Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[toastman]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Where the protecting of the citizenry → when the sovereign of the territory is challenged → when the culture itself is being threatened, there is NO SUCH THING as a "war of choice."

These perspectives by the Israeli are imperatives.

The Jewish People have learned the hard way that when the political stakes are high, even America's stance in defense of the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not safe. In 1939, even in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the US would refuse 900 Jewish Refugees, escaping NAZI Germany, to disembark in the US. The US was afraid of an entanglement with NAZI Germany. - Rather than doing the "right thing" the US chose to send the Jews back into the perils of harm's way.

That, and many more historical issues have had an impact on the Israeli psyche and the response to hostile Arab Palestinian assaults on the integrity of the Jewish homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not surprised that you don't know what happened.

Says the guy who has every single one of his Palestinian lies refuted 20 times a day . Don’t you get tired of losing EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT ?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(QUESTION)

Who says it doesn't work?

The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.

(COMMENT)

That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact. If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

Pal'istan rising?

Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.

(COMMENT)
.
It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. (See Posting # 1607)

.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.

Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month

The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month. The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field. In response, it said it...

news.yahoo.com

Why does Israel start history in the middle?

Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: I'll be very open and honest upfront. I could only get through the first eleven and a half minutes into the presentation. And in that first eleven minutes (+) the essence was a thesis on the ethical issues that expressing emotional outbursts and utterances in a string; like following the repetitive beads of a Dominican Rosary. They make the same set of complaints and accusations broken by an ad hominem or a breakdown of logic. Then they start over. They use new phrases to describe the same conditions to make it sound as if it were unrepetitive. One of my favorites was the "Palestinian Resistance Trust." And the accusations and complaints are riddled with terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" when in fact none of these terms fit the ground truth and reality of the situation. Thus these accusations cannot be either true or false. It like a precious work of art • perfectly honest people appreciate Mona Lisa (Leonardo da Vinci 1503) to varying degrees - and some (like myself) not at all.

BLUF: When I was in High School, during football season, there was this ritual called a pep rally before every game. In my day, we had the worse team ever. But after a pep rally - you would have thought we were the State Champions. These little Pro-Palestinian videos are very much like a Pep Rally for the State Sponsor of Palestinian Terrorism (as defined by the EU).

(COMMENT)
.
Many of the terms like "apartheid • aggression • massacre • and attack" are used for sensationalism and shock value. The Gaza Strip engineered their position and the consequences that were an outcome of their violence.

Remove the element of sympathy and you wash away the principal edge of support.

Remember (what is often forgotten and the pro-Palestinians never mention), each attack by the (so-called) Resistance violation under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) → "protected persons" (the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the "Occupying Power" (Israelis) are subject to prosecution by the Occupation Power.

This is not up for debate, it is the law (Article 68 GCIV). It does not require interpretation. Each Incidiary Device released, each rocket or mortar fired, each incursion into Israeli Sovereign Territory, is a violation of Customary and IHL. Whereas a defensive response by the Israelis to the violence incited by the Arab Palestinian Leadership [a violation of International Humanitarian Law • Article 20 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)] is taken to secure the Israeli Citizens acts of aggression.

No pro-Palestinian Pep Rally, riot or march is going to change that.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, are you saying that the Palestinians cannot respond to Israel's aggression?

So you are saying that Israel cannot respond to a Palestinian aggression ?

No.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(QUESTION)

Who says it doesn't work?

The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.

(COMMENT)

That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact. If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.

Most Respectfully,
R

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

Pal'istan rising?

Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.

(COMMENT)
.
It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. (See Posting # 1607)

.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.

Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month

The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month. The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field. In response, it said it...

news.yahoo.com

Why does Israel start history in the middle?

Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?

To confuse low IQ Zionists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Where the protecting of the citizenry → when the sovereign of the territory is challenged → when the culture itself is being threatened, there is NO SUCH THING as a "war of choice."

These perspectives by the Israeli are imperatives.

The Jewish People have learned the hard way that when the political stakes are high, even America's stance in defense of the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not safe. In 1939, even in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the US would refuse 900 Jewish Refugees, escaping NAZI Germany, to disembark in the US. The US was afraid of an entanglement with NAZI Germany. - Rather than doing the "right thing" the US chose to send the Jews back into the perils of harm's way.

That, and many more historical issues have had an impact on the Israeli psyche and the response to hostile Arab Palestinian assaults on the integrity of the Jewish homeland.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not surprised that you don't know what happened.

Says the guy who has every single one of his Palestinian lies refuted 20 times a day . Don’t you get tired of losing EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT ?

Interesting opinion.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(QUESTION)

Who says it doesn't work?

The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.

(COMMENT)

That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact. If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.

Most Respectfully,
R

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.

Except that Israel has no desire for the deaths of children as an inevitable consequence of Islamic terrorists waging war using civilians as shields.

The islamic terrorists openly announce their intention to use civilians as 'martyrs' with the near daily glorification of death in the service of islamist ideology.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

Pal'istan rising?

Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.

(COMMENT)
.
It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. (See Posting # 1607)

.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.

Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month

The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month. The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field. In response, it said it...

news.yahoo.com

Why does Israel start history in the middle?

Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?

To confuse low IQ Zionists.

Another of your failures.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

Pal'istan rising?

Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.

(COMMENT)
.
It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. (See Posting # 1607)

.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.

Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month

The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month. The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field. In response, it said it...

news.yahoo.com

Why does Israel start history in the middle?

Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?

To confuse low IQ Zionists.

Another of your failures.

I can understand why you feel that way.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

Pal'istan rising?

Posting Israel's war crimes will not help your cause.

(COMMENT)
.
It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. (See Posting # 1607)

.

Most Respectfully,
R

This was a war of choice for Israel.

Nonsense. Israel responded to the launch of rockets from Gaza. Such dishonesty is not unintentional.

Israel responds to 1st Gaza rocket fire in more than a month

The Israeli military said it struck three Hamas militant posts in Gaza early on Wednesday, in response to the first case of rocket fire from the territory in more than a month. The military said a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel and landed in an open field. In response, it said it...

news.yahoo.com

Why does Israel start history in the middle?

Why do you pose silly, rhetorical questions?

To confuse low IQ Zionists.

Another of your failures.

I can understand why you feel that way.

I knew that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Free Speech & the Right to Protest (Part 6 of 8)​

 

[Hollie]

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(QUESTION)

Who says it doesn't work?

The Israelis pretend to be intelligent. Why are they stuck on duh bomb'em. That doesn't work. Try something new.

(COMMENT)

That is where I think, like many people who suggest this track, the Israeli neutralization operations actually have a great impact. If it didn't work, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), that were the cause of the micro-conflicts, would not run like hell to seek cover under the skirts of the international community.

Most Respectfully,
R

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.

Sure, if you suppose this wasn't the goal,
and desperate for a victory pose...

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the Jihadis who signed the ceasefire?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are sidestepping my post.

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are sidestepping my post.

Every single one of your posts is sidestepping

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are sidestepping my post.

OH Hell... Just what did I sidestep?

R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are sidestepping my post.

OH Hell... Just what did I sidestep?

R

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Anti-Israeli Rhetoric
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Not all counter-mortar/counter-rocket operations have Enemy Annihilation as a commander's objective. I believe you should listen to what our friend "rylah" has said.

Are you suggesting that for the Israeli's actions to 'work',
they must result in the total removal of the enemies who signed the ceasefire?

(COMMENT)

There are several reasons why Enemy Annihilation might be considered (ie breakout operations, penetrations of the FEBA, and the protection of lightly armed maneuverer elements). One of the most common defensive reasons is when the OPFOR's ability to replenish stocks in order to maintain the required levels for sustained hostile operations is very short. If the OPFOR's ability to resupply is fast then suppression operations can keep them neutralized, then the magnitude and intensity of the retaliation will be to ratchet up the responses until the enemy can no longer maintain its tempo, the OPFOR is attrited below combat effectiveness, or that the OPFOR resupply and replenishment cycles are depleted.

In the case of HAMAS, it becomes obvious when their effectiveness is no longer sustainable → or → the stocks are depleted → when they sue for a cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are sidestepping my post.

OH Hell... Just what did I sidestep?

R

If Israels actions worked, there would be no need to call a cease fire.

I just wonder, do you repeat this mantra to convince yourself it was worth
to sacrifice hundreds of Gazans - or vice versa?