Absolutely! Armistice day is one of the most appropriate days of the year to show support for peace in the world and ceasefires. Armistice is literally a synonym for cease-fire.
The media are so, so effective at making you fear that theyâre coming for you.
You should watch out for the cognitive bias which has clearly fed you for some time.
The learned experts will happily explain why you couldnât be more wrong (and itâs not surprise I can instantly extrapolate many of the things you are likely to consider truths).
Just because you donât understand something, doesnât mean it canât be true.
Oh silly me. I forgot that war crimes cancel out war crimes.
Well, thatâs not at all what I said, is it?
But just out of interest, are you as emotionally invested in civilian deaths in other conflicts, or just this one?
It doesnât matter that itâs playing into their hands. If anything, one would think thatâs a good reason to be even more careful.
And yes, I take slight issue that you are implying Iâm not as emotionally invested in civilian deaths elsewhere in the world. As a general rule, I tend to be more emotional about that oneâs my nation state directly supports, then the ones they indirectly support.
The ones where Iâm made out to be some sort of terrorist sympathisers by my own nation state are the ones I get really aggravated about though.
Itâs hard to think of how any country could prosecute a military campaign with more care, though. Unless you advocate non military means, which is clearly non negotiable.
By blocking evacuation routes, and placing legitimate military targets in civilian areas, you could argue that Hamas are doing more to kill their own civilians than Israel.
That depends on whether your support lies with ordinary Palestinians, or with Hamas I guess. If itâs the former, then why not admit that whilst itâs Israeli weapons that are doing the damage, Hamas have some responsibility for those deaths also.
One for the barrack room lawyers to debate.
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1722310114999242923?s=46&t=K7MGVro8uBnDTzpI5LHoLQ
Kay Burleyâs understanding of IHL is rather simplistic, to say the least.
Turns out it can get even more ridiculous:
This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to cause the police to lose their political independence.
They lost that when they took the knee to BLM and stood by Just Stop Oil / Insulate Britain protests, then went in hard against the vigil for that poor woman, anti-lockdown protests, etc.
London Gaza rally: Braverman accuses Met of bias over Gaza marches
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has accused the Metropolitan Police of âplaying favouritesâ over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests.
Writing in The Times, she said right-wing protests that became aggressive were often stopped, while âpro-Palestinian mobsâ were permitted.
Referring to the right wing protests as protests, but referring to pro-Palestinian protests as âmobsâ.
I can see who has a bias here, and it is not The Met.
Frankly I think the Commissioner should be out he front of NSY calling for her resignation live on Sky News. Telling the public heâs lost faith in her competence and sanity.
You misunderstand my comment; Iâm talking about the current government being able to dictate to the police what they police and what they donât.
Itâs a dangerous precedent to set, as it would allow a government to use the police to halt political dissent, or protests against particular pieces of legislation; a key component of British democracy.
A majority government could sint pass legislation to do that anyway.
Yep, they could. But itâd be political suicide.
Itâs much easier to villify one side of an argument, then hammer the police so that the public think the police are backing the side that youâre villifying and will blame the police when things inevitably become violent during those protests, forcing the police to shift the way they work with those groups going forwards.
Wait, why does that sound so familiar?
MPs making regular, overt criticisms of operational policing decisions is seriously getting concerning now.
Maybe the police leadership need to ask themselves why?
Perhaps the self-reflection would be better carried out by government ministers?
Anyhow, we probably need to be a bit careful here. Weâve all seen how some people on this site respond to political debate.