Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[NoHolyCows]

When Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, your response isn't to do whatever it takes to remove Hamas from power. Instead your response is to encourage Hamas' tactic by playing into their hands. Well done. So much for your moral position. That's neither in the Palestinian civilians best interest... nor Israels. You are the enemy of both sides. Well done.

I'm for any side that can offer long term peace. It's not Hamas right now. Nor any other Palestinian alternative. The only hope for peace and stability in the region is Israel. We can debate all day why Palestinians in Gaza suck at valuing peaceful coexistence with Israel. But they just don't. For whatever reason. As long as that's the situation we need to find another solution. The best, (and only workable option) available is to let Israel rule it.

Politics is the art of the possible.

We're just different you and me. I think it's important to stand up for what's right and if any player is imcompatible to peace, we all get together and remove the problem. We did it in World War 2. We did it in the Iraq war... twice. I think we should do it this time again. Allowing Hamas to stay in power... I don't think it's a viable option. Not for any side. Certainly not the Palestine people. You clearly do. I don't know how anyone could be so cold hearted. But here we are.

If standing up for civilian life makes me “the enemy of both sides,” then so be it—because I’ll take that over being the apologist for mass death in the name of “removing the problem.”

The problem is that you are fixating on a local maximum. It's a big problem in optimization when the global maximum is unknown. Consider several years ago, standing on top of an 11 outside town. A guy comes up, happy to have made it to the highest point around. Nope, if you kept looking for the path heading up you would have ended up on that 11. But if you had turned right at the junction (left clearly climbs, right follows the ridgeline and is pretty much flat for quite a ways) you would have ended up on that peak over there, nearly a thousand feet taller.

You say I’m playing into Hamas’ hands because I refuse to endorse war crimes. But that’s exactly the trap: the idea that condemning collective punishment somehow aids terrorism. No—it’s the opposite. The more civilians are bombed, starved, and humiliated, the more power you hand to extremists. You don’t defeat Hamas by validating its narrative. You feed it.

Look at the real world. Violence doesn't come from repression, it comes from someone funding it.

And you never present alternatives, you simply assert they must have been wrong.

You talk about peace, yet endorse a plan that guarantees perpetual war: indefinite occupation by a foreign military force over a stateless population that already resents it. That’s not a path to peace. That’s a pressure cooker. The idea that “Israel should just rule Gaza” ignores decades of history, resistance, and the plain truth that domination is not stability.

You talk about some sort of magical peace that will happen if you just ignore it.

And no, politics is not just “the art of the possible.” It’s the art of what we choose to make possible. You invoke World War II and Iraq as if they’re models of success. But WWII ended in reconstruction, not vengeance. And Iraq? It was a disaster of false premises, shattered governance, and endless insurgency—ironically, much like what you now advocate for Gaza. We did remove the “bad guys”—and unleashed chaos that birthed even worse ones. You want to run that playbook again?

This hasn't ended, why should there be reconstruction?

What’s cold-hearted is pretending that this only becomes a moral issue after the war is over—after the dead are buried, after the homes are gone, after the children are maimed. You talk about standing for what’s right. Then start by recognizing that killing thousands of civilians is not a side effect—it’s a failure. A disgrace. A policy choice. One you’re defending.

And you fail to recognize that your position requires handing power to whoever is the most evil.

And finally, you say you’re for “any side that can offer peace.” Then why not call for elections? For a UN administration? For regional diplomacy backed by ceasefire guarantees and reconstruction incentives? Why is your only “solution” a permanent military boot on the neck of a population that’s already endured decades of siege?

You don’t have to excuse Hamas. I don’t. But if your answer to terrorism is to flatten neighborhoods and declare that any alternative is naïve, then your real goal isn’t peace. It’s dominance.

And no, we’re not just “different.” You’ve chosen to normalize civilian suffering as a price worth paying. I haven’t.

That’s the difference.

NHC

You want magical answers.

Why call for elections?

We see what UN "peacekeeping" is like in Lebanon. Major willful blindness. Doing their job would get them attacked by Hezbollah, they choose the path that results in shots not being fired. And blame Israel when their forces are used as human shields.

Regional diplomacy? Iran hasn't shown up at the table once. They haven't given any indication of any desire to show up at the table. What good is talking to an empty chair?

Ceasefire guarantees? What in the world do you actually mean?

It all sounds good but has no connection to reality.

Lauren, the irony in your response is almost impressive. You accuse me of proposing “magical answers,” then turn around and suggest that indefinite military rule, mass civilian casualties, and open-ended occupation somehow lead to peace. That’s not realism. That’s delusion weaponized.

You invoke a metaphor about hiking ridgelines, but we’re not navigating terrain—we’re navigating war. And what you’re defending is a strategy that leads straight off a cliff: flattening neighborhoods, starving populations, and calling it “the global maximum.” It’s not strategic wisdom. It’s moral blindness wrapped in technocratic language.

You say violence doesn’t come from repression but from funding? Tell that to the history of every occupied people who resisted with stones long before they had backers. Extremism thrives where hope dies—and when you bomb shelters, close borders, and turn humanitarian aid into a bargaining chip, you’re not defeating terrorists. You’re manufacturing them.

You claim that calling for elections or ceasefires is naïve. But what’s your alternative? A permanent boot on the neck of a stateless population? That’s not stability. That’s a recipe for perpetual resistance. You point to UN failures in Lebanon, as if every flaw justifies total abandonment of diplomacy, law, and international coordination. That’s not analysis. That’s surrender dressed as strategy.

And when I ask why not support elections, reconstruction, or regional diplomacy, your answer is that Iran won’t show up—so the entire concept is void? That’s not a plan. That’s an excuse. Iran isn’t the only actor in the region, and pretending their absence justifies total war is like saying if one party walks out of negotiations, you burn down the whole conference hall.

You accuse me of handing power to “the most evil.” But here’s what you miss: when you level cities and justify every civilian death as unfortunate but acceptable, you become indistinguishable from the very evil you claim to fight. There is no moral high ground when you bury it under rubble.

You insist this hasn’t “ended yet,” so reconstruction isn’t relevant. But that’s the problem. You don’t want it to end. You’ve embraced a worldview where every alternative is dismissed as impossible, every diplomatic option laughed off, and every legal standard discarded—because you’ve decided that only dominance counts as peace. That’s not hard-nosed realism. That’s ideological rot.

And finally, the most chilling part of your argument is how easily you normalize mass civilian death. As if it’s just the cost of doing business. As if there’s no difference between neutralizing a combatant and incinerating a child in a “known shelter zone.” You talk about moral clarity—then excuse policies that erase the distinction between terrorist and toddler.

So no, Lauren, I don’t believe in magic. I believe in law, restraint, and the idea that not every atrocity needs to be met with a bigger one. You’ve chosen a future where the only answer is escalation. I haven’t. That’s the difference.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It'd be great if someone could get Pres Trump to answer the question, "Which negotiations have been the most successful for you, China or Canada or Iran?"
Tom

I really wish politicians could be compelled to answer questions under oath. Say, every month the opposition gets to ask 5 question of every politician. "That is classified" is permitted if it actually is. "That is personal" is permitted for anything that's not directly part of their job. A lie is prosecuted as perjury. You can only refuse to answer by resigning on the spot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel is again doing the free world's dirty work. It seems, more and more, to be the only democratic country with any balls left

Iran missiles cause multiple casualties after strikes in Israel

Strikes hit central and north Israel as the Israeli military carries out further attacks in Iran.

www.bbc.com

That is entirely baseless. How far back did Stuxnet set Iran? What is happening that we don't ever hear about?

And finally, toppling the Theocratic government in Iran (the key goal) is something the Iranians have to do. We can help shift and nudge, provide support without being noticed as providing support, but the Iranian people need to do it.

I think you misunderstand the immediate threat Israel is under. Israel isn't trying to push for a regime change in Iran. They are trying to survive until tomorrow

Nah. The threat isn't going to show up that quickly. But smashing it now is probably the last chance they'll have to keep Iran from getting a bomb in the near future. And if Iran gets a bomb they'll probably use it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A friend pointed out something weird.

Hamas is a proxy organisation for Iran. They rule Gaza. But nobody is waving Iranian flags. They're just waving Palestinian flags.

When Israel bombed Iran yesterday it felt in the press, like it came out of nowhere. Even though Israel have been at war with Iran for 1.5 years now.

Yeah, the press can't see last week. Or next week. But their myopia doesn't mean people need to be myopic.

 

[NoHolyCows]

It's just Geneva was written as guidelines for avoiding inadvertent harm to civilians, it didn't envision the deliberate harm to civilians that Hamas engages in.

Do you have any actual independent evidence (not some sort of narrative from your imagination) to support that observation?
Under the assumption your observation is valid, then the civilized manner is to follow the conventions while working to get them changed. If that makes waging war more difficult, so be it.

Otherwise, observers have every legitimate reason to object to the violation of the Geneva convention.

Yes, your absolutely right—and your point exposes just how dangerously uninformed Loren Pechtel’s reading of the Geneva Conventions truly is.

Loren claimed:

“It’s just Geneva was written as guidelines for avoiding inadvertent harm to civilians, it didn’t envision the deliberate harm to civilians that Hamas engages in.”

That’s not just incorrect. It shows a deep misunderstanding of both the purpose and the structure of international humanitarian law (IHL).

The Geneva Conventions—and their Additional Protocols—were not written as mere “guidelines” to help nations avoid accidents. They are binding legal obligations ratified by nearly every country in the world, including Israel. They exist precisely because warfare often involves parties who do deliberately harm civilians—whether state or non-state actors—and they are meant to limit that harm, even (and especially) when one side disregards those rules.

To say Geneva “didn’t envision” deliberate civilian targeting is a bit like saying the criminal code wasn’t written to handle murder. It’s nonsense. The conventions were born out of the horrors of World War II and deliberately crafted to anticipate the worst of human behavior. That’s why terms like grave breaches, collective punishment, and protection of civilian populations appear so explicitly in the legal texts.

Yeah, I know it's hard to comprehend blasphemy. Try anyway!

The issue is with notification for misuse. Geneva was written with the notion that everybody would be trying to avoid improper strikes.

Hamas is actively trying to encourage "improper" strikes. Thus sending notice over misuse isn't going to make one bit of difference. I care about what influences the outcome and this is not something that influences the outcome.

And it's trivially obvious in most cases that there was misuse. If they were truly staying out of it the IDF would walk in, look around, leave. There would be no fighting. You want to claim protected status, you stay out of it. Entirely.

Loren, your response just digs the hole deeper. You’ve gone from misunderstanding the Geneva Conventions to outright rewriting their purpose. Let me be clear: international law does not vanish because your opponent is evil.

You claim the Geneva Conventions assumed “everyone would be trying to avoid improper strikes.” That’s flatly false—and dangerously naïve. The Geneva Conventions were created precisely because not all parties respect the rules of war. They don’t depend on reciprocity. They don’t suspend protections because one side behaves like a death cult. They’re designed to constrain the powerful, especially when the enemy is lawless.

You say Hamas “encourages improper strikes.” Fine—let’s assume that’s true. That doesn’t grant the other side license to take the bait. If anything, it raises the legal and moral bar for response. That’s the entire purpose of the law: to separate civilization from savagery, especially under stress.

Let’s get specific. Article 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilian hospitals even if they’re being misused—unless due warning is given and a reasonable time has passed without cessation. That’s not a suggestion. That’s binding law. You don’t get to say “they’re bad, so we ignored the rules.” If warnings are futile, you document them. You follow the law anyway. That’s what accountability means.

And this idea that it’s “trivially obvious” there was misuse because the IDF met resistance? That’s not a legal argument—it’s a military rationalization. Combat occurring near or in a facility doesn’t automatically strip it of protection. You still have to prove direct, active use for hostile acts. You still have to apply proportionality. You don’t get to drop bombs on schools or shelters and call the aftermath proof of justification.

You keep circling the same claim: that if someone violates the rules, you’re free to abandon them too. But that’s not how the law works. That’s how war crimes happen.

And you don’t get to call it “blasphemy” when someone corrects your legal fiction. You’re not defending a tough position—you’re defending impunity. If you really believed in the values you claim—peace, stability, law—you’d insist those values be upheld precisely when they’re hardest to follow.

Instead, you’ve made yourself a mirror image of what you say you oppose. The tragedy is that in trying to defeat the lawless, you’ve decided to become lawless yourself.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

You assert there’s “no international body in a position to be credible.” That’s convenient, isn’t it? When every mechanism of accountability is dismissed as inherently compromised, what you’re really advocating for is impunity. If only the IDF is allowed to judge the IDF, then you’re not defending law—you’re defending authority without oversight. That’s the logic of authoritarianism, not justice.

I'm not saying only the IDF is allowed to judge. I'm saying nobody is adequately judging.

You claim the 35,000+ death toll means nothing because 4,000 entries were “clearly bogus.” Yet neither Israel, the U.S., nor any credible analyst has claimed that the overall civilian toll is fabricated. The U.S. has publicly stated that thousands of children have been killed. But you cherry-pick anomalies to discard the entire dataset. It’s the same logic flat-earthers use: find one cloud shaped weirdly and declare NASA a fraud.

Once again, you utterly fail to put the pieces together correctly.

My point is that all of the supposed checking failed to note obviously bogus data. Even when Israel pointed it out. Thus the only possible conclusion is that they aren't actually checking. And thus everyone who says they are checking is lying.

It’s not war. It’s a failure of imagination, of responsibility, and of conscience.

You’ve already surrendered to the idea that nothing better is possible. I haven’t.

And history won’t remember the people who justified impunity under the guise of realism. It will remember the civilians buried beneath their certainty.

NHC

You want a magical answer.

What you call “magical,” I call moral clarity—and your refusal to engage with it is exactly the problem.

You say no one is “adequately judging,” but that’s not neutral skepticism. That’s strategic erosion of all oversight. If every human rights group, every UN body, every independent monitor is dismissed as either incompetent or biased, then your argument isn’t that justice is elusive—it’s that it’s irrelevant. That’s not caution. That’s a blank check for violence.

You fixate on a data error—4,000 flawed entries—as if that discredits the entire 35,000+ death toll. But even if we accepted that all 4,000 were mistakes (and there’s no evidence they were), that doesn’t erase the other 30,000 lives. It doesn’t undo satellite imagery of mass graves. It doesn’t refute videos of bodies pulled from rubble. It doesn’t erase the statements from the U.S. State Department, the WHO, UNICEF, and every other credible agency acknowledging a catastrophic civilian toll.

And no—pointing out one bad data point doesn’t prove that “everyone is lying.” It proves what any analyst knows: data in a war zone is imperfect. You vet it. You correct it. You don’t throw out the entire dataset because it threatens your worldview.

The real tell is your last line: “You want a magical answer.” That’s not an argument. That’s a cop-out. You pretend you’re grounded in realism, but what you’re really grounded in is surrender—surrender to the idea that mass killing is unavoidable, oversight is impossible, and accountability is optional.

But I refuse to accept that. Because what you call “realism” is really fatalism with a flag draped over it. And history is full of people who made the same excuses—who claimed oversight couldn’t be trusted, who said the numbers were wrong, who insisted that what looked like atrocity was really just necessity.

We remember them too. Just not the way they hoped.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment. I will then take it that if your next door neighbor commits a crime you would not object to being apprehended and punished along with your neighbor for his crimes.

Once you let Hamas set the scene you've already lost.

What we are seeing isn't punishment.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You keep asking “what’s the relevance?” as if history and legal precedent are distractions. But that’s exactly what they are meant to prevent—a world where those in power rewrite the rules as they go.

You said: “Srebrenica, My Lai, Nuremberg—what’s the point of those examples?”

The point is this: every one of those crimes was justified at the time by their perpetrators with the same kind of language you’re using now. They cited provocation. They denied intent. They claimed military necessity. They questioned the data. They said the critics didn’t understand war. And every time, the international legal system cut through those excuses and held them to account. That’s the relevance.

Some tried to rationalize them.

You say “there’s no targeting of civilians.” But the law doesn’t require someone to say “I’m aiming at a child” to violate it. It requires militaries to avoid civilian harm wherever feasible—and to avoid actions where civilian death is expected to outweigh the military gain. When entire families die in shelters, when convoys are bombed, when starvation is used as pressure—those are not technical mishaps. They are violations of duty.

You keep making claims that aren't supported.

You ask for “evidence of punishment.” Look around. The blockade isn’t about just blocking weapons—it’s about controlling electricity, water, fuel, and food. People aren’t being punished because they’re armed; they’re being punished because they’re there. That’s collective punishment. It’s written into the text of Geneva IV, Article 33. It’s not emotional rhetoric—it’s black-letter law.

And you still have not addressed the reality of Geneva.

And yes, we don’t have perfect data. That’s always the case in war. But the absence of certainty doesn’t reverse the burden of proof. You can’t say “maybe the numbers are wrong” and then treat every dead civilian as a probable combatant. That’s not how any legal standard works. If that logic were accepted, then no war crime would ever be provable. Ever. Because the accused could always say “the numbers are flawed.”

I'm not.

You keep saying “Israel is doing better than anyone else.” But “better” is not a defense when the baseline is already horrific. If an action would be illegal for Syria, for Russia, or for any other state, it’s not suddenly legal because Israel does it more precisely. That’s not a legal standard—it’s moral relativism.

You continue to make an unsupported jump from bad things happened to war crimes.

And this idea that critics are just idealists “who don’t understand how war works”—that’s not an argument. It’s an evasion. Geneva was written precisely because we know how war works. It was written after the world saw what unregulated, total war does to civilians. It wasn’t meant to be a nice suggestion. It was meant to be a restraint on exactly this kind of logic.

So no—it’s not about emotions. It’s about law, pattern, and accountability. If we throw all that out because we think this war is too complicated for rules, then we’re not defending civilization. We’re undoing it.

You have shown exactly what I'm talking about.

You see results you don't like, you immediately jump to accusations of war crimes. You're blinded by the horrors and not using reason to understand the situation--exactly as Hamas intends.

No—I see horrors, and I refuse to rationalize them into strategy. That’s not blindness. That’s moral vision.

You accuse me of “jumping to accusations” as if I’m reacting emotionally, not reasonably. But what I’m doing is following the law. Civilians being killed in mass numbers. Shelters being hit repeatedly. Lifelines like water and fuel being cut off. Those aren’t opinions—they’re documented facts, corroborated by international agencies, satellite evidence, and even by your own government’s allies. What you call “results I don’t like” are what Geneva calls red lines.

You say, “some tried to rationalize Srebrenica or My Lai.” Exactly. That’s the entire point. And history didn’t accept their rationalizations then—and it shouldn’t now. Those atrocities were committed by people who thought they were justified in the moment, just like you do now. But intent isn’t a shield against illegality. And precedent exists precisely to stop the powerful from deciding that their own justifications are enough.

You claim “there’s no targeting of civilians,” but then ignore that starvation, siege, and disproportionate force don’t require intent to be illegal. If a policy predictably and repeatedly results in mass civilian harm, and continues anyway, then it doesn’t matter if the intention was military gain. The pattern is the proof. That’s what the Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions, and the entire post-WWII legal order were built to establish.

You try to flip the burden of proof—saying I can’t prove every detail, so you don’t need to question any of it. But the burden isn’t on civilians to prove their innocence. It’s on the military to prove its compliance with the laws of war. And when thousands of civilians die in bunkers, in UN shelters, in food lines, in so-called safe zones, again and again—that’s not me failing to understand. That’s you refusing to.

You say “Geneva doesn’t apply like that.” Yes, it does. Article 33 of Geneva IV explicitly prohibits collective punishment. Not metaphorically—explicitly. Cutting off food, water, and power to an entire population, regardless of who’s armed and who’s not, is collective punishment. It’s black-letter law. The only reason you’re still asking “what’s the reality of Geneva?” is because you don’t like the answer.

You claim I’m not using reason. But reason without conscience is what led the world into the very atrocities that gave birth to these laws in the first place. Saying “this war is different” isn’t new—it’s exactly what the architects of humanitarian law anticipated.

So no—I’m not blinded. I’m seeing this clearly. It’s you who are looking straight at mass suffering and calling it unfortunate but acceptable. That’s not reason. That’s resignation.

And history is very clear about who ends up on the wrong side of that.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

Please make that make logical sense in some way.

He's flipping your argument, it applies equally to saying you support terrorism. Thus you're left with recognizing the original claim was wrong, accepting his "claim" (I do not believe he's actually making a claim), or showing the relationship is different.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You keep accusing me of lacking nuance, but every time I introduce it, you retreat behind the same binary shield: “Hamas bad, Israel justified.” That’s not complexity. That’s moral outsourcing.

Let’s start with your claim that all the evidence traces back to Hamas. That’s flatly false. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and Physicians for Human Rights have all conducted independent investigations—often using satellite data, open-source verification, eyewitness accounts, and corroboration with international agencies. None of these groups take marching orders from Hamas. And dismissing all of them as “not credible” because their findings make you uncomfortable is not skepticism—it’s deliberate blindness.

Nobody except Israel caught the bogus data. That could only happen because nobody else checked.

You say Hamas is to blame for dressing like civilians, so we shouldn’t fault the IDF for killing civilians. But that’s a complete misreading of international law. The presence of unlawful behavior by one party doesn’t absolve the other of its obligations. If Hamas violates the laws of war by embedding among civilians, that’s a war crime. But that doesn’t mean Israel is then free to ignore its own obligations under Geneva. Civilians don’t lose protection because someone nearby broke the rules. That’s not law—it’s collective punishment.

I didn't say we shouldn't fault them. I'm saying we should understand there will be targeting errors.

You also claim the radicalization in Gaza is “driven by money.” That’s a cartoon version of reality. Yes, money plays a role. But so do trauma, displacement, political hopelessness, and years of siege and bombardment. Reducing it to a paycheck ignores decades of research by counterterrorism experts—including RAND, the Soufan Center, and multiple UN panels—that show radicalization is a complex process shaped by real-world grievances. So if you care about preventing terrorism, you can’t just drop bombs and cut off food and expect peace to sprout from the rubble.

I look at the world.

Nowhere do I see large scale violence deriving from grievances. Everywhere there's large scale violence there's a paymaster.

And I think you're misinterpreting what the counterterrorism people are saying. Grievances are part of the radicalization process, but they're a tool, not a cause. You can't eliminate grievances because they don't have to be real.

Then you say I’m making it sound like Hamas are “the good guys” because so many of their people die. That’s grotesque. No, mass death isn’t virtue. But it is a human tragedy—and it should be treated as such, regardless of who causes it or why. When children are buried under collapsed buildings, the response shouldn’t be, “Well, their leaders brought it on them.” That’s not moral clarity. That’s ethical surrender.

The point is their leaders engineered a situation it was bound to happen. Your magical answer doesn't exist.

And finally, you accuse me of rejecting uncomfortable facts. But I’m not the one dismissing every independent report, every legal principle, every historical precedent that complicates my side’s narrative. That’s you. You’ve made moral scrutiny synonymous with betrayal, and humanitarian concern synonymous with naivety.

No, you're rejecting everything that doesn't support the notion that bad things happened so Israel must be at fault.

So let’s not pretend you’re the voice of reason while you write off mass civilian death as “inevitable,” and erase the law every time it becomes inconvenient. If your argument can’t withstand international law, history, or basic human empathy—then maybe it’s not the rest of us who need to rethink our assumptions.

You keep chanting about this but you aren't addressing the ground truth that the law doesn't require what you think it does. Geneva specifically says that supplies do not need to be permitted entry if they are likely to be diverted. And they are unquestionably being diverted, not merely likely.

You keep claiming I “don’t understand Geneva,” but what’s obvious is that you don’t want it to apply—not because it’s unclear, but because its clarity undermines your entire argument.

Let’s deal with your claim about supply diversion. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention allows a party to withhold relief supplies only if there is serious reason to believe they will be diverted to the enemy. But here’s the catch: even then, the obligation is not erased. The party must work to ensure aid reaches civilians—not just throw up its hands and say, “Hamas might take some, so nobody gets anything.” That’s not law. That’s blockade by excuse.

And you keep retreating to the idea that mass civilian death is unfortunate but inevitable—as if no one is responsible, because Hamas “engineered” it. But here’s what you’re really saying: when civilians are put in danger, the laws protecting them evaporate. That’s not just wrong. That’s dangerous. Because it legitimizes every tyrant, every despot, every rogue army that claims, “We had no choice.”

You say I “chant about this” instead of addressing the “ground truth.” But the ground truth is this: tens of thousands of civilians—many of them children—are dead. Hospitals bombed. Aid blocked. Refugee camps hit. You want to call that “inevitable”? Fine. But don’t dress it up as moral clarity. It’s a policy choice. And the law doesn’t vanish just because someone broke it first.

As for the death toll—no, Israel didn’t “catch the bogus data.” It flagged some anomalies, which were investigated. But that doesn’t invalidate the overall casualty counts—especially when the U.S., the WHO, and other actors continue to confirm widespread civilian deaths. Your entire case is built on the idea that unless every data point is pristine, none of it counts. That’s not skepticism. That’s denial dressed as doubt.

And your obsession with reducing radicalization to “a paycheck” is a fundamental misread of decades of counterterrorism research. RAND, Soufan, CIA assessments—all of them agree that violence often arises from a toxic mix of trauma, humiliation, and lack of alternatives. Yes, extremists exploit grievances. But what makes those grievances persuasive is the reality on the ground. Bombing neighborhoods and strangling an economy strengthens those grievances. It doesn’t defuse them. You want fewer terrorists? Then stop giving them recruitment videos.

Lastly, your go-to response is always to blame Hamas. That’s fine—Hamas deserves blame. But you treat their crimes as license, not limitation. That’s the difference. I believe rules should still apply when it’s hard. You believe they should be waived when it’s hard. And that’s exactly how law dies—by justifying its erosion in moments of crisis.

So no, I’m not rejecting reality. I’m rejecting the idea that one side gets to redefine it every time accountability gets too uncomfortable. You don’t preserve civilization by excusing its collapse. You preserve it by demanding it apply to everyone—especially the powerful.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A friend pointed out something weird.

Hamas is a proxy organisation for Iran. They rule Gaza. But nobody is waving Iranian flags. They're just waving Palestinian flags.

When Israel bombed Iran yesterday it felt in the press, like it came out of nowhere. Even though Israel have been at war with Iran for 1.5 years now.

Iran has been at war with Israel for much longer than 1.5 years.

It's been 1.5 years of open shooting rather than strictly proxy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

Please make that make logical sense in some way.

Your opposition to Israel defending itself against it. You keep referring to it as "collective punishment", when it's self defense against violent Muslim terrorists prone to using their own people as human shields. That's very very different.
Tom

Where have I said I oppose Israel defending itself? Collective punishment is not defense.

You permit Israel to defend itself but only if it can do so flawlessly. That's not reality.

 

[Gospel]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

Please make that make logical sense in some way.

Your opposition to Israel defending itself against it. You keep referring to it as "collective punishment", when it's self defense against violent Muslim terrorists prone to using their own people as human shields. That's very very different.
Tom

The IDF doesn’t back you on that. They’ve actually acknowledged when they’ve killed civilians by mistake. You don’t see them saying, ‘Well if it weren’t for Hamas, blah blah blah’ they owned it. Maybe you should try keeping up with the people you’re defending.

 

[Gospel]

Poll: Just 16% Of Americans Want U.S. Involved In Israel-Iran War

A new poll released Tuesday reveals just 16 percent of Americans want to get involved in the Israel-Iran war.

thefederalist.com

This poll covered by The Federalist shows that only 16% of Americans support U.S. military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, while 60% oppose it and 24% are unsure. The survey, conducted by YouGov and The Economist, included 1,595 U.S. adults and found opposition was strong across party lines, including 53% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 61% of independents rejecting the idea of intervention.

Not that any of this matters, Trump surrounded himself with people who are uniquely suited for a situation like this. So all will be well taken care of.

 

[DrZoidberg]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

Please make that make logical sense in some way.

Your opposition to Israel defending itself against it. You keep referring to it as "collective punishment", when it's self defense against violent Muslim terrorists prone to using their own people as human shields. That's very very different.
Tom

The IDF doesn’t back you on that. They’ve actually acknowledged when they’ve killed civilians by mistake. You don’t see them saying, ‘Well if it weren’t for Hamas, blah blah blah’ they owned it. Maybe you should try keeping up with the people you’re defending.

But so what? When IDF makes statements, we know the context. And so do the Palestinians. If there was a way to defeat Hamas that was less violent, I am sure the IDF would do that. Like they did to neutralise Hezbolah for example.

 

[Gospel]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

Please make that make logical sense in some way.

Your opposition to Israel defending itself against it. You keep referring to it as "collective punishment", when it's self defense against violent Muslim terrorists prone to using their own people as human shields. That's very very different.
Tom

The IDF doesn’t back you on that. They’ve actually acknowledged when they’ve killed civilians by mistake. You don’t see them saying, ‘Well if it weren’t for Hamas, blah blah blah’ they owned it. Maybe you should try keeping up with the people you’re defending.

But so what? When IDF makes statements, we know the context. And so do the Palestinians. If there was a way to defeat Hamas that was less violent, I am sure the IDF would do that. Like they did to neutralise Hezbolah for example.

You didn’t actually respond to what I said. Again.. My point was that the IDF has, at times, taken responsibility for killing civilians without deflecting blame onto Hamas, yet you never do. You keep using Hamas as a catch-all excuse. So again, why are you more defensive than the IDF itself?

 

[Gospel]

Netanyahu’s message to the brave Iranian people, that Israel’s fight isn’t with them, but with the brutal dictatorship that rules them, is the kind of rhetoric I can actually stand behind. We can debate whether his approach will work, but it’s a far cry from the lazy 'because Hamas' logic I see so often thrown around to justify anything and everything around these parts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps before 7/10. But certainly not now. Thinking that there is another workable option is just fantasy. The sooner Hamas is gone, the fewer casualties long term.

You say, 'The sooner Hamas is gone, the fewer casualties long-term,' as if I haven’t already said, countless times, that Hamas needs to be eradicated. At this point, I think it’s fair to ask if you even know how to read. The only real difference between us is that you don’t seem to have a line in the sand for how many Palestinian deaths are too many in exchange for eliminating Hamas, because you don't value their lives at all. I’ll ask again, do the people working on your project know this about you? And if they did, would they still choose to be involved?

Its the opposite. Hamas needs to be removed to protect the lives of both Israelis and Gazans.

You're basically arguing for that we shouldn't have removed Hitler because it would have hurt the German people. It's a rediculous stance. You're tying your back preventing us from defending what's right.

I think its you who don't value any lives.

I'm angry over all the dead Palestinians. But my anger is directed towards Hamas. Not Israel.

A better question to ask is how many more needs to die before you think Hamas needs to go? Clearly you are cool about the 7/10 attack. I'm not.

The 7/10 attack was the line in the sand. Hamas clearly thinks Palestinian lives are expendable. That makes me think its more important to remove them. Not less

 

[DrZoidberg]

Netanyahu’s message to the brave Iranian people, that Israel’s fight isn’t with them, but with the brutal dictatorship that rules them, is the kind of rhetoric I can actually stand behind. We can debate whether his approach will work, but it’s a far cry from the lazy 'because Hamas' logic I see so often thrown around to justify anything and everything around these parts.

But Israel is shooting rockens at Iran? How are you cool about that and not the invasion of Gaza? You're contradicting yourself

 

[DrZoidberg]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

Please make that make logical sense in some way.

Your opposition to Israel defending itself against it. You keep referring to it as "collective punishment", when it's self defense against violent Muslim terrorists prone to using their own people as human shields. That's very very different.
Tom

Excuse me Mr. Fagot? The IDF doesn’t back you on that. They’ve actually acknowledged when they’ve killed civilians by mistake. You don’t see them saying, ‘Well if it weren’t for Hamas, blah blah blah’ they owned it. Maybe you should try keeping up with the people you’re defending.

But so what? When IDF makes statements, we know the context. And so do the Palestinians. If there was a way to defeat Hamas that was less violent, I am sure the IDF would do that. Like they did to neutralise Hezbolah for example.

You didn’t actually respond to what I said. Again.. My point was that the IDF has, at times, taken responsibility for killing civilians without deflecting blame onto Hamas, yet you never do. You keep using Hamas as a catch-all excuse. So again, why are you more defensive than the IDF itself?

They don't need to. We know the context. I'm just spelling it out.

The IDF are explicitly at war with Hamas. Not all Palestinians. They consider the death of Palestinian civilians regretable. Which should be obvious when they acknowledge doing it. If they were at war with all Palestinians, they would hardly care who they kill, right?