Israel

[LeBizzier69]

16 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

No.

Next?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z95y

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3csvf6h

Describing the 9/11 attacks as terrorist attacks.

Isis as a terror group.

Does that count?

 

Edited March 15 by LeBizzier69

[hypochondriac]

Quite clearly, if our government proscribes a group as a terrorist group then it's factually accurate to describe members as terrorists. 

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, LeBizzier69 said:

“In which case, not just Hamas, but all other terrorist perpetrators should be exempt from being referred to as “terrorists” — including, rather remarkably, ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At least then the BBC would be able to claim consistency across the entire terrorist spectrum with a credible defence against the charge, implicit in the intervention by ministers, that the Corporation’s coverage of the conflict is not duly impartial.
Alternatively, align the reporting of Hamas with how the BBC has reported other terrorist organisations and events. Consistency matters. As it stands, the BBC’s defence of due impartiality in this instance is sufficiently flawed as to be unconvincing.”

Bias shown?? From earlier article linked above. 
Being impartial should be a given….. unless the said organisation is a proscribed terrorist group by our own government.

 

 

 

So just to be clear, being impartial is a broadcaster saying exactly what the government tells it to?

[LeBizzier69]

25 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

So just to be clear, being impartial is a broadcaster saying exactly what the government tells it to?

Cheers my man, I’m off to the footy. I’ll let you wrestle with that conundrum.

[aintforever]

6 hours ago, LeBizzier69 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z95y

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3csvf6h

Describing the 9/11 attacks as terrorist attacks.

Isis as a terror group.

Does that count?

 

So you are having a go at the BBC for not calling Islamic terrorists terrorists, yet provide a link showing them calling Islamic terrorists terrorists.

Not that it really matters but those are links to programmes, I expect their rules on labelling terrorists applies specifically to news reports.

Edited March 15 by aintforever

[LeBizzier69]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So you are having a go at the BBC for not calling Islamic terrorists terrorists, yet provide a link showing them calling Islamic terrorists terrorists.

Not that it really matters but those are links to programmes, I expect their rules on labelling terrorists applies specifically to news reports.

Hi there.

No, I was asked if there were links to the beeb calling other terror groups terrorists…..by Weston Super Saint.

So they’ve named those as terror groups (programme or not is really irrelevant if it’s the corporation stance) but not Hamas. 
 
Does that help?

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Hi there.

No, I was asked if there were links to the beeb calling other terror groups terrorists…..by Weston Super Saint.

So they’ve named those as terror groups (programme or not is really irrelevant if it’s the corporation stance) but not Hamas. 
 
Does that help?

It’s a policy they have had for ages, it’s not worth getting upset about and makes perfect sense because in some situations wether someone is a terrorist is a matter of opinion not fact. And it makes sense that it applies to news reports, not programmes, because they are reporting events as they happen.

”The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'.

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."

If you are in favour of unbiased reporting, as you say, then surely you agree with the above?

[LeBizzier69]

18 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It’s a policy they have had for ages, it’s not worth getting upset about and makes perfect sense because in some situations wether someone is a terrorist is a matter of opinion not fact. And it makes sense that it applies to news reports, not programmes, because they are reporting events as they happen.

”The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'.

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."

If you are in favour of unbiased reporting, as you say, then surely you agree with the above?

I’m not upset about it, we all have opinions and isn’t that what this place is for?

My opinion is simply that if they’re a designated terrorist organisation in the UK then the BBC should refer to them as such.

Others feel differently. 
I think I’ll leave this here unless I have anything other to say about good old Rupert.

Edited March 15 by LeBizzier69
Poor grammar

[The Kraken]

48 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

I’m not upset about it, we all have opinions and isn’t that what this place is for?

My opinion is simply that if they’re a designated terrorist organisation in the UK then the BBC should refer to refer to them as such.

They do. Here’s their director general Tim Davie saying so a couple of years ago

https://www.ft.com/content/20b5466e-d690-4e00-828e-5f364e22f1c5

“He said the broadcaster would instead continue to describe the group as a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK government and others, or simply as Hamas.”

[LeBizzier69]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

They do. Here’s their director general Tim Davie saying so a couple of years ago

https://www.ft.com/content/20b5466e-d690-4e00-828e-5f364e22f1c5

“He said the broadcaster would instead continue to describe the group as a terrorist organisation proscribed by the UK government and others, or simply as Hamas.”

Oh good, all the news recently must be made up and the stance from 2 years ago is still in effect.

All these posts for nothing.

Cheers for clarifying.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

It’s a policy they have had for ages, it’s not worth getting upset about and makes perfect sense because in some situations wether someone is a terrorist is a matter of opinion not fact. And it makes sense that it applies to news reports, not programmes, because they are reporting events as they happen.

”The corporation's editorial guidelines say the word "terrorist" can be "a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper', 'insurgent' and 'militant'.

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."

If you are in favour of unbiased reporting, as you say, then surely you agree with the above?

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists? 

[The Kraken]

39 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Oh good, all the news recently must be made up and the stance from 2 years ago is still in effect.

All these posts for nothing.

Cheers for clarifying.

No problem. Here’s another one. From 2 months ago.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975

“Hamas, which the US, UK, Israel and many other nations have designated as a terrorist organisation, continued to fire rockets into Israel.“

But yeah, let’s stick with it. Why don’t the BBC say terrorist? It’s truly a mystery.

[aintforever]

55 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists? 

I don’t know enough about their members to say. I listen to Radio 5 a lot and they are always calling Hamas a terrorist organisation on there so I’m not sure what the fuss is about.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I don’t know enough about their members to say. I listen to Radio 5 a lot and they are always calling Hamas a terrorist organisation on there so I’m not sure what the fuss is about.

OK just so it's clear that in this particular situation it's a fact that Hamas are terrorists. 

[aintforever]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

OK just so it's clear that in this particular situation it's a fact that Hamas are terrorists. 

In my opinion they are, I would also class some of the things Israel has done as terrorism as well.

[egg]

18 minutes ago, aintforever said:

In my opinion they are, I would also class some of the things Israel has done as terrorism as well.

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists

 

How about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's? The US and Canada, amongst others, brand them as terrorists. We don't, which seems sensible to me as they're part of the military of a sovereign nation. By the rationale of this thread, any employee of that group must be terrorist in the eyes of an American.

Edited March 16 by egg

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, egg said:

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

In what situation are Hamas members not terrorists

 

How about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's? The US and Canada, amongst others, brand them as terrorists. We don't, which seems sensible to me as they're part of the military of a sovereign nation. By the rationale of this thread, any employee of that group must be terrorist in the eyes of an American.

Npr or the TV equivalent in America woild probably refer to them as such. Not sure what the relevance is to the BBC referring to Hamas as terrorists though. It's not like anyone would shy away from referring to Isis by that description because there's no dispute. 

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, aintforever said:

In my opinion they are, I would also class some of the things Israel has done as terrorism as well.

They are terrorists by the definition of the word and are described as such by our government. It's not a matter of opinion. 

[egg]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Npr or the TV equivalent in America woild probably refer to them as such. Not sure what the relevance is to the BBC referring to Hamas as terrorists though. It's not like anyone would shy away from referring to Isis by that description because there's no dispute. 

The point is that nobody is bound by another's definition, and that it is does not necessarily follow that a person affiliated with an organisation deemed by some as a terrorist group, is a terrorist.

The IRG are a terrorist organisation according to the US government, but not ours. A low level member of that organisation, who does not have any involvement with acts of violence or aggression, or it's planning or facilitation, probably would not be deemed a terrorist by anyone in the US, and certainly shouldn't be over here. 

The BBC referring to Hamas as a proscribed terrorist group is accurate because it is. Referring to all people associated with it or supporting it as terrorists isn't accurate.  

[aintforever]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

They are terrorists by the definition of the word and are described as such by our government. It's not a matter of opinion. 

Not all governments consider them to be a terrorist organisation because they believe they are fighting a just cause so I would say it was a matter of opinion. Calling someone 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' is just stating facts.

Personally I think it’s good to have a news reporters trying to be as impartial as possible, saying someone is a gunman is not saying they are not a terrorist and doesn’t diminish what they have done. 

[hypochondriac]

13 hours ago, egg said:

The point is that nobody is bound by another's definition, and that it is does not necessarily follow that a person affiliated with an organisation deemed by some as a terrorist group, is a terrorist.

The IRG are a terrorist organisation according to the US government, but not ours. A low level member of that organisation, who does not have any involvement with acts of violence or aggression, or it's planning or facilitation, probably would not be deemed a terrorist by anyone in the US, and certainly shouldn't be over here. 

The BBC referring to Hamas as a proscribed terrorist group is accurate because it is. Referring to all people associated with it or supporting it as terrorists isn't accurate.  

Now you've lost me. If you're a member of a terrorist group then you're a terrorist. There's really no dispute. Hamas are a terrorist group and if you're a member of Hamas then you're a terrorist. 

[hypochondriac]

11 hours ago, aintforever said:

Not all governments consider them to be a terrorist organisation because they believe they are fighting a just cause so I would say it was a matter of opinion. Calling someone 'bomber', 'attacker', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' is just stating facts.

Personally I think it’s good to have a news reporters trying to be as impartial as possible, saying someone is a gunman is not saying they are not a terrorist and doesn’t diminish what they have done. 

Using that logic can you ever call anyone a terrorist? I'm sure you can find some governments that would never refer to any terrorist organisation as such but that doesn't make it a fact. Not calling a terrorist what they are down plays the seriousness of who they are and in some cases could be viewed as sympathising with them to some degree. 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Now you've lost me. If you're a member of a terrorist group then you're a terrorist. There's really no dispute. Hamas are a terrorist group and if you're a member of Hamas then you're a terrorist. 

Perhaps read the actual words that I posted. 

That said, if someone was a 'member' of the IRA back in the day, but didn't get involved in terrorist activity in any way, are you saying that person would be a terrorist in your eyes? That's like saying that you're a footballer because you support or are a member of a football club. 

[egg]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Using that logic can you ever call anyone a terrorist? I'm sure you can find some governments that would never refer to any terrorist organisation as such but that doesn't make it a fact. Not calling a terrorist what they are down plays the seriousness of who they are and in some cases could be viewed as sympathising with them to some degree. 

You're conflating organisations and individuals. Separate entities. 

Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation. People that support them are not necessarily terrorists. The people who abduct and kill inmo to Israeli people are.

Go back to my IRC point. Would any sensible American consider an admin employee of that group as a terrorist? By your logic, they should. By logical logic, nobody would. 

[sadoldgit]

The definition of a terrorist is “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims”.

We all understand that it was a “terrorist” attack by Hamas on 7th October. It is telling though that hypo spends his time fretting about the terminology used by news reporters (when it has been clearly explained plenty of times) yet completely ignores the “terrorist”activities of Netanyahu’s government and the IDF. Apart from posting laughing emojis of course.

Let us not forget that the ANC was also “proscribed as a terrorist organisation” by the UK, the US and others.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Rupert Lowe, mind.

Edited March 17 by sadoldgit

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The definition of a terrorist is “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims”.

We all understand that it was a “terrorist” attack by Hamas on 7th October. It is telling though that hypo spends his time fretting about the terminology used by news reporters (when it has been clearly explained plenty of times) yet completely ignores the “terrorist”activities of Netanyahu’s government and the IDF. Apart from posting laughing emojis of course.

Let us not forget that the ANC was also “proscribed as a terrorist organisation” by the UK, the US and others.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Rupert Lowe, mind.

Hypo seemingly wants to define anyone who supports Hamas as a terrorist. Understanding that there's a distinction between the organisation and the actions/intentions of people shouldn't be hard to comprehend. 

I'm also at a loss to understand how this thread has got here as well.

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Using that logic can you ever call anyone a terrorist? I'm sure you can find some governments that would never refer to any terrorist organisation as such but that doesn't make it a fact. Not calling a terrorist what they are down plays the seriousness of who they are and in some cases could be viewed as sympathising with them to some degree. 

Of course you can, you can see what someone has done and why they did it and form your own opinion on wether they are a terrorist or not  - you don't have to be told by people in government what to think.

By your rationale, if Jeremy Corbyn happened to be our PM and he didn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation then that would be a Fact.

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, egg said:

Hypo seemingly wants to define anyone who supports Hamas as a terrorist. Understanding that there's a distinction between the organisation and the actions/intentions of people shouldn't be hard to comprehend. 

I'm also at a loss to understand how this thread has got here as well.

Untrue. I want to define those who are members of Hamas - a terrorist group - as members of a terrorist group. Supporters of Hamas are terrorist supporters clearly. I'm happy for Hamas members to be referred to as terrorist group members if it's more accurate. 

Edited March 17 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

8 hours ago, egg said:

Perhaps read the actual words that I posted. 

That said, if someone was a 'member' of the IRA back in the day, but didn't get involved in terrorist activity in any way, are you saying that person would be a terrorist in your eyes? That's like saying that you're a footballer because you support or are a member of a football club. 

You're a terrorist supporter in that scenario. I'd be satisfied with the BBC referring to Hamas members as terrorist supporters if we want to be pedantic about it. 

Edited March 17 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

Of course you can, you can see what someone has done and why they did it and form your own opinion on wether they are a terrorist or not  - you don't have to be told by people in government what to think.

By your rationale, if Jeremy Corbyn happened to be our PM and he didn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation then that would be a Fact.

You wouldn't rely solely on government classifications of course that would be silly but in general it's a fairly reliable guide. I'm very comfortable that Hamas have met a standard to be described as a terrorist organisation and for members to be referred to as either terrorists themselves or terrorist supporters. Quite telling those who seem to have a problem with doing so. 

[egg]

52 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You're a terrorist supporter in that scenario. I'd be satisfied with the BBC referring to Hamas members as terrorist supporters if we want to be pedantic about it. 

You're making up terms here. 

Hamas are a terrorist organisation. It's members, and the supporters who get involved in planning or conducting terrorism, are terrorists. It's supporters (voters as they're a political party) cannot all be assumed to support the terrorist activity - it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

You're making up terms here. 

Hamas are a terrorist organisation. It's members, and the supporters who get involved in planning or conducting terrorism, are terrorists. It's supporters (voters as they're a political party) cannot all be assumed to support the terrorist activity - it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. 

That makes zero sense. If you support Hamas you are a terrorist supporter unless you have been forced to support them against your will in which case there's a line of thought that you never supported them in the first place. That is unambiguous and clear and you wouldn't be trying to muddy the waters if it were other proscribed terrorist organisations. 

Edited March 17 by hypochondriac

[egg]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That makes zero sense. If you support Hamas you are a terrorist supporter unless you have been forced to support them against your will in which case there's a line of thought that you never supported them in the first place. That is unambiguous and clear and you wouldn't be trying to muddy the waters if it were other proscribed terrorist organisations. 

Are you seriously suggesting that all people who voted for Hamas support the October 23 acts, and it's other terrorist acts? If you are, that's like saying that all labour voters support the policies they've implemented. 

You need to understand the difference between a political entity and people. 

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, egg said:

Are you seriously suggesting that all people who voted for Hamas support the October 23 acts, and it's other terrorist acts? If you are, that's like saying that all labour voters support the policies they've implemented. 

You need to understand the difference between a political entity and people. 

I'm saying that all those who support a terrorist organisation are terrorist supporters. If Labour was frequently committing acts of terror then those voting for them would be supporting terrorism. It's not like you could just wave it away by saying something like "well I like their financial policies." that's like voting for Mussolini's Fascists and then excusing yourself because you only voted for them because the trains ran on time. 

Edited March 17 by hypochondriac

[egg]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm saying that all those who support a terrorist organisation are terrorist supporters. If Labour was frequently committing acts of terror then those voting for them would be supporting terrorism. It's not like you could just wave it away by saying something like "well I like their financial policies." that's like voting for Mussolini's Fascists and then excusing yourself because you only voted for them because the trains ran on time. 

That's nonsensical. You're suggesting that supporters of terrorist political parties must be deemed to support their policies, but not the supporters of non terrorist political parties. You can't have it but ways. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You wouldn't rely solely on government classifications of course that would be silly but in general it's a fairly reliable guide. I'm very comfortable that Hamas have met a standard to be described as a terrorist organisation and for members to be referred to as either terrorists themselves or terrorist supporters. Quite telling those who seem to have a problem with doing so. 

That’s your opinion, other people have different opinions which is why the BBC try to report facts.

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, aintforever said:

That’s your opinion, other people have different opinions which is why the BBC try to report facts.

So again, by that definition the bbc would never be able to describe anyone as a terrorist ever because someone somewhere doesn't believe them to be. If members of IS don't consider themselves to be terrorists then they aren't right? 

Edited March 17 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

That's nonsensical. You're suggesting that supporters of terrorist political parties must be deemed to support their policies, but not the supporters of non terrorist political parties. You can't have it but ways. 

Since when has committing terrorism been a legitimate political policy espoused by a party? That's ridiculous, akin to saying that ordinary Germans who voted for the Nazis bear no culpability for their acts. You could make a defence at the start that someone voted for Hamas without knowing they were explicitly terrorist but at this point it's indisputable and continuing to be a member of their group makes them undeniably terrorist supporters. 

[CB Fry]

I think it was OK that he gave Stuart Gray a chance as a manager, but he really made a terrible error in appointing Steve Wigley. The seeds of our relegation were sown with that crazy decision. With the Radio Station and the catering I think he started to believe his own hype at that time.

[egg]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Since when has committing terrorism been a legitimate political policy espoused by a party? That's ridiculous, akin to saying that ordinary Germans who voted for the Nazis bear no culpability for their acts. You could make a defence at the start that someone voted for Hamas without knowing they were explicitly terrorist but at this point it's indisputable and continuing to be a member of their group makes them undeniably terrorist supporters. 

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. Hamas are a political organisation with a military wing. They were elected to power in Gaza. They subsequently went nuts. 

I see that you're continuing your downgrade. Earlier Hamas supporters were terrorists apparently, then they were terrorist supporters, now it's the members who are supporters. You're getting there. 

I'll help you keep it simple. Terrorists are terrorists. People who support terrorists doing terrorist stuff are terrorist supporters. People who voted for a party who turned out to be terrorists are just people. People who are stuck with terrorists as their government deserve our sympathy. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

I think it was OK that he gave Stuart Gray a chance as a manager, but he really made a terrible error in appointing Steve Wigley. The seeds of our relegation were sown with that crazy decision. With the Radio Station and the catering I think he started to believe his own hype at that time.

This should be on the Stuart Gray and the Houthis thread, where it belongs.

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. Hamas are a political organisation with a military wing. They were elected to power in Gaza. They subsequently went nuts. 

I see that you're continuing your downgrade. Earlier Hamas supporters were terrorists apparently, then they were terrorist supporters, now it's the members who are supporters. You're getting there. 

I'll help you keep it simple. Terrorists are terrorists. People who support terrorists doing terrorist stuff are terrorist supporters. People who voted for a party who turned out to be terrorists are just people. People who are stuck with terrorists as their government deserve our sympathy. 

If you no longer support Hamas due to their terrorism then you're not a current member or supporter of a terrorist organisation are you. Not sure why that's hard. 

Edited March 17 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

So, there goes the ceasefire. Over 300 killed, including women and children, in Israeli airstrikes on Gaza. But hey, Hamas are a terrorist organization so everybody in Gaza is a legitimate target.

Not sure this is the best way to get the remaining hostages released, and the families of the hostages say the Israeli Government has "given up on them".

Edited March 18 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

Yep. Israel freshly emboldened by Trump's lunacy.  Sadly I don't think there will be much left of Gaza in the coming months and the population looks set to be wiped out.

Are we currently witnessing this era's equivalent of the Nazis burning books?

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yep. Israel freshly emboldened by Trump's lunacy.  Sadly I don't think there will be much left of Gaza in the coming months and the population looks set to be wiped out.

Are we currently witnessing this era's equivalent of the Nazis burning books?

More like the Warsaw ghetto, ironically.

[sadoldgit]

If the IDF were just burning books it wouldn’t be so bad. They are killing women and children in their thousands while the world stands by and watches. Meanwhile someone gets upset just because the BBC doesn’t call someone a terrorist.

Up to a month ago the UN estimated that 69% of the structures in Gaza had been damaged or destroyed. Add in a death toll approaching 50,000 and I think that it is a lot more serious than burning books.

If anyone believed that the Israeli government are interested in ending the conflict here is evidence to the contrary.

https://www.jns.org/smotrich-ben-gvir-applaud-renewed-fighting-against-hamas/

Hypo, you don’t need to keep demonstrating why you are a moron. We know you find dead Palestinians amusing. Every laughing emoji you post just makes you look more of an inhumane twat.
 

 

Edited March 18 by sadoldgit
Added text

[sadoldgit]

Over 50,000 now killed. Perhaps those who think it is appropriate to post laughing emojis on these posts would like to tell us what number will be enough?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/23/gaza-death-toll-israel-hamas/

[badgerx16]

41 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Over 50,000 now killed. Perhaps those who think it is appropriate to post laughing emojis on these posts would like to tell us what number will be enough?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/23/gaza-death-toll-israel-hamas/

Do you post with the intention of garnering laughing emojis ? Is that a measure of justification?

Edited Sunday at 14:22 by badgerx16

[The Kraken]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Do you post with the intention of garnering laughing emojis ? Is that a measure of justification?

For someone who complains so often about being followed around, he’s spent most of today’s posts with outright goading of people he doesn’t like. It’s a strange strategy for “I just want to be left alone, honest I do”.

[sadoldgit]

23 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Do you post with the intention of garnering laughing emojis ? Is that a measure of justification?

Of course not. You don’t find it odd that some people constantly feel the need to post laughing emojis on posts about dead women and children? Wouldn’t you imagine that whatever drives their behaviour, the novelty would have worn off by now? The Lounge was always a bit weird but it seems to be getting weirder by the week.