40 Killed In Hamas Attacks In Israel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

There's no proof that Jesus said as much (and not that most Abrahamists think that Jesus was the son of God in the first place). You have simply believed something written down by someone else way after the event and with no audit trail of proof whatsoever. Do you also believe in the talking snake, as reported in the Bible just because it was written down at some stage (and when Adam and Eve and their progeny would have been illiterate)?
This Christian god can't even get most people on the planet (i.e. the very people he created himself) to believe in 'him' and those that do don't all have the same perspective on who Jesus supposedly was or believe in the same collation of 'holy book'. Even the threat of eternal damnation doesn't do the trick.
Oh, and many of the stories in the Bible came from earlier religions in the vicinity; the virgin birth, the story of Noah (Ziusudra in Sumerian culture and who was re-packaged as Atrahasis in Old Babylonian culture and then as Ushnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh), the story of a Moses being cast adrift as a baby to avoid being murdered (as in Mesoptamian stories), the story of Moses and receiving the 10 commandments (extremely close to ancient Egyptian writings), the forgiving nature and ability to heal the sick (as Asclepius in Greek culture), the Virgin birth (as in the cases of Mars the ancient Roman god and Horus the ancient Egyptian god). One could go on ad infinitum.
It's all folklore and exceedingly fascinating. To believe one version of a so-called holy book as literally all true because it is stated in one particular compendium (and one that contains contradiction) is amusing. Christianity took hold due to the expansion of the Roman Empire and the subsequent expansion of those cultures affected.
Abrahamism simply demonstrates the endless schisms that take place in respect of religions (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Baháʼí Faith, Samaritanism, Druze, Rastafari etc. Even Christianity has its own endless schisms; Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodism, Baptism, Lutheranism, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinism, Baptist, Pentecostalism etc etc etc).
In the absence of evidence, folklore is down to interpretation and it will be interpreted and and modified by its adherents as it goes along (and Christianity is simply a part of that process after taking onto The Torah (which itself lifted stories from elsewhere).
Whatever god you believe in, her/she/it isn't doing a great job in getting the majority of the world's population to believe in him/her/it - and religiosity is generally declining in countries where autocracy is not the flavour of government and where the population is educated.

---

There are 10 .....interpretations .....of Christianity listed by you there ......I believe its said there are 30 ?

The Islamic faith is often criticised by western religious faith hipsters ........because there are differing strands and even islamists can't agree

I would say these Christians should attend to the fire in their own back yard first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

There are 10 .....interpretations .....of Christianity listed by you there ......I believe its said there are 30 ?

The Islamic faith is often criticised by western religious faith hipsters ........because there are differing strands and even islamists can't agree

I would say these Christians should attend to the fire in their own back yard first

---

You can't put a number on schisms - as different individuals within the same schisms often disagree regarding interpretations, fundamental and otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

You can't put a number on schisms - as different individuals within the same schisms often disagree regarding interpretations, fundamental and otherwise.

---

Indeed it's all nonsense

A plague on all their houses

Apols for taking this serious thread down a different track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Not having sufficient evidence to believe in a deity is a lack of dogma rather than a dogma, old fruit.

---

I know that I am ill equipped to have a debate with your good self on semantics sir.
However I do think that the word dogmatic can mean unwavering in opinion.

Copied from vocabulary.com

“To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds”.

I find the atheist movement becoming more and more zealous as well as intolerant and disrespectful to people of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue

I know that I am ill equipped to have a debate with your good self on semantics sir.
However I do think that the word dogmatic can mean unwavering in opinion.

Copied from vocabulary.com

“To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds”.

I find the atheist movement becoming more and more zealous as well as intolerant and disrespectful to people of faith.

---

Not being convinced of something due to a lack of evidence at a particular juncture in time is not dogmatic, old fruit. If evidence appears in due course and is convincing then I will take it on board. That's not exactly never waivering in a 'belief'. (I don't have a 'belief' as such, at this point in time).

You may believe in talking snakes and donkeys but I am not aware of any evidence to back it up. Similarly, I have no access to evidence about deities with elephant heads, eagle heads or a horse's torso. You probably don't believe in the latter three or thousands of other gods that have been worshipped so does that make you dogmatic by your own projected logic?

Are you really not able to understand the difference between being unconvinced due to a lack of evidence of something (although understanding that new evidence may indeed be discovered and be taken into account in due course) and being so dogmatic that whatever you are convinced of is unassailably correct whilst all alternatives are incorrect?

I think the dogmatism is one way here, old fruit. You are merely projecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Not being convinced of something due to a lack of evidence at a particular juncture in time is not dogmatic, old fruit. If evidence appears in due course and is convincing then I will take it on board. That's not exactly never waivering in a 'belief'. (I don't have a 'belief' as such, at this point in time).

You may believe in talking snakes and donkeys but I am not aware of any evidence to back it up. Similarly, I have no access to evidence about deities with elephant heads, eagle heads or a horse's torso. You probably don't believe in the latter three or thousands of other gods that have been worshipped so does that make you dogmatic by your own projected logic?

Are you really not able to understand the difference between being unconvinced due to a lack of evidence of something (although understanding that new evidence may indeed be discovered and be taken into account in due course) and being so dogmatic that whatever you are convinced of is unassailably correct whilst all alternatives are incorrect?

I think the dogmatism is one way here, old fruit. You are merely projecting.

---

Not being certain in this case I would say is being agnostic not atheist.

You have made an assumption as to what I believe and disbelieve.
I’m not a believer in one true religion.
If someone believes in the son of Shiva…all power to them.

Are you able to understand that you have about as much of a clue regarding the origins of the universe as I do?
For all we know we could be part of a big simulation and your view on it carries no more weight than any devout Muslim or Hindu.
Higgs-Boson was held up as a scientific deity up until recently and now we are back still trying to find out more….which i think is a good thing.

Also, if you don’t mind…I’d appreciate it if you could define your understanding of the word “dogmatic” and if it is acceptable to be used in a non theological context.

The first dictionary definition of atheism I found on Google comes from 'Oxford Languages':


a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist""

'Or lacks belief'covers it, methinks.

I haven't stated how much I know about the origin of the universe and haven't suggested that I know more than you, old fruit. I don't have a problem in not knowing some things that seem unfathomable at this time. I just don't believe many of the Iron Age and Bronze Age explanations for such things.

We both know that dogmatic is used in a wider context than just regarding things theological and I have explained that my view on such things is not unchangeable, as I have explained. I don't tell other people what to think (including my religious friends) but I am happy explaining why I'm not religious.

Rather than the ad hominem stuff and discussing the different meaning of words (very important, I grant you) would you like to tell us about your world view (as mine is non-commital)? If not, and you want it to remain personal, I do understand.

I have no need to lock horns with you for the sake of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue

Not being certain in this case I would say is being agnostic not atheist.

You have made an assumption as to what I believe and disbelieve.
I’m not a believer in one true religion.
If someone believes in the son of Shiva…all power to them.

Are you able to understand that you have about as much of a clue regarding the origins of the universe as I do?
For all we know we could be part of a big simulation and your view on it carries no more weight than any devout Muslim or Hindu.
Higgs-Boson was held up as a scientific deity up until recently and now we are back still trying to find out more….which i think is a good thing.

Also, if you don’t mind…I’d appreciate it if you could define your understanding of the word “dogmatic” and if it is acceptable to be used in a non theological context.

---

For 20 or so years the accepted wisdom - provided by the scientific community - was that everything started with the 'big bang'. Disgracefully some people dared ask 'what was there before the big bang ?'. They came up with 'there was another big bang before that one.". Well that's settled that then !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

The first dictionary definition of atheism I found on Google comes from 'Oxford Languages':


a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist""

'Or lacks belief'covers it, methinks.

I haven't stated how much I know about the origin of the universe and haven't suggested that I know more than you, old fruit. I don't have a problem in not knowing some things that seem unfathomable at this time. I just don't believe many of the Iron Age and Bronze Age explanations for such things.

We both know that dogmatic is used in a wider context than just regarding things theological and I have explained that my view on such things is not unchangeable, as I have explained. I don't tell other people what to think (including my religious friends) but I am happy explaining why I'm not religious.

Rather than the ad hominem stuff and discussing the different meaning of words (very important, I grant you) would you like to tell us about your world view (as mine is non-commital)? If not, and you want it to remain personal, I do understand.

I have no need to lock horns with you for the sake of it.

---

A lack of faith is inaccurate as all individuals place faith in multiple things on a daily basis.
More specifically, it's the desire to believe that I am not accountable to any greater being, so I can live my life without any ultimate consequences whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

A lack of faith is inaccurate as all individuals place faith in multiple things on a daily basis.

Not blind faith.

More specifically, it's the desire to believe that I am not accountable to any greater being, so I can live my life without any ultimate consequences whatsoever.

Most of us have values, ethics and a moral framework to live our lives. We don't need to aspire to eternity in Valhalla or on a fluffy cloud with a bearded white grandad to feel accountable for our actions.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

[/COLOR]

.

---

Yet you have no clue why humans as opposed to lower forms of life have ethics and morals.

And Christians have never had blind faith.

And eternity is a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Yet you have no clue why humans as opposed to lower forms of life have ethics and morals.

And Christians have never had blind faith.

And eternity is a factor.

---

Well we know Christians are not safe to practice their alleged blind faith freely in many muslim countries, their persecution is quite troubling , “the inconvenient. truth” is that the overwhelming majority – up to 80% or some 245 million – of persecuted religious believers around the world today are Christians. His report went on to suggest that the situation is “arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide”....

No marches for them though .. its not cause that gets folk going or use as a political tool to hijack it for political gain and reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

For 20 or so years the accepted wisdom - provided by the scientific community - was that everything started with the 'big bang'. Disgracefully some people dared ask 'what was there before the big bang ?'. They came up with 'there was another big bang before that one.". Well that's settled that then !!

---

This has always been at the crux of things for me.
Conversely people could ask how god came into being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

A lack of faith is inaccurate as all individuals place faith in multiple things on a daily basis.
More specifically, it's the desire to believe that I am not accountable to any greater being, so I can live my life without any ultimate consequences whatsoever.

---

We are talking about theology, if you hadn't noticed :facepalm:
As for the lack of consequences, that's absolute baloney. Japan is less religious than most of Europe but has a lower crime rate.
And most atheists and agnostics don't go around murdering people as they fear no deity. You really have to up your intellectual game, old fruit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Well we know Christians are not safe to practice their alleged blind faith freely in many muslim countries, their persecution is quite troubling , “the inconvenient. truth” is that the overwhelming majority – up to 80% or some 245 million – of persecuted religious believers around the world today are Christians. His report went on to suggest that the situation is “arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide”....

No marches for them though .. its not cause that gets folk going or use as a political tool to hijack it for political gain and reaction.

---

So you finally care about the Christian churches blown up by the Israelis in Gaza. The marches are for the victims there too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

We are talking about theology, if you hadn't noticed :facepalm:
As for the lack of consequences, that's absolute baloney. Japan is less religious than most of Europe but has a lower crime rate.
And most atheists and agnostics don't go around murdering people as they fear no deity. You really have to up your intellectual game, old fruit.

---

We are all ultimately talking theology (or making some sort of attempt), so leave the departure into religion well alone, because you are only confusing yourself.

You also said - "In the absence of evidence, folklore is down to interpretation..."

People who have honestly looked at the evidence and like yourself didn't want it to prove to be true - (Josh McDowell - "Evidence that demands a verdict" / The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel (also a book) - have found something very different.

So what sets your research apart and what is the best evidence you have that the Bible is insignificant re the plight of your soul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

We are all ultimately talking theology (or making some sort of attempt), so leave the departure into religion well alone, because you are only confusing yourself.

You also said - "In the absence of evidence, folklore is down to interpretation..."

People who have honestly looked at the evidence and like yourself didn't want it to prove to be true - (Josh McDowell - "Evidence that demands a verdict" / The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel (also a book) - have found something very different.

So what sets your research apart and what is the best evidence you have that the Bible is insignificant re the plight of your soul?

---

Is The Bible significant regarding the souls of Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Sikhs, Shintoists and any life form that may exist in the Universe and light years away? And as for disproving that primitive tosh, I can't disprove the existence of fairies or pixies.
Your arguments are unbelievably weak and to be frank, quite laughable.

I'm off out now to murder a few people and cheat some pensioners out of their savings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

We are all ultimately talking theology (or making some sort of attempt), so leave the departure into religion well alone, because you are only confusing yourself.

You also said - "In the absence of evidence, folklore is down to interpretation..."

People who have honestly looked at the evidence and like yourself didn't want it to prove to be true - (Josh McDowell - "Evidence that demands a verdict" / The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel (also a book) - have found something very different.

So what sets your research apart and what is the best evidence you have that the Bible is insignificant re the plight of your soul?

---

Is there a god ?

Please show us proof

No references to he said this , he said that blah blah blah

Not interested

Evidence please

Until then shove it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I'm off out now to murder a few people and cheat some pensioners out of their savings.

---

If you are not afraid at arriving at a reasonable conclusion then could we have a respectful conversation.
If you like the Sludge only wish to throw rotten fruit and not engage in an adult discussion then just say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

If you are not afraid at arriving at a reasonable conclusion then could we have a respectful conversation.
If you like the Sludge only wish to throw rotten fruit and not engage in an adult discussion then just say so.

---

You Christians and other faiths can answer a simple question ......is there a god , an afterlife etc ? ......by providing EVIDENCE

It's quite simple

I BELIEVE Cardiff City are the greatest team in the history of football in the world !

But EVIDENCE that we can test proves we are a mid table championship team and therefore not even the best team in the UK, never mind the world

If you can't provide any evidence then can you understand why people treat you with such ridicule and cannot have an adult conversation ?

If I am told its raining it can be proved by stepping outside and getting wet

That's evidence

So let's have it

I mean he's very powerful isn't he ? Surely he can prove to us all he exists ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

You Christians and other faiths can answer a simple question ......is there a god , an afterlife etc ? ......by providing EVIDENCE

It's quite simple

I BELIEVE Cardiff City are the greatest team in the history of football in the world !

But EVIDENCE that we can test proves we are a mid table championship team and therefore not even the best team in the UK, never mind the world

If you can't provide any evidence then can you understand why people treat you with such ridicule and cannot have an adult conversation ?

If I am told its raining it can be proved by stepping outside and getting wet

That's evidence

So let's have it

I mean he's very powerful isn't he ? Surely he can prove to us all he exists ?

---

As we are fans, then we can sing that we are the greatest team the world has ever seen.
We say that with a twinkle in our eyes but keep repeating the excercise decade after decade.
Why? Because it's what we desire to be true, even though deep down we know it's a 1 in 100 shot in our lifetime.

I'm not saying the Bible IS God's Word in the hopeful way that I desire CCFC to dwarf Real Madrid, I'm saying it after over 40 years of research and testing; some of that testing coming from hundreds of skeptics like yourself asking their silver bullet questions; none of which have ever come close to challenging the Word of God. A book that remains the 'best seller" year on year.

You see, you, me and Blue Genie all have a *world view (origin, purpose & destiny), so let's see how they do after being tested by the facts. If either of you have a better world view that can provide more reasonable answers, then we can all can dismiss the Bible, yet if you can't, you'll need to re-evaluate your position.

The organiser of the sole Armistice Day event at the Cenotaph in central London has said he hopes the pro-Palestine march in central London on Saturday will go ahead.

Richard Hughes, from the Western Front Association, the charity that holds a commemoration of the fallen of the first world war on 11 November, said his organisation believed in “freedom of speech”.

“I think a lot of people are trying to whip this up,” said Hughes, the association’s legal trustee, who is also responsible for organising the annual commemoration. “The police are not going to let anyone near the Cenotaph. We are a democratic organisation that commemorates those who fought for democracy so free speech is important.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-can-go-ahead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

The organiser of the sole Armistice Day event at the Cenotaph in central London has said he hopes the pro-Palestine march in central London on Saturday will go ahead.

Richard Hughes, from the Western Front Association, the charity that holds a commemoration of the fallen of the first world war on 11 November, said his organisation believed in “freedom of speech”.

“I think a lot of people are trying to whip this up,” said Hughes, the association’s legal trustee, who is also responsible for organising the annual commemoration. “The police are not going to let anyone near the Cenotaph. We are a democratic organisation that commemorates those who fought for democracy so free speech is important.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-can-go-ahead

---

It's a tragedy that these people voted Hamas in as their 'democracy' January 2006.
Bringing in any group who's key aim is the extermination of Israel is hardly a recipe for a peaceful environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

The organiser of the sole Armistice Day event at the Cenotaph in central London has said he hopes the pro-Palestine march in central London on Saturday will go ahead.

Richard Hughes, from the Western Front Association, the charity that holds a commemoration of the fallen of the first world war on 11 November, said his organisation believed in “freedom of speech”.

“I think a lot of people are trying to whip this up,” said Hughes, the association’s legal trustee, who is also responsible for organising the annual commemoration. “The police are not going to let anyone near the Cenotaph. We are a democratic organisation that commemorates those who fought for democracy so free speech is important.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-can-go-ahead

---

It's a tragedy that these people voted Hamas in as their 'democracy' January 2006.
Bringing in any group who's key aim is the extermination of Israel is hardly a recipe for a peaceful environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

As we are fans, then we can sing that we are the greatest team the world has ever seen.
We say that with a twinkle in our eyes but keep repeating the excercise decade after decade.
Why? Because it's what we desire to be true, even though deep down we know it's a 1 in 100 shot in our lifetime.

I'm not saying the Bible IS God's Word in the hopeful way that I desire CCFC to dwarf Real Madrid, I'm saying it after over 40 years of research and testing; some of that testing coming from hundreds of skeptics like yourself asking their silver bullet questions; none of which have ever come close to challenging the Word of God. A book that remains the 'best seller" year on year.

You see, you, me and Blue Genie all have a *world view (origin, purpose & destiny), so let's see how they do after being tested by the facts. If either of you have a better world view that can provide more reasonable answers, then we can all can dismiss the Bible, yet if you can't, you'll need to re-evaluate your position.

---

You have failed at the first fence again

Evidence please

I am not putting up fishing or drugs or heavy metal music as the saviour of humanity or saying they are a rival to God

I just want proof that he fecking exists so I can decide wether or not he's worth following or supporting

I can't stand Swansea City and I would never support or follow them

But I know they exist and I can make that valued judgement based on facts

I can't do that about God

And I think the reason why Dawkins and us lot get so frustrated with Christians is that you say we shouldn't ridicule you but when asked to give us something to chew on all you can give us is a book that wasn't even written by this superhuman being and lots of stories none of which are solid , hard evidence

Now if Christians say God gives them comfort that's up to them but that's not the same as asking someone to follow them supporting and devoting a life to something that appears not to exist

You lot have had plenty of opportunities to prove all this and you cannot

Faith is no good to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

It's a tragedy that these people voted Hamas in as their 'democracy' January 2006.
Bringing in any group who's key aim is the extermination of Israel is hardly a recipe for a peaceful environment.

---

'these people'?

I don't think the majority of people in Gaza today were alive in 2006.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

'these people'?

I don't think the majority of people in Gaza today were alive in 2006.

---

The majority are all 17 years old or younger?
Not from the images coming from Gaza on a daily basis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

It's a tragedy that these people voted Hamas in as their 'democracy' January 2006.
Bringing in any group who's key aim is the extermination of Israel is hardly a recipe for a peaceful environment.

---

That wasn't worth posting twice.

Although I suppose it is progress that you pinpoint 2006 as the key date in Israel/Palestine history - not 7 October 2023. I wouldn't pick on Palestinians in the Gaza strip exercising their democratic right to vote as the main tragedy of the conflict. There are many better candidates. Maybe a state founded on mass murder and ethnic cleansing? Maybe Israel promoting Hamas in its early life as a way of undermining Fatah/the PLO? Maybe the flawed compromise of the Oslo Accords being destroyed by Likud and others over 30 years as the illegal settlements spread, daily persecution and humiliations in the West Bank deepened, settler murders backed by the IDF escalated, imprisonment without trial became more common, and the possibility of a 'two state solution' was destroyed? Maybe the denunciation (and banning) of every non-violent form of Palestinian resistance as anti-semitism? Maybe the establishment of Gaza as a massive concentration camp punctuated by regular wars of murder and destruction ('mowing the grass' in the words of an IDF general)? And then there are Hamas/IJ atrocities.

But none of that - or your comment - is relevant to what I posted. You avoided that.

You say: And I think the reason why (1) Dawkins and us lot get so frustrated with Christians is that you say we shouldn't (2) ridicule you but when asked to give us something to chew on all you can give us is a book that wasn't even written by this (3) superhuman being and lots of stories none of which are (4) solid , hard evidence

1. Dawkins being your answer to the origin of all life?
2. When have I complained about people with no solid world view ridiculing those who do?
3. What has led you to that conclusion re the ultimate author?
4. What solid evidence re the history of the Bible would satisfy you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

The majority are all 17 years old or younger?
Not from the images coming from Gaza on a daily basis?

---

Almost half the population of Gaza are under 18 according to the UN - or in other words 17 years old or younger.

Maybe you are looking at the wrong images. There are also 4000+ fewer children than a month ago!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

If you are not afraid at arriving at a reasonable conclusion then could we have a respectful conversation.
If you like the Sludge only wish to throw rotten fruit and not engage in an adult discussion then just say so.

---

Afraid at arriving at a reasonable conclusion? Another laughable comment from someone who believes in a talking snake and thinks that those who don't believe in the Bible are incapable of having a moral compass. I'll engage when you raise your game intellectually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

The organiser of the sole Armistice Day event at the Cenotaph in central London has said he hopes the pro-Palestine march in central London on Saturday will go ahead.

Richard Hughes, from the Western Front Association, the charity that holds a commemoration of the fallen of the first world war on 11 November, said his organisation believed in “freedom of speech”.

“I think a lot of people are trying to whip this up,” said Hughes, the association’s legal trustee, who is also responsible for organising the annual commemoration. “The police are not going to let anyone near the Cenotaph. We are a democratic organisation that commemorates those who fought for democracy so free speech is important.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-can-go-ahead

---

From The Spectator for balance and a view I support ;
these are ‘hate marches’. Or at least that they have provided cover for hate. Every demo so far has involved nasty flashes of the world’s oldest hatred. Attendees have cursed the Jews, celebrated anti-Jewish massacres and damned Zionists as Nazis.

‘Those people are a tiny minority’, march organisers might say. Stop it. If every march you hold awakens anti-Semites from their slumber, teases them on to the streets to make their vile cries, then you need to stop and rethink. It is morally unsustainable for the organisers breezily to wash their hands of the hate that lurks in sections of the crowd.

And yet here’s the thing. If we are serious about freedom of speech, we must defend it even for unpleasant speech. Even wicked speech. The man who gives the nod to the censure of his foes ‘establishes a precedent that will reach to himself’, said Paine. We fortify our own liberty by defending the liberty of our opponents.

I have no wish to downplay how threatening the marches feel for Jews. Indeed, everything you need to know about these weekly gatherings is that the anti-Semites of Hezbollah are happy about them while our very own Jewish citizens have said they found them distressing. So here’s my proposal: we don’t ask the state to ban Saturday’s march, but we do ask the organisers to call it off. We do not further empower the authorities to police public expression, but we do implore the marchers to stay home. Do the right thing: refuse to attend this gathering that will bring joy to Hamas and only further agony to British Jews.

Having seen videos taking on Hamas phones of women with breaststroke cut off , a pregnant woman with womb cut open , peaceful living Jews massacred in cold blood it is appalling anyway could march in this environment.

Hamas murder thier own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Almost half the population of Gaza are under 18 according to the UN - or in other words 17 years old or younger.

Maybe you are looking at the wrong images. There are also 4000+ fewer children than a month ago!

---

Even if we take the UN statement as accurate, it doesn't make your claim accurate.
In truth, ALMOST half the population are under 18.
Therefore the majority are adults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Afraid at arriving at a reasonable conclusion? Another laughable comment from someone who believes in a talking snake and thinks that those who don't believe in the Bible are incapable of having a moral compass. I'll engage when you raise your game intellectually.

---

An intellect is able to engage in a mature fashion, this appears to be beyond your capabilities.

WOL - Of course you support that opinion.

You have no concern for the 10,000 civilians - overwhelmingly women and children - who have been crushed, dismembered and burned to death in the last few weeks by the IDF.

People the marchers are standing with.

Instead you deflect, slander, and wallow in your sick prejudices. Suella Braverman's happy clapper!

You might do better to deal with your own hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Even if we take the UN statement as accurate, it doesn't make your claim accurate.
In truth, ALMOST half the population are under 18.
Therefore the majority are adults.

---

Wow.

That is your take away is it?

Children are just under half the population of Gaza, not just over?

Thanks for clarifying that. You must be very pleased with yourself!

LoM

You are a bare faced liar

All this crap about you being a socialist and left wing when you were younger and you quote The Spectator ?

You may as well quote Joseph Mengele

I hate to make predictions - but I think there will be war memorials attacked this weekend by the usual hate mob, and that may be the result certain sections are looking for.