My thoughts on Israel

[accelafine]

Everyone knows it's a liar. I will pay a million dollars to anyone who can find a single comment from me supporting the starving and burning of babies.

[Age]

That lying nazi thing seems to imagine that its opinion of me and endless lying counts for something. Poor little Kenny.

Coming from the "jew" loving and "arab" hating thing. And, the proof for 'this' is in the writings of 'that one'.

Now, if absolutely any one would like to have a discussion, to see where the actual prove and Truth lays, then let 'us' have an open and honest one, here, so that 'the readers' can witness what transpires.

[Age]

Everyone knows it's a liar.

LOL What a Truly absurd, and insane, thing to 'now' say, and claim.

I will pay a million dollars to anyone who can find a single comment from me supporting the starving and burning of babies.

your views and comments like, ' "israel" must keep doing what they are doing to 'protect' "itself" from those menacing "palestinians" ', are the comments of you supporting the starving and burning of babies.

And, you can keep your worthless money.

[Maia]

Well, that was a really long slog, but I don't think I'll be taking any lectures from a time travelling Hitler supporter from the future, casting aspersions on my ability to carry out historical research.

[accelafine]

That lying nazi thing seems to imagine that its opinion of me and endless lying counts for something. Poor little Kenny.

Coming from the "jew" loving and "arab" hating thing. And, the proof for 'this' is in the writings of 'that one'.

Now, if absolutely any one would like to have a discussion, to see where the actual prove and Truth lays, then let 'us' have an open and honest one, here, so that 'the readers' can witness what transpires.

No links or actual quotes. Fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time, disgusting nazi lover.

[accelafine]

''Based on available information, it's generally stated that Israel's civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio (CCR) in recent conflicts is lower than or comparable to the ratios seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Here's a comparison:
Iraq War: Estimated CCRs range from roughly 3.2:1 to 1.5:1, and potentially as high as 4.5:1.
Afghanistan War: The estimated CCR is around 1:1.2 or 3:1.
Recent Israeli operations: Reports and estimates on Israel's CCR in Gaza vary, but many sources suggest a range of roughly 1:1 to 2:1. Some sources even claim the ratio is below 1:1.

Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, has commented on the civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in conflicts, including those involving Israel and Iraq. He argues that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have achieved a remarkably low civilian casualty ratio compared to other armies in modern conflicts, despite the complexities of urban warfare and Hamas's tactics.
Here's a summary of his points:
Israel's ratio: Kemp estimates the IDF's ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza to be around 0.8 civilians for every Hamas fighter killed. Other sources mention a ratio of 1:1.5.
Comparison to Iraq: Kemp claims that in Iraq, the estimated ratio of civilian to combatant deaths for US forces was three to one.
UN average: The UN estimates the average ratio of civilians killed in urban warfare around the world is nine to one. Kemp argues that Israel's ratio is significantly lower than this global average.
Context: Kemp attributes the relatively lower civilian casualty ratio in Gaza to the IDF's efforts to minimize civilian harm, such as distributing leaflets and warnings, while acknowledging that civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality in urban warfare. He notes that Hamas's tactics, including using civilians as human shields and hiding weapons in civilian areas, contribute to the complexity of the conflict and increase the risk of civilian casualties.''

[Age]

That lying nazi thing seems to imagine that its opinion of me and endless lying counts for something. Poor little Kenny.

Coming from the "jew" loving and "arab" hating thing. And, the proof for 'this' is in the writings of 'that one'.

Now, if absolutely any one would like to have a discussion, to see where the actual prove and Truth lays, then let 'us' have an open and honest one, here, so that 'the readers' can witness what transpires.

No links or actual quotes.

1. No one asked for any. See, unlike you when I ask you provide just some thing you do not, because you can not.

2. Even though no one has asked me for any proof I actually provided proof.

Fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time, disgusting nazi lover.

I have already provided the proof of where any one can find a single comment from you supporting the starving and burning of babies.

So, 'that' is resolved.

Next.

[Age]

Well, that was a really long slog,

What was, supposedly, a so-called really long slog?

but I don't think I'll be taking any lectures from a time travelling Hitler supporter from the future, casting aspersions on my ability to carry out historical research.

Of course you would not. you will only take 'lectures' from those who say what 'it' is you already believe and/or only want to hear, obviously.

[Maia]

It was because the British English (Anglo-Saxon) Pope, (H)Adrian IV, ordered a Plantagenet French English British king, in Laudabiliter, to get him 'his' money from the Irish.

The Jewish invasion of Palestine a mere 80 years ago has even less legitimacy, apart from force majeur. A catastrophe born of a holocaust. What astounds me is the utter meaningless of the Ummah, of Muslim commonwealth. That Arab Sunni Islam couldn't give a flying fuck about Sunni Arab Palestinians. Iran's rabid antisemitism comes from the wrong, heretical, Islam. Born of Iran's abuse by Britain and America with the Shah, who was our son of a bitch, unlike the noble by comparison Mossadegh. Who was Stalin's. History eh? The Shah's evil Savak were allowed to operate in London by good socialist Wilson. What a world eh?

There was nothing English about Henry II. He was French, ruled mainly from France, and was descended from the Normans who conquered England in 1066. If there were any actual English people involved in the Norman conquest of Ireland it was peasants conscripted as arrow fodder. You appear to be blaming the English for something that the people who had conquered them, the Normans, did.

As for whether Shia Islam is more wrong than Sunni, I wouldn't like to pass judgement, other than to say that both exhibit the very worst tendencies of monotheism for fanaticism, violence, and misogyny.

Henry II had Norman, French and ANGLO-SAXON ancestors. He was King of ENGLAND. Nicholas Brakespear, aka Pope Adrian IV, was an Englishman of Anglo-Saxon (German) roots. The English are a British people. The Irish are not. The Brittonic Celtic Ancient Britons were not in the modern sense. So there has been British, predominantly English, English Norman led English Anglo-Saxon and maybe non-English Celtic Welsh and English Celtic Cornish and later Gaelic Celtic Scots (who, of course, aren't descended from the Ancient Britons) interference in Ireland for over eight hundred years. I call that British interference. Not Norman.

I'm not passing any judgement on Islam whatsoever. The Shia are heretic as far as the Sunni are concerned. Worst is normal by a billion and more.

Charles III is descended from Dracula (Vlad the Impaler), but that doesn't make him Romanian, though to be fair, he might be a vampire. Henry II had a bit of English ancestry, but he was not English. He was French. He ruled England because his great-grandfather, the genocidal William I, had conquered it in 1066.

You can call it British interference if you like, but it doesn't make it so.

[accelafine]

Coming from the "jew" loving and "arab" hating thing. And, the proof for 'this' is in the writings of 'that one'.

Now, if absolutely any one would like to have a discussion, to see where the actual prove and Truth lays, then let 'us' have an open and honest one, here, so that 'the readers' can witness what transpires.

No links or actual quotes.

1. No one asked for any. See, unlike you when I ask you provide just some thing you do not, because you can not.

2. Even though no one has asked me for any proof I actually provided proof.

Fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time, disgusting nazi lover.

I have already provided the proof of where any one can find a single comment from you supporting the starving and burning of babies.

So, 'that' is resolved.

Next.

Stop talking to me lying nazi freak. A link or quote is the only thing on here that would constitute proof so shove your juvenile little word games up your arse.

[accelafine]

Israel isn't responsible for one single Gazan baby death since Oct 7.

[Age]

Based on available information, it's generally stated that Israel's civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio (CCR) in recent conflicts is lower than or comparable to the ratios seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

So, does this make 'it' 'justifiable', in some way?

If no, then why are you telling 'us' this, here, exactly?

What you are saying, here, is like claiming, "accelafine" has killed a less number of babies than someone else has. Who cares? you, still, killed a number of babies.

Again, the killing, maiming, starving, burning, harming, or hurting of children, and babies, can never ever be 'justified'. Although there are obviously people like you and "maia" who, somehow, believe that it can be 'justified'.

Here's a comparison:
Iraq War: Estimated CCRs range from roughly 3.2:1 to 1.5:1, and potentially as high as 4.5:1.
Afghanistan War: The estimated CCR is around 1:1.2 or 3:1.
Recent Israeli operations: Reports and estimates on Israel's CCR in Gaza vary, but many sources suggest a range of roughly 1:1 to 2:1. Some sources even claim the ratio is below 1:1.

So what? What does 'this' actually mean, or relate to, here, exactly?

93% of human beings who have lost there lives in motor vehicle accidents were wearing seat belts. So, should human beings wear seat belts in moving motor vehicles?

Statics can be skewed or twisted in many different ways. All depending on one's already skewed and/or twisted views or beliefs, and for what they are 'trying to' 'justify', or claim.

Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, has commented on the civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in conflicts, including those involving Israel and Iraq. He argues that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have achieved a remarkably low civilian casualty ratio compared to other armies in modern conflicts, despite the complexities of urban warfare and Hamas's tactics.

It does not matter one iota if it is one child, or one million children. One child died or hurt in adult caused and created conflict is unfathomably way too many. Unless, of course, one is like "accelfine", and who is 'trying' their hardest to 'justify' a war, or conflict, that could never ever be 'justified'.

Besides the fact that you have such a very narrowed and closed view of what has actually happened and occurred between the countries in discussion, here, your continued attempts to 'justify' this, or any, war will never ever succeed. So, why would you even want to 'try to' bother to 'justify' what just can not?

Here's a summary of points:

Using examples from a "war monger" to 'try to' 'justify' war, really, just makes you look 'more stupid' than you have been so far.

Israel's ratio: Kemp estimates the IDF's ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza to be around 0.8 civilians for every Hamas fighter killed. Other sources mention a ratio of 1:1.5.
Comparison to Iraq: Kemp claims that in Iraq, the estimated ratio of civilian to combatant deaths for US forces was three to one.
UN average: The UN estimates the average ratio of civilians killed in urban warfare around the world is nine to one. Kemp argues that Israel's ratio is significantly lower than this global average.
Context: Kemp attributes the relatively lower civilian casualty ratio in Gaza to the IDF's efforts to minimize civilian harm, such as distributing leaflets and warnings, while acknowledging that civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality in urban warfare. He notes that Hamas's tactics, including using civilians as human shields and hiding weapons in civilian areas, contribute to the complexity of the conflict and increase the risk of civilian casualties.
[/quote]

[Age]

No links or actual quotes.

1. No one asked for any. See, unlike you when I ask you provide just some thing you do not, because you can not.

2. Even though no one has asked me for any proof I actually provided proof.

Fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time, disgusting nazi lover.

I have already provided the proof of where any one can find a single comment from you supporting the starving and burning of babies.

So, 'that' is resolved.

Next.

Stop talking to me lying nazi freak.

LOL 'This one' comes into a 'philosophy forum', of all places, makes claims and comments, and then expects it can say who, or who not, talks to it.

A link or quote is the only thing on here that would constitute proof so shove your juvenile little word games up your arse.

Now, in just about every post of yours in this thread your comments constitute proof of supporting the starving and burning of babies.

Just look at' your previous post where you go on about how some "war monger" claims that the civilian casualties through starvation and burning, obviously human babies included, is 'justified' in 'this war' because the casualties are less than in 'other wars'.

Look "accelafine" any comment from you, or anyone else, who in absolutely any way at all is some how 'trying to' 'justify' war, itself, then those comments are supporting the starvation and burning of babies, as well as the maming and killing of them as well

you said you will pay a million dollars to anyone who can find a single comment from you supporting the starving and burning of babies.

ALL of your comments that 'try to' 'justify' ANY war is supporting the starving, the burning, the maiming, and the killing of babies.

Full stop.

[Age]

Israel isn't responsible for one single Gazan baby death since Oct 7.

'This' really was how twisted and demented some human beings had actually become.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

There was nothing English about Henry II. He was French, ruled mainly from France, and was descended from the Normans who conquered England in 1066. If there were any actual English people involved in the Norman conquest of Ireland it was peasants conscripted as arrow fodder. You appear to be blaming the English for something that the people who had conquered them, the Normans, did.

As for whether Shia Islam is more wrong than Sunni, I wouldn't like to pass judgement, other than to say that both exhibit the very worst tendencies of monotheism for fanaticism, violence, and misogyny.

Henry II had Norman, French and ANGLO-SAXON ancestors. He was King of ENGLAND. Nicholas Brakespear, aka Pope Adrian IV, was an Englishman of Anglo-Saxon (German) roots. The English are a British people. The Irish are not. The Brittonic Celtic Ancient Britons were not in the modern sense. So there has been British, predominantly English, English Norman led English Anglo-Saxon and maybe non-English Celtic Welsh and English Celtic Cornish and later Gaelic Celtic Scots (who, of course, aren't descended from the Ancient Britons) interference in Ireland for over eight hundred years. I call that British interference. Not Norman.

I'm not passing any judgement on Islam whatsoever. The Shia are heretic as far as the Sunni are concerned. Worst is normal by a billion and more.

Charles III is descended from Dracula (Vlad the Impaler), but that doesn't make him Romanian, though to be fair, he might be a vampire. Henry II had a bit of English ancestry, but he was not English. He was French. He ruled England because his great-grandfather, the genocidal William I, had conquered it in 1066.

You can call it British interference if you like, but it doesn't make it so.

I like. One wouldn't call 800 years of continuous interference by this state English interference. The enterprise became, is British. As British as Charles III. Not Romanian. Or Norman.