Israel

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go

Yeah, no shit. Blatantly obvious for all to see.

 

[sadoldgit]

On 10/09/2025 at 11:24, hypochondriac said:

The offense is posters attributing things to me that I have never said and suggesting that I use my wife's fictitious religion as a cover to hate Muslims. It's impossible to be offended by something that I know is untrue. It would be like claiming my wife has six fingers or purple hair. I'd similarly look to correct the record in those cases too.

The “offense” as you put it is making it very clear that you would have a major problem if your wife were Muslim. Surely, if you loved her enough to marry her and build a life and a family with her, her religious beliefs should not be an issue. 
On another point, if Hamas had come out and said that their aim on 7th October two years ago was to kill Israeli soldiers on the basis that they have been suppressing the rights of Palestinians and that the civilians killed and taken hostage were just collateral damage, would you have been ok with that?

You might also recall having a go at me when I said that not all Muslims were responsible for terrorist acts. Your view as posted at the time was that they were all responsible because they weren’t going to the police with information that would help prevent the acts. You didn’t seem remotely interested in the idea that most of them have no idea of terrorist plans being made by extremists and we’re just as horrified by their actions as anyone else.

Just man up and admit it. You hate Muslims and have zero empathy for what the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to by the IDF and the so called Settlers.

[Farmer Saint]

[whelk]

17 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You might also recall having a go at me when I said that not all Muslims were responsible for terrorist acts

Fucking hell hardly controversial. Although suspect it is a massive misinterpretation by you given your simple debating style. 

 

[whelk]

And genocide seems to be a word like misogyny, and homophobia - so often used inappropriately that doesn’t convey  the extremity of what it actually means. 
Expect the British army would be committing genocide on Bloody Sunday by today’s usage. 
No need to post up UN findings contradicting what I believe. 
 

And btw I think Israel has behaved appallingly in so much of their response now.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Just man up and admit it. You hate Muslims and have zero empathy for what the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to by the IDF and the so called Settlers.

From the guy who gleefully raced onto here when Palestinians were killed travelling in a safe zone. In one of your many low points here, you were all about points scoring and showed zero empathy about the fatalities.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

And genocide seems to be a word like misogyny, and homophobia - so often used inappropriately that doesn’t convey  the extremity of what it actually means. 
Expect the British army would be committing genocide on Bloody Sunday by today’s usage. 
No need to post up UN findings contradicting what I believe. 
 

And btw I think Israel has behaved appallingly in so much of their response now.

I think there are quite a few ways of how to interpret the genocide. Personally, I think they are trying to do it covertly by reducing access to basic resources needed to survive (IE food, water, shelter, healthcare provision) rather than explicitly raining down missiles on groups of innocent people (although they have clearly done this at times as well).

Unfortunately, we see them, and they have been seen by all.

Netanyahu has put Israel's cause back so far, and has played into Hamas's hands by not only making them look like murderers, but also creating a new generation of Gazan (and Lebanese) terrorists/fighters.

Edited 17 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[LuckyNumber7]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

The “offense” as you put it is making it very clear that you would have a major problem if your wife were Muslim. Surely, if you loved her enough to marry her and build a life and a family with her, her religious beliefs should not be an issue. 

Maybe you should ask muslims how they feel about marrying non-muslims 😂

[Weston Super Saint]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think there are quite a few ways of how to interpret the genocide. Personally, I think they are trying to do it covertly by reducing access to basic resources needed to survive (IE food, water, shelter, healthcare provision) rather than explicitly raining down missiles on groups of innocent people (although they have clearly done this at times as well).

 

That aged well!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c749q1245pwo

Quote

Israel has launched its long-planned major ground offensive on Gaza City, conducting heavy air strikes overnight as troops pushed into the edges of the city.

Thousands of Palestinians have been forced to flee down a single coastal road to the centre of the Strip, joining hundreds of thousands who have already fled.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The “offense” as you put it is making it very clear that you would have a major problem if your wife were Muslim. Surely, if you loved her enough to marry her and build a life and a family with her, her religious beliefs should not be an issue. 
On another point, if Hamas had come out and said that their aim on 7th October two years ago was to kill Israeli soldiers on the basis that they have been suppressing the rights of Palestinians and that the civilians killed and taken hostage were just collateral damage, would you have been ok with that?

You might also recall having a go at me when I said that not all Muslims were responsible for terrorist acts. Your view as posted at the time was that they were all responsible because they weren’t going to the police with information that would help prevent the acts. You didn’t seem remotely interested in the idea that most of them have no idea of terrorist plans being made by extremists and we’re just as horrified by their actions as anyone else.

Just man up and admit it. You hate Muslims and have zero empathy for what the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to by the IDF and the so called Settlers.

Disgusting comment. As one so quick to promote equality stating that strength or weakness can be determined solely on ones gender really does show your deep seated misogynistic views. However much to try to cover it up the nasty, vile bigot in you is never far from the surface is it SOG.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Disgusting comment. As one so quick to promote equality stating that strength or weakness can be determined solely on ones gender really does show your deep seated misogynistic views. However much to try to cover it up the nasty, vile bigot in you is never far from the surface is it SOG.

That's the bit I found most hurtful .

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That's the bit I found most hurtful .

Ironically SOG does exactly what he accused you of. Does all in can to come across as a decent, fair minded bloke but whenever he gets rattled all the attacks, insults, accusations and "clumsy language" rear their head. They say you tell a person shows their true colours when they feel threated, SOG certainly does that. The mask always slips.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Ironically SOG does exactly what he accused you of. Does all in can to come across as a decent, fair minded bloke but whenever he gets rattled all the attacks, insults, accusations and "clumsy language" rear their head. They say you tell a person shows their true colours when they feel threated, SOG certainly does that. The mask always slips.

I'm not sure what more worrying -that he genuinely believes what he's written or he knows it's a load of old bollocks and wrote it anyway. Either is a bit concerning to be honest. At least there wasn't casual references to Jews in this post which means it's slightly less offensive than ones he's done in the past.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That aged well!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c749q1245pwo

I did try to be more level-headed there. Shouldn't have fucking bothered.

 

And yes, you have been taken off ignore - time and all that jazz...

[egg]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Disgusting comment. As one so quick to promote equality stating that strength or weakness can be determined solely on ones gender really does show your deep seated misogynistic views. However much to try to cover it up the nasty, vile bigot in you is never far from the surface is it SOG.

I won't get drawn into SOG's post beyond saying that but it's hard to disagree with his comment that Hypo has shown "zero empathy for what the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to by the IDF and the so called Settlers". 

 

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I won't get drawn into SOG's post beyond saying that but it's hard to disagree with his comment that Hypo has shown "zero empathy for what the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to by the IDF and the so called Settlers". 

 

Chat gpt disagrees 

Here’s a fuller look at what hypochondriac has said elsewhere in that thread, and whether those remarks show sympathy for Gaza or Palestinians. Overall, they show some acknowledgments but not strong expressions of sympathy. I’ve included quotes and analysis.

 

 

 

 

What was found

 

 

1. Acknowledgment of civilian deaths / harm done by Israel
   On Page 51:
   “Fact is that awful things happen during a war … I happen to think they have gone too far in some instances but at the same time I am not an Israeli and I can absolutely see why they are doing what they are doing.” 
   
   
   This shows some recognition that Israel’s actions have had negative consequences, and that they have gone too far at times. It also suggests hypochondriac is considering both sides’ perspectives.
2. Concern about future generations and cycle of violence
   On Page 87:
   “What was the realistic alternative that would have ended the killing? … Their existence in their land is an affront to them … It is not possible to negotiate with terrorists such as this. Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah … very flawed … many more deaths in the future regardless unfortunately but that’s religious fundamentalism for you.” 
   And: “Exactly. There isn’t a solution. Their children and grandchildren were already guaranteed to face more of the same…” 
   
   
   This suggests he believes the violence perpetuates and that harm will continue — implicitly including harm to civilians or to ordinary people caught up in the conflict.
3. Critical of civilian casualties / Use of force, while defending the idea of Israel reacting
   On Page 16:
   “And if going in and getting the terrorists leads to lots of civilian casualties as it undoubtedly will? … Hamas insist on hiding in civilian populations because they don’t give a fuck about the Palestinian civilians. If they wanted to reduce civilian casualties they could do so but choose not to … At least you recognise that it’s not possible for them to look for a peaceful solution following these atrocities unlike some people who effectively want them to do nothing or very little in response to such barbarism.” 
   
   
   Here, hypochondriac is acknowledging that actions are causing civilian casualties, that it’s brutal, using words like “atrocities” and “barbarism.” He’s also making a case that Hamas is partly responsible for making things worse by how they operate.
4. Belief in mutual change and negotiation, once certain conditions met
   On Page 60:
   “Like I have said repeatedly, once the hostages have been returned and Hamas has been dismantled for a generation there will hopefully then be an opportunity for negotiation … both sides being free from violence … compromise and change on both sides.” 
   
   
   This suggests he sees possibility of a future where civilians (on both sides) are less harmed, but it’s conditional on fairly stringent prerequisites.

 

 

 

 

 

Does this count as

sympathy

?

 

 

That depends on what level of “sympathy” you’re asking about. If by sympathy you mean:

 

• Explicit statements of empathy (e.g. “I feel for the civilians in Gaza” or “I am sorry for what they are suffering”) → I saw none of that in these excerpts.
• Recognition of suffering / harm → Yes: he acknowledges that innocent people are harmed, that collateral damage occurs, that there are “atrocities” and “barbarism,” and that the ongoing violence breeds more suffering.
• Criticism of actions harming civilians → Some. He seems critical or at least acknowledges Israel has “gone too far in some instances,” and that civilian casualties are unavoidable but harmful. But he balances that with arguments defending Israel’s motivations/actions.

 

 

So, hypochondriac does show some recognition of the suffering of Palestinian civilians / Gaza, though not strong emotional sympathy or overt solidarity. The tone is more analytical and conditional rather than openly sympathetic.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Chat gpt disagrees 

Here’s a fuller look at what hypochondriac has said elsewhere in that thread, and whether those remarks show sympathy for Gaza or Palestinians. Overall, they show some acknowledgments but not strong expressions of sympathy. I’ve included quotes and analysis.

 

 

 

 

What was found

 

 

1. Acknowledgment of civilian deaths / harm done by Israel
   On Page 51:
   “Fact is that awful things happen during a war … I happen to think they have gone too far in some instances but at the same time I am not an Israeli and I can absolutely see why they are doing what they are doing.” 
   
   
   This shows some recognition that Israel’s actions have had negative consequences, and that they have gone too far at times. It also suggests hypochondriac is considering both sides’ perspectives.
2. Concern about future generations and cycle of violence
   On Page 87:
   “What was the realistic alternative that would have ended the killing? … Their existence in their land is an affront to them … It is not possible to negotiate with terrorists such as this. Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah … very flawed … many more deaths in the future regardless unfortunately but that’s religious fundamentalism for you.” 
   And: “Exactly. There isn’t a solution. Their children and grandchildren were already guaranteed to face more of the same…” 
   
   
   This suggests he believes the violence perpetuates and that harm will continue — implicitly including harm to civilians or to ordinary people caught up in the conflict.
3. Critical of civilian casualties / Use of force, while defending the idea of Israel reacting
   On Page 16:
   “And if going in and getting the terrorists leads to lots of civilian casualties as it undoubtedly will? … Hamas insist on hiding in civilian populations because they don’t give a fuck about the Palestinian civilians. If they wanted to reduce civilian casualties they could do so but choose not to … At least you recognise that it’s not possible for them to look for a peaceful solution following these atrocities unlike some people who effectively want them to do nothing or very little in response to such barbarism.” 
   
   
   Here, hypochondriac is acknowledging that actions are causing civilian casualties, that it’s brutal, using words like “atrocities” and “barbarism.” He’s also making a case that Hamas is partly responsible for making things worse by how they operate.
4. Belief in mutual change and negotiation, once certain conditions met
   On Page 60:
   “Like I have said repeatedly, once the hostages have been returned and Hamas has been dismantled for a generation there will hopefully then be an opportunity for negotiation … both sides being free from violence … compromise and change on both sides.” 
   
   
   This suggests he sees possibility of a future where civilians (on both sides) are less harmed, but it’s conditional on fairly stringent prerequisites.

 

 

 

 

 

Does this count as

sympathy

?

 

 

That depends on what level of “sympathy” you’re asking about. If by sympathy you mean:

 

• Explicit statements of empathy (e.g. “I feel for the civilians in Gaza” or “I am sorry for what they are suffering”) → I saw none of that in these excerpts.
• Recognition of suffering / harm → Yes: he acknowledges that innocent people are harmed, that collateral damage occurs, that there are “atrocities” and “barbarism,” and that the ongoing violence breeds more suffering.
• Criticism of actions harming civilians → Some. He seems critical or at least acknowledges Israel has “gone too far in some instances,” and that civilian casualties are unavoidable but harmful. But he balances that with arguments defending Israel’s motivations/actions.

 

 

So, hypochondriac does show some recognition of the suffering of Palestinian civilians / Gaza, though not strong emotional sympathy or overt solidarity. The tone is more analytical and conditional rather than openly sympathetic.

Feel free to highlight the empathy shown for the Palestinians. There's not a word of it. Not one. 

To save you wasting your time for something that isn't there, chat GPT says:

Explicit statements of empathy (e.g. “I feel for the civilians in Gaza” or “I am sorry for what they are suffering”) → I saw none of that in these excerpts.

If that's the case for the defence, I stand by all my comments about him. 

Edited 11 hours ago by egg

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Feel free to highlight the empathy shown for the Palestinians. There's not a word of it. Not one. 

Incorrect 

Yes — there are a few posts where hypochondriac shows some empathy for Palestinians, or at least makes acknowledgements tending toward it. But it’s mixed and conditional. Here are the examples and some nuance:

 

 

 

 

Examples of empathy / acknowledgment

 

 

1. Innocent Palestinians didn’t deserve what happened
   On page 87, hypochondriac says:
   “The innocent ones didn’t deserve it. The difference of opinion centres around who is to blame for what’s happened to them.” 
   
   
   This is an explicit recognition that innocent Palestinians are suffering and that what’s happening to them is unjust.
2. Concern about civilian casualties and future hatred
   On page 16:
   “No-one is on the side of Hamas here, the more innocent Palestinians die the more hatred for Israel builds up amongst the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours … ” 
   
   
   Here, hypochondriac is warning about how the death of innocent Palestinians fuels more hatred and conflict. That is empathetic insofar as recognising the harm and consequences for civilians.
3. Acknowledgement of large-scale harm, ‘loss of Palestinian lives’
   Also page 16:
   “The bombing before is to make it safer for the Israel army, at the expense of the Palestinian lives.” 
   
   
   While arguing or defending some aspect of Israel’s strategy, hypochondriac admits that Palestinian lives are being lost (“at the expense”) — another kind of acknowledging suffering and cost.

 

 

 

 

 

Limits / Ambiguities

 

 

• The empathy is often conditional and balanced against his justification of Israeli actions. For example, he often accepts civilian deaths as an unavoidable consequence of operations against Hamas. He may express regret but still emphasize that Israel has reasons (real or perceived) for its actions.
• The language is sometimes harsh (towards Hamas) and less about the Palestinian civilians themselves — his focus tends to be on the threats from militant groups, how those groups are using civilians, etc.
• Even when he does express that “innocent ones didn’t deserve it,” he does not often go further into deeper emotional concern or offers of solidarity; it tends to be more “this is wrong / undeserved” rather than “this is tragic / I feel for them.”

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

In summary: yes — hypochondriac has shown empathy toward Palestinians in some respects: recognizing innocent civilian suffering, acknowledging that deaths are bad, and pointing out that harm to civilians fuels future problems. It’s not consistent or strong in every post, and often the empathy is paired with critique or justification of military actions.

 

 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Incorrect 

Yes — there are a few posts where hypochondriac shows some empathy for Palestinians, or at least makes acknowledgements tending toward it. But it’s mixed and conditional. Here are the examples and some nuance:

 

 

 

 

Examples of empathy / acknowledgment

 

 

1. Innocent Palestinians didn’t deserve what happened
   On page 87, hypochondriac says:
   “The innocent ones didn’t deserve it. The difference of opinion centres around who is to blame for what’s happened to them.” 
   
   
   This is an explicit recognition that innocent Palestinians are suffering and that what’s happening to them is unjust.
2. Concern about civilian casualties and future hatred
   On page 16:
   “No-one is on the side of Hamas here, the more innocent Palestinians die the more hatred for Israel builds up amongst the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours … ” 
   
   
   Here, hypochondriac is warning about how the death of innocent Palestinians fuels more hatred and conflict. That is empathetic insofar as recognising the harm and consequences for civilians.
3. Acknowledgement of large-scale harm, ‘loss of Palestinian lives’
   Also page 16:
   “The bombing before is to make it safer for the Israel army, at the expense of the Palestinian lives.” 
   
   
   While arguing or defending some aspect of Israel’s strategy, hypochondriac admits that Palestinian lives are being lost (“at the expense”) — another kind of acknowledging suffering and cost.

 

 

 

 

 

Limits / Ambiguities

 

 

• The empathy is often conditional and balanced against his justification of Israeli actions. For example, he often accepts civilian deaths as an unavoidable consequence of operations against Hamas. He may express regret but still emphasize that Israel has reasons (real or perceived) for its actions.
• The language is sometimes harsh (towards Hamas) and less about the Palestinian civilians themselves — his focus tends to be on the threats from militant groups, how those groups are using civilians, etc.
• Even when he does express that “innocent ones didn’t deserve it,” he does not often go further into deeper emotional concern or offers of solidarity; it tends to be more “this is wrong / undeserved” rather than “this is tragic / I feel for them.”

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

In summary: yes — hypochondriac has shown empathy toward Palestinians in some respects: recognizing innocent civilian suffering, acknowledging that deaths are bad, and pointing out that harm to civilians fuels future problems. It’s not consistent or strong in every post, and often the empathy is paired with critique or justification of military actions.

 

 

I'm not sure you're helping your man here.

SoG's correct on this. 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not sure you're helping your man here.

SoG's correct on this. 

He’s not my man. I’m just providing a counter argument. SOG readily accuses others of display the exact same behaviour he does. This is another example 

[egg]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

He’s not my man. I’m just providing a counter argument. SOG readily accuses others of display the exact same behaviour he does. This is another example 

We'll agree to differ mate.