• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

I would agree, more or less, with your first point but disagree with the second.

The timing is a bit off, they'll say, perhaps, that it's in response the terror attack yesterday in Jerusalem but it just seems like another thing for Netenyahu to drag out even more and thus delaying his day in court.
They tried to kill people in a neutral country. That shows complete and utter contempt for that nations sovereignty. What would you say if the Russians or even....our government did it?
 
They tried to kill people in a neutral country. That shows complete and utter contempt for that nations sovereignty. What would you say if the Russians or even....our government did it?
Did you say this when the Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda?

If, prior to Russias invasion of Ukraine, Zelenskky led a few thousand Ukranians into Russia and murdered, burnt and raped there way through a thousand people or so, kidnapped another few hundred and ran back to Ukraine and then their senior leadership went to hide in another European country then, you know what, I might actually cut Putin some ******* slack mate.
 
Did you say this when the Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda?

If, prior to Russias invasion of Ukraine, Zelenskky led a few thousand Ukranians into Russia and murdered, burnt and raped there way through a thousand people or so, kidnapped another few hundred and ran back to Ukraine and then their senior leadership went to hide in another European country then, you know what, I might actually cut Putin some ******* slack mate.
So Qatar where harbouring the Hamas negotiation team?
 
Did you say this when the Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda?

If, prior to Russias invasion of Ukraine, Zelenskky led a few thousand Ukranians into Russia and murdered, burnt and raped there way through a thousand people or so, kidnapped another few hundred and ran back to Ukraine and then their senior leadership went to hide in another European country then, you know what, I might actually cut Putin some ******* slack mate.
That's Harry levels of question avoidance
 
That's Harry levels of question avoidance
How? I answered your question. You asked me how I would feel and I told you, in a like for like example I would feel pretty similar.

Edit, sorry you asked what would I say, same answer applies. Pretty much the same thing I’m saying now if conditions were the same or similar. I try to be consistent like that.
 
What Israel are doing should be a dangerous game. In a year they have launched attacks on 4 neighbouring countries. That is pretty staggering by any level.

On the flip side, they know they face no consequences. Hamas also have no problem whatsoever carrying out attacks either. They are just all round a bunch of shits in that part of the world.
 
What Israel are doing should be a dangerous game. In a year they have launched attacks on 4 neighbouring countries. That is pretty staggering by any level.

On the flip side, they know they face no consequences. Hamas also have no problem whatsoever carrying out attacks either. They are just all round a bunch of shits in that part of the world.
Yeap. Israel is becoming the destabilising factor in the Middle east now. This will not end well.
 
CNN reporting that Hamas leadership have used Qatar as a HQ for years. Whether there was an element of they won't touch us here, or why Qatar allowed Hamas to do that it. I've no idea.
I remember @McTallshort on here ages ago making what I thought was a fair point in saying why haven’t they taken out Hamas in Qatar. Not in a they should do this but rather to highlight the futility of what they’re doing. As I say, not a bad point. Now Israel have actually done it the outrage is back.
 
That's Harry levels of question avoidance
Oh I see what your question is now. What would I say if the UK just woke up one morning and decided to bomb and kill people in a random neutral country?

And you accuse me of being dishonest. What bullshit framing is that. Of course I would say that is not good guys, very bad. However, if there was a reason for it I would look at the reason, the sucess of the op, and go from there.

You're the one being sneaky asking the question how would you feel if we just killed people in a neutral country. You can **** off with that BS mate. Just **** off context all together shall we.
 
I would agree, more or less, with your first point but disagree with the second.

The timing is a bit off, they'll say, perhaps, that it's in response the terror attack yesterday in Jerusalem but it just seems like another thing for Netenyahu to drag out even more and thus delaying his day in court.
Israel deliberately chose this method. They could have sent in a mossad hit squad, there by protecting nearby innocents.

Instead they chose a very dangerous, to others, and public way with missile strikes.
 
Last edited:
Israel deliberately chose this method. They could have sent in a mossad hit squad, there by protected innocents.

Instead they chose a very dangerous, to others, and public way with missile strikes.
Do you know who was killed (both Hamas and civilians)

I ask as I don’t know and can’t see any confirmation re numbers.
 
Do you know who was killed (both Hamas and civilians)

I ask as I don't know and can't see any confirmation re numbers.
You don't have to know how many have been killed after the event.

You should be thinking about it before you plan an operation. If you target a building right next to a petrol station, which this one is, you need to think about collateral damage to neighbouring areas.

Were there Qatarian staff within the buildings?
Delivery persons approaching/leaving?
Innocent's driving past or nearby?
Qatar officials meeting the negotiation team?

This shows indiscriminate actions which have endangered others.

By the way are negotiation teams offering deals a legitimate target?

If not, would strumpet have been right to shoot Putin in Alaska, or authorise an air/missile strike on the Kremlin?

Which ever way you look at it, it's an act of war
 
You don't have to know how many have been killed after the event.

You should be thinking about it before you plan an operation. If you target a building right next to a petrol station, which this one is, you need to think about collateral damage to neighbouring areas.

Were there Qatarian staff within the buildings?
Delivery persons approaching/leaving?
Innocent's driving past or nearby?
Qatar officials meeting the negotiation team?

This shows indiscriminate actions which have endangered others.

By the way are negotiation teams offering deals a legitimate target?

If not, would strumpet have been right to shoot Putin in Alaska, or authorise an air/missile strike on the Kremlin?

Which ever way you look at it, it's an act of war
I think I’ll wait and see what the confirmation is. I may even go conspiracy brained and think Qatar were in on it if it turns out they killed all or most of their targets and not a single Qatari national died. But equally if it turns out they bombed the wrong place, killed no Hamas and killed a load of civilians then I’ll probably agree with a lot of what you say.

Act of war? Possibly, again I’d wait for the confirmation but you could argue that harbouring the leaders of the enemy you are fighting is also an act of war. I don’t remember, and I could be wrong as I was a kid at the time, anyone really complaining about invading Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to give up Al-Qaeda.
 
This was an interesting read...

Correct me if im wrong, but @Welsh Exile s entire point is 'let's wait to see what actually happened' and @McTallshort and @AlRums dont want to and want Condemnation straight away without any facts or details, and for it to be declared war...
I think they're saying that striking a "neutral" country is, in itself, wrong. It can't be justified.

I put neutral in "" as obviously the debate then becomes how do you define neutral.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top