Nelly-Torres

No. You haven't. To clarify, I started my main rebuttal of the cheap accusations by replying to your point about the Channel 5 post. I would've quoted you if I was replying exclusively to you. The remainder of the post was a general reply. I accept that you haven't made such accusations and apologise if my post read as if I was accusing you of accusing me.

You've implied that I've indulged in blood libelling - a specific thing. Can you quote the posts were I've repeated the blood libel about Jewish people kidnapping and killing CHRISTIAN children and using their blood in religious ceremonies or to make flatbreads etc? You've suggested that I've indulged in the following: "It’s quite possible to object to the actions of Israel and Netanyahu without resorting to the racist accusations which have historically been used to stoke hatred and murder of innocent people." Again, I'm assuming you're referring to blood libelling. And historical antisemitic violence and the holocaust. So, I'll ask again, where have I said that Netanyahu kidnaps and kills Christian children? And uses their blood for religious ceremonies and baking? I simply haven't. You're lying. How has saying that Netanyahu is bloodthirsty for Palestinian blood, be that children's or adults, "been used to stoke hatred and murder of innocent people?", if we're acting on the basis that you're suggesting that blood libelling was a precursor that built up to the holocaust? Time travel? I'm referring to a specific individual, a specific example. I'm struggling to see how an empirically verifiable claim in the here and now was used to stoke hatred in the past. Your point would have legs if I'd have indulged in blood libelling - in the specific, defined sense of the thing (kidnapping, Christian children, murder, blood used for ceremony or baking etc), but it's been established above that I simply haven't done this.

Anyway, I'm done in here (for now). I'm getting bored of the baseless antisemitism claims. This forum scrapes the barrels of humour at times. It's a better place for it. Accordingly, I reserve my right to say inflammatory things about Netanyahu. And I particularly defend my right to call him a bloodthirsty/thirsty for blood/whatever variation on that theme you wish to use shitehawk.

CNN are suing the Donald over the revocation of press credentials.

See above. I simply haven't indulged in what you're hinting at - blood libelling. You're simply lying.

There's nothing to step back from. I've said in an unnecessarily dramatic and wordy way that Netanyahu is thirsty for blood, a.k.a bloodthirsty. I've clearly said that one person is bloodthirsty and that I meant that as he has thousands of deaths on his hands. And continues to slaughter. I've said he's bloodthirsty for Palestinian blood. I've in no way suggested that he kidnaps Christian children, kills them and then uses their blood for religious ceremonies or to use when kneading matzos. Which is pretty much the extent of what blood libel is. I thought the ellipses after the Channel 5 post might have gave away that that comment was made somewhat in jest too. I wasn't doubling down at all. Christ, when accusing a murderous war criminal, who incidentally has killed thousands of children, of being bloodthirsty becomes taboo then, stop the world, I'm getting off. That we've jumped from a comment that one particular Jewish person is bloodthirsty (because....er....they are!....not because he's Jewish....but because he's a murderous thug....oh, see below, murderous is a synonym of bloodthirsty, am I allowed to call him murderous or is that wrong too?) to invoking all sorts of fallacious imagery of Jewish people systematically going around kidnapping kids to drink their blood, to make that leap suggests to me that it mightn't be me who's is allegedly buying into the fallacious canards of the past. bloodthirsty /ˈblʌdθəːsti/ adjective having or showing a desire to kill and maim. "a bloodthirsty dictator" synonyms: murderous, homicidal, violent, sadistic, warlike, bellicose, bloody;

This. And exhibiting his rather thin skin. Mueller is reportedly indicting today (or in the coming days). Roger Stone and some bloke called Corsi. He knows it's getting closer to him and sonny boy.

I did no such thing. Stop being hysterical.

I was joking. But, you see all these Channel 5 documentaries about some of the crazy shit that other mass murderers get up to...

Would anybody really be surprised if Netanyahu did feast on Palestinian blood? Fuck all to do with him being Jewish, but rather because he's a sociopathic fucking loon.

Stop being antisemitic.

The message is clear. Netanyahu is bloodthirsty. He has been for years. The message is being blurred and deliberately misinterpreted by others, not me. There's been no claim that Netanyahu drinks children's blood. There's been a claim that he is happy and prepared to order the slaughter of children. The word bloodthirsty has a clear, specific meaning. Which doesn't relate to actually drinking blood. This pathetic deflection needs to stop.

It's quite astounding that we're getting a bit tetchy that a war criminal who has approximately 5,000 (a very conservative estimate) Palestinian deaths on his hands since he came to power in 2009 is being described as bloodthirsty. No mention of jews. No mention of kidnapping and murdering of Christian children. No mention of blood being used in religious rituals. We've been here before. Haterz gonna cry wolf...

Isn't bloodthirsty a widely used term, used to describe somebody who exhibits a strong desire to kill - meaning murderous etc? I think it's entirely appropriate to use such a term to describe the thug that is Netanyahu. On another note, I'm genuinely amused that somebody is still reading my posts and temper negging them. Appeasers gonna appease...

Hahaha. Unlucky lad. Shame it wasn't a bulldozer.