BBC know a word called 'Context'....
for the UMMAH such a march is BLASPHEMYOnly an idiot would decide that a march against anti-Semitism is not about a march against anti-Semitism. Welcome to reality.
Maybe even more crucial n less than ideal times.Freedom of speech is a quite good concept for 'ideal' times.
No. The antithesis, in fact.Were the McCarthyism or crackdowns on Vietnam anti-war protests one of the features of free speech rights?
Again, a silly question. Of course not.Or internment of the Japanese Americans as an example of equality and civil liberties?
My point is that even the homeland of 'the first amendment' ignored this great thing at some points in the past. And this will be happening at some points in the future.Maybe even more crucial n less than ideal times.
No. The antithesis, in fact.
Again, a silly question. Of course not.
Did you wish to make a point?
They would argue the arse off a fly. They have frittered away their goodwill. The mood is changing.Isreal can help themselves squandering any goodwill shown to them... Yes, Ireland was at the forefront of asking Isreal to show moderation... This is how Isreal behave..
![]()
Irish ambassador to Israel summoned for 'reprimand'
The Israeli foreign minister says he has summoned the Irish ambassador in Tel Aviv "for a reprimand" following Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's statement on the release of Emily Hand.www.rte.ie
"The Israeli foreign minister says he has summoned the Irish ambassador in Tel Aviv "for a reprimand" following Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's statement on the release of Emily Hand.
The Taoiseach last night described nine-year-old Emily’s release as an "enormous joy and relief" on the social media platform X, adding that "an innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief".
Many in Israel have taken exception to Mr Varadkar’s comment, in particular the terms "lost" and "found".
This afternoon the Taoiseach said the vast majority of people will understand what he was saying when he welcomed Emily's release, adding that he has always been consistent in his unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and hostage taking.
....
Following the outrageous words of the Prime Minister of Ireland about the release of Amelie Hand, who was kidnapped to Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas, I summoned the Irish ambassador to Israel for a reprimand.""
They seriously can't help themselves... Isreal just has to piss off everyone...
BTW, Ireland didn't tell Isreal to fuck off and she is just as much and Irish Citizen as a Israeli one.
![]()
Irish Ambassador ‘surprised’ at Israeli reaction to Leo Varadkar’s Emily Hand ‘lost’ tweet after showdown in Jerusalem
Ireland’s Ambassador to Israel has expressed ‘surprise’ at the reaction to a tweet made by Leo Varadkar after the release of Emily Hand (9) by Hamas at the weekend.www.independent.ie
Varadkar defended the post saying ‘majority of people understand what I was saying’... i.e. Dry your fucking eyes mate....
I think it is something in there culture... Secular Jews struggle to understand goodwill, I have work with Israelis and they don't seem to understand it.They would argue the arse off a fly. They have frittered away their goodwill. The mood is changing.
The FDR Japanese internment had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.My point is that even the homeland of 'the first amendment' ignored this great thing at some points in the past. And this will be happening at some points in the future.
BBC bans Jewish staff members from marching against anti-Semitism
What if their job requires them to be impartial.?What business is it of an employer to tell anyone who they can march for or against on their own time in their free expression of their speech?
Oh yeah, this in England.
what if there is no reason for the "IMPARTIAL" requirement --OR---What if their job requires them to be impartial.?
Are you just being wilfully ignoran or are you really this fucking stupid ?
Were they told to be impartial in 1940 ?what if there is no reason for the "IMPARTIAL" requirement --OR---
it's ok for employees to MARCH FOR PALESTINE but not for JOOOOS
to what are you referring----who is "they" and about what doesWere they told to be impartial in 1940 ?