Fernando

Again you go of rail. I'm just going by your definition of "Deliberate" Deliberate is not warning people to flee otherwise they die. That is not deliberate not matter what else you bring me.

Deliberate? So in that case how can you call what Israel is doing is genocide? As by that definition they where not deliberate. They warn people to flee before the bombing. But Hamas stop their own people from leaving. So by that definition it don't count as "deliberate" is the key.

By the way what is the definition of genocide for you?

Well after all the chat we had here, I hope Palestine do get their two state solution. And for Israel to not interfere with Palestinians sovereign and vice versa. As that is cry of everyone, for Palestinian to have their own state. Let's see if that resolves the issue with all this and if Israel leaves them a lone.....but then again even if you have that, would you resolved the hatred that exist from longstanding war as you mentioned?

By the way @Fulham Broadwayif you care the posture of my church about these events here it goes https://thechapel.com/site/assets/files/1/thoughts_on_israel_-_nov_2023.pdf

Take a look at this. Canada did a fair analysis on this. I look at the FBI website and it wasn't satisfying to me. So I took the Canada one as they where fair in their research: The past few decades have witnessed an increase in the scholarship produced regarding terrorism. Critical to this body of literature has been the definition of terrorism. Although defining terrorism has proven to be a highly contentious issue, there is some agreement among academics that the term is highly malleable and is hence, open to many different definitions and interpretations (Staiger et al. 2008; Weinberg et al. 2004; Fletcher 2006). Many factors have been identified as contributing to the complexity involved in determining the definition of "terrorism." According to Weinberg et al. (2004), the primary factors that impede any attempt to provide a formal definition of terrorism include the use of the term for political purposes; problems associated with the scope of the term (i.e. identifying where terrorism begins and ends); and issues associated with the analytical characteristics of terrorism. Others argue that much of the difficulty surrounding the definition of terrorism stems from the need to develop a concrete meaning of the term (Grob-Fitzgibbon 2005; Fletcher 2006). For example, Grob-Fitzgibbon (2005) argues that the term remains ambiguous as a result of governments and scholars seeking to define the term too broadly so as to classify any form of unconventional violence as terrorism. Rather, the author suggests that governments and academics avoid "general" definitions of terrorism and instead acknowledge the various meanings the term may occupy. Despite this call to utilize the numerous and varied definitions of terrorism, legal definitions continue to serve as the primary and formally recognized definitions utilized by many governments and people. Given the scope of this project, it is critical that such terms subsequently serve as the foundation on which this report is based. In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. It is useful to briefly contrast this definition with those adopted by other nations operating under law systems similar to that of Canada. According to the British Terrorism Act (2006), terrorism refers to the use and threat of action "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" and "made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." Similar to the legal definition of terrorism in Canada, violence against people; damage to property; endangerment of life; and risks to the health or safety of the public are the key actions addressed within the Act. In the United States, terrorism is defined as consisting of activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State….intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation; or…affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." Finally, the legal definition of terrorism in the European Union can be found in the EU Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) which identifies terrorism as activities with the aim of "seriously intimidating a population, or; unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or; seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." Activities that may be deemed terrorist under this framework include attacks on people resulting in death, kidnapping or hostage taking and extensive destruction to a government or public facility. Although it is widely acknowledged that attempts to establish a definition of terrorism that transcends various national borders have been largely unsuccessful (Staiger et al. 2008), the definitions presented clearly show that some consistency can be found in the various definitions employed by the governments of many Western democracies. Given these similarities, the approaches adopted by these governments toward the issue of victims of terrorism may provide some key insights on the various ways other governments can address the multiple issues that affect victims of terrorism. More info here as it's more of a longer article: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html

So by that definition we are screw and everyone is a terrorist.....

Israel is a terrorist state? On what basis? Well let me ask you this question. What is terrorism for you? Because if I see what your telling me here, then your country was also that, as well USA.....

Yes and they don't did terrorism just because, kill babies, rape women and such. Any country has the right to defend themselves when these acts of terrorism happens. And segregation? Please men, then all black people in North America and South America have a right to terrorism...ludicrous statement. The leader of the movement to end segregation, Martin Luther King will cold hardly disagree with your view. People have a right to protest and defend themselves, but no act of terrorism.

So Native Americans in North America have a right to attack Americans and Latinos because we are settling their land? Crazy argument. Nothing justify terrorism.

It's similar to USA did with Afghanistan. Hamas is a terrorist organization and Israel has a right to defend itself just like any country would do. Now that Israel is committing atrocities I'm not debating that. What I am is taking every word that is coming from Hamas as Gospel, when they are found multiple times as lying.

All the info about death and hospital was coming from inside. If you read all the news it would say organization lead by Hamas. Nonetheless like I mentioned both sides have done atrocities. In no way I'm saying Israel is innocent as well, because war brings ugly stuff no matter what side you are.

Hmmmm New York times is one of those in which they published against Israel and then had to back track because the info it got from Hamas was wrong... So we go back to the beginning. You got two choices or accept the news that is coming from Hamas or accept the news that is coming from Israel. Either way you mentioned that both are not reliable....

And you got this info from Hamas that also lies?

So who to believe? Both are lying?

I remember reading about a hospital bombing which Hamas accused Israel. Hamas Fails to Make Case That Israel Struck Hospital A senior Hamas official says “nothing is left” of the munition that hit the Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City last week, killing hundreds. Israel says the explosion was caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket. Within an hour of the blast on Tuesday night, the Hamas-run Gazan health ministry accused Israel of attacking the Ahli Arab hospital, a medical center in Gaza City where scores of families had been sheltering. The allegation was soon denied by Israel but quickly accepted and amplified by Arab leaders across the Middle East, setting off unrest throughout the region. The claim was widely cited by international news outlets, including The New York Times, before Israel issued its denial. But in the days since, as new evidence contradicting the Hamas claim has emerged, the Gazan authorities have changed their story about the blast. Spokespeople have released death tolls varying from 500 to 833, before settling on 471. The Hamas-run health ministry has also declined to release further details about those 471 victims, and all traces of the munition have seemingly vanished from the site of the blast, making it impossible to assess its provenance. Raising further questions about Hamas’s claims, the impact site turned out to be the hospital parking lot, and not the hospital itself. On Sunday, Hamas turned down requests by The Times to view any available evidence of the munition it said had struck the hospital, claiming that it had disintegrated beyond recognition. “The missile has dissolved like salt in the water,” said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official, in a phone interview. “It’s vaporized. Nothing is left” But to Israelis, the accusation that Israel hit the hospital is part of a grand deception aimed at undermining the legitimacy of Israel’s response to what officials say was the deadliest single attack on Jews since the Holocaust. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hospital-evidence.html As I have been saying for sometime we are being fed lies by the Hamas organization who let's not forget are terrorists. Now that is not to say that Israel are innocent, because in war ugly things happen. But this just another thing to be careful about every news that comes out of Hamas reports...

I think that is what the guy from espn mentioned. Why he was not excited with Chelsea 4-4 against man city is that we let in 4 goals despite drawing. Yes defense problem and coach keeps picking cucu and Sanchez.

Gary Neville was right. He is really good with his insight.

Take out cucu and ugu.

They have livramento and we have cucu... Would have save money if we kept him.

Left wing is the only case here in NYC, but it seems like some people are turning away from some beliefs. For example left wing is big on open borders. But now that you have those immigrants living in NYC and eating the money thus bringing budget cuts it's starting to change opinions.... Who would have thought that money would start changing some ideas......

In general but if that was true all the time why have in their TV three people taking time to discuss the love for the Iranian people? The video I posted for you and you dismissed right of the bat because it came out in fox News..... You can see the one asking the question was all feeling weird because as you said fox News is about hate, racism and all that stuff... But when confronted with truth that you have Iran the regime and Iran the people, it shocks them. And this was about those differences and how there's good people in Iran and see past the regime that exists there. That was the whole message of Joel Richardson documentary of sheep among wolfs, and to go and talk about in fox News is like a slap in the face to them.

Yes in the general they tend to be biased. But I will say that of many news outlet. So I can easily say CNN is left wing and any one who watches that is wrong. Likewise I can say fox news is right wing and anyone who watches is just a right winger. Guilty by association. Like what is happening in Iran, if you're a Christian you're infedel so they can rape you, beat you up, kill you etc etc. That's why I find it sad that anyone who brings a fox News is automatically label as right winger likewise CNN the opposite. Without even considering if it brings any valuable insight.

So your so close minded that everything that is Fox news is wrong. Yeah that is what wrong. Fox news says a lot of bad stuff that I don't agree likewise CNN, but there's some good stuff in both. But when hatred blinds you, everything is thrown out. And that is the message I been bringing and in what Joel Richardson and company has brought with their documentary of sheep among wolfs. That we shouldn't hate Islamic people because of the atrocities that Isis and Hamas do, but that their people, good people that don't represent this lot. Likewise with Jews. Sheep among wolfs is worth seeing, as how despite Iran is enemy of Israel there's a people in Iran that are different then what you see in the news.

But he is also for the Islamic people. They did a document of sheep among wolfs highlighting the difference between Iran the people and Iran regime. If he was hatred against the Iranians he would put all Iranians as bad. But he has shown that they are two different things and that people should never forget that. It's the same I have been saying. Just because Hamas is in Palestinian land we are not going to say Palestinians are all terrorists. There are good people who are different then the regime that is controlling the place. Likewise in Israel, not everyone wants war and killing, they want peace. And that was my original argument that is why I shared that video. You have the regime and you have the people, is two different things. They gave an interview on fox News exactly about this: