Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

Don't forget that the 7/10 attack was engineered by Iran. Hamas is puppeteered by Iran. That's what the regime is capable of

The reporting I’ve seen says Iran was surprised by the 10/7 attack and neither instigated it or help plan it.

Do you have any links to support your claim?

 

[ZiprHead]

As usual, bullshit.

Speak for yourself!

Trump’s own director of national intelligence said US intel shows Iran is NOT close to building a bomb.

That's who you put your trust in? That airhead Tulsi Gabbard? The same Tulsi Gabbard who was a supporter of the Assad regime in Syria? The regime that was incidentally allied with the Ayatollah regime?

The reality is, of course, very different.
Iran has enough uranium for six nuclear weapons, IAEA warns

There is also no non-weapon reason for Iran to enrich Uranium to 60%.

The orange monster’s response? “I don’t care what she says.”

He should never have appointed her in the first place. Same goes for RFK Jr., Hegseth and (almost) everyone in his cabinet. Why are you taking anything anybody from this cabinet of curiosities says as in any way authoritative?

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

As I reported this morning to the IAEA Board of Governors, we have been in permanent contact with the Iran Nuclear Regulatory Authority, to ascertain the status of relevant nuclear facilities and to assess any wider impacts on nuclear safety and security.

Iran has confirmed that at present, only the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site has been attacked in today’s strikes. This facility contains the Fuel Enrichment Plant and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant.

At Natanz, the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, where Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235, has been destroyed.

Electricity infrastructure at the facility (electrical sub-station, main electric power supply building, emergency power supply and back-up generators) has been destroyed.

There is no indication of a physical attack on the underground cascade hall containing part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the main Fuel Enrichment Plant. However, the loss of power to the cascade hall may have damaged the centrifuges there.

Director General Grossi’s Statement to UNSC on Situation in Iran | IAEA

Statement to the United Nations Security Council on the Situation in Iran by IAEA Director General, Rafael Mariano Grossi.

www.iaea.org

 

[laughing dog]

That’s nice. And the relevance to this thread is?

Its to remind all the apologists for Islamism in this thread that they wouldn't be popular in the Middle-East. At least not by regular people in the street

Are you posting drunk again because there are no Islamism apologists?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The west have enabled Islamofascists for decades

We have moral issues about Nazis and Fascists. But the moment they're Muslim we give them a free pass. Because we're afraid to be seen as racists. Newsflash. That is racism. Not holding Arabs to the same moral standards as anyone else, is racism. Arabs are fully capable of behaving civilised

 

[Gospel]

That’s nice. And the relevance to this thread is?

Its to remind all the apologists for Islamism in this thread that they wouldn't be popular in the Middle-East. At least not by regular people in the street

There you go, using women again.

 

[pood]

The west have enabled Islamofascists for decades

We have moral issues about Nazis and Fascists. But the moment they're Muslim we give them a free pass. Because we're afraid to be seen as racists. Newsflash. That is racism. Not holding Arabs to the same moral standards as anyone else, is racism. Arabs are fully capable of behaving civilised

You are a cartoon person with a cartoon version of reality. The point all of us are making is that there are nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world, and it is the height of racism and stupidity to caricature them as all terrorists or potential terrorists via link by religious belief to a tiny number like Hamas, and further you and your ilk continually fail to note the larger geopolitical context of the Middle East, which is that the current mess was a result of arbitrary decisions by Western imperialists. More, I think you just like bloodshed.

 

[Derec]

Except for the fact that there is no such thing as “Islamism” —

Of course there is such a thing as Islamism. It even has a wikipedia page.

it’s word you made up in your usual retarded, semi-literate way —

Dr. Z definitely did not make up that word. Why would you even suggest that?
And why the insults?
Oh wait, the em-dash. Did you have Chat GPT write this post?

and that no one here is an apologist for Hamas or the Iranian government. No one here likes or supports either.

Whatever you say.

So why don’t you stop libeling other posters?

Why don't you stop calling other posters words?

 

[NoHolyCows]

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 realize that Geneva technically only applies to others who signed the treaty? It wasn't meant to protect those who don't care about the rules, but the world has generally applied it anyway.

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 Israel hasn't reported the military use of the hospitals????

Sure, not in a formal notice to Hamas, but both sides know what's going on. You're trying to bring a technicality into it--but if you want technicalities there's no Geneva protections in Gaza anyway because Hamas didn't sign the treaty.

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.

Non-combatant means non-combatant. If there are defenders that's clear proof of active use for hostile acts.

Meanwhile, how about an actual violation of Geneva?

Iran crowing about attacking Israel

True Promise III: Iran rains down missiles, drones on critical Israeli military targets

Iranian armed forces carried out the new phase of Operation True Promise III on Thursday, unleashing a barrage of ballistic missiles on key Israeli military targets.

www.presstv.ir

In a statement, Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said strategic missiles and suicide drones were used in tandem on Thursday, primarily targeting a key command and intelligence center of the Israeli military near one of the hospitals, making the direct impact.

But what did they hit?

Heavy damage, injuries as Iranian missile hits Beersheba hospital; dozens hurt in central cities

30 missiles fired in early-morning barrage, warhead causes extensive damage to Soroka, southern Israel's main hospital; Israel calls attack a war crime; 6 people seriously injured in Ramat Gan and Holon

www.timesofisrael.com

And note that there's nothing military within several CEPs of the hospital. They hit exactly what they aimed for: the hospital.

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.

No, I'm saying that my words go against your faith and thus you are not understanding what I'm saying.

You’ve spent the entire debate insisting that Israel’s actions are justified because the enemy is lawless—only to pivot now and cite Iran’s missile strike on an Israeli hospital as if it somehow balances the scales. Let’s be crystal clear: what Iran did was a war crime. It targeted a civilian medical facility, with no pretense of military necessity, no warning, and no proportionality. That’s not just immoral—it’s explicitly illegal under the very Geneva standards you’ve tried to downplay.

And here’s the difference: I condemn it. Unequivocally. I don’t try to redefine “civilian.” I don’t invent secret tunnels. I don’t say “the math suggests they weren’t really patients.” I don’t say “they should’ve evacuated.” I don’t excuse the bomb because of who funded the hospital or who might’ve visited it last week. I call it what it is: a violation. A crime. A stain on any claim to legitimacy.

That’s what it looks like when you hold a standard—not just wave it like a flag when it suits you.

You, on the other hand, have built your argument on selective enforcement. When Israel strikes hospitals in Gaza, it’s “self-defense.” When Iran does the same to Israel, you shrug and say “Well, what did they hit?” That’s not legal reasoning. That’s moral collapse camouflaged as strategy.

And your latest line—that my rebuttals sound like “blasphemy” because they offend your worldview—isn’t a defense. It’s a confession. You’re admitting this isn’t about law or evidence anymore. It’s about preserving a belief system that can’t survive contact with reality. A system that treats legal obligations as optional and civilian deaths as background noise—as long as they fall on the right side of the border.

So no, this isn’t about blasphemy. It’s about accountability. And if you can’t apply it consistently—if your outrage only functions in one direction—then you’re not defending justice. You’re defending power.

The law doesn’t disappear because your side is scared. It doesn’t vanish when enforcement is inconvenient. And it sure as hell doesn’t give you a pass because Iran is worse.

If you truly believe in law, prove it—by applying it to your allies, not just your enemies.

NHC

 

[laughing dog]

The west have enabled Islamofascists for decades

We have moral issues about Nazis and Fascists. But the moment they're Muslim we give them a free pass. Because we're afraid to be seen as racists. Newsflash. That is racism. Not holding Arabs to the same moral standards as anyone else, is racism. Arabs are fully capable of behaving civilised

First, Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Second, many Muslims are not Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslim, Lastly, as your final sentence proves, you are not afraid to be seen as racist.

 

[pood]

Note too that he rise of the Mullahs in Iran is directly linked to the U.S instigating a coup in Iran in 1953. Somehow after World War II the U.Sl got the idea that we are the world’s police and the arbiter of all that is good and true, and it has all repeatedly ended in disaster for us, financially and in terms of lives. Who would have ever dreamed that the U.S. evacuation of Saigon in 1975 would have been repeated less than 50 years later by the U.S. evacuation of Kabul?

 

[NoHolyCows]

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.

Can you respond to what I'm actually saying?

The 4k bad entries (and many are outright fraud, not mistakes) do not say anything about the others. But they utterly discredit any group that purports to have checked the data. You still talk of independent evidence--but the failure to spot those shows there is no independent count.

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.

I'm not throwing out the dataset. I'm throwing out any independent "verification" of the dataset. Recognize it for what it is: A Hamas claim, nothing more. No conclusions can be drawn.

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.

It's not fatalism. I'm saying that it's a problem that can only be solved by solving the larger problem it's part of.

Lauren, you keep retreating to the same tired dodge: that if any part of the dataset is flawed, none of it can be trusted—and that if independent monitors didn’t catch every error, they must be in on the fraud. That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual cowardice dressed up as rigor.

Let’s be clear: you’re not “discrediting verification.” You’re discrediting verification only when it points at Israel. When the IDF releases its statements, or when Israeli officials make unverified claims, you don’t demand peer-reviewed evidence or perfect recordkeeping. You don’t throw out their data because it’s from a war zone. Your standard only snaps into place when the dead are Palestinian.

You’re not vetting information. You’re filtering it—through politics, through fear, through the desperate need to keep calling this a war when it has long since become a massacre.

Let’s talk numbers. You admit the 4,000 bad entries don’t prove the other 30,000 are fake—but then immediately say no conclusions can be drawn from any of it. That’s not logic. That’s retreat. That’s the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears and yelling “Hamas propaganda” every time a child’s corpse is pulled from rubble.

This isn’t about “solving the larger problem.” It’s about stopping mass death in real time, not hiding behind abstract resolutions while hospitals are bombed and journalists are killed. You invoke “the larger problem” like a magician reaching for a trapdoor—because you know the moment we look directly at the carnage, the excuses fall apart.

Let’s call it what it is: you are exercising power through doubt. Not reasonable doubt—manufactured doubt. The same tactic used to deny genocides, to excuse war crimes, to shield regimes from consequences. It’s the fog machine of every abuser with a press team.

If you truly believed oversight was impossible, you’d call for new oversight. If you really thought the numbers were flawed, you’d demand better accounting. But you don’t. You just discredit, deflect, and deny.

Because the truth isn’t that it’s unknowable.

It’s that you already know.

And you’re just not willing to say it out loud.

NHC

 

[pood]

Except for the fact that there is no such thing as “Islamism” —

Of course there is such a thing as Islamism. It even has a wikipedia page.

Oh, it has a Wikipedia page! Oh, goodness gracious, get me some smelling salts, I feel faint of heart!

I don’t care that somebody made up a word and it got stuck on wikipedia. Islamism is a bullshit concept.

it’s word you made up in your usual retarded, semi-literate way —

Dr. Z definitely did not make up that word. Why would you even suggest that?
And why the insults?
Oh wait, the em-dash. Did you have Chat GPT write this post?

No, unlike you, I am fully literate, made my living with words, and I have nothing to do with AI or ChatGPT.

and that no one here is an apologist for Hamas or the Iranian government. No one here likes or supports either.

Whatever you say.

Whatever I say? Are you calling me a liar? Everyone here has repeatedly condemned Hamas and terror in general, including Israeli terror, and I am quite confident in saying that no one here supports the Iranian government.

So either post proof that I am lying or retract. Like Zoidberg, you are a master practitioner of slur and sleaze.

So why don’t you stop libeling other posters?

Why don't you stop calling other posters words?

“Why don’t you stop calling other posters words?” Is that supposed to mean something?

Why don’t you use ChatGPT to help you out?

Incidentally, the em dash has been in use for centuries, and is perfectly legitimate punctuation. You would know that if you were literate.

 

[NoHolyCows]

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 where does it say that???

It says relief supplies must be permitted unless it's likely they will be diverted. They are being diverted, thus no obligation is created. Where does it say they have to lift a finger at that point??

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.”

I'm not saying no one is. I'm saying Tehran is. But that's not where the streetlight is, you're determined to find an answer in Israel.

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.

You are chanting again. You keep making claims and stepping over the part where you establish guilt.

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 once again you fail to get it. The failure to catch the data says that the list is purely the unsupported work of Hamas. We simply don't know what's actually going on.

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.

Which says absolutely nothing about whether violence can arise from money.

And note that those reports are talking about the belief of those things--doesn't matter if they're real. We see the same thing driving MAGA. A lot of what they are afraid of is bogeymen, but it still radicalizes them.

Lauren, at this point you’re not arguing law or fact. You’re arguing for impunity—hiding behind selective readings and bad-faith interpretations.

You asked, “Where does it say they have to lift a finger?” Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says exactly that. It mandates that relief supplies must be allowed through, even if there are concerns about diversion. Yes, a party can restrict aid if there is solid reason to believe it will be commandeered by the enemy—but even then, the obligation does not disappear. The law requires efforts be made to ensure aid reaches civilians by other means. That’s not some optional moral bonus—that’s the core of the Convention: protect civilians, even in the fog of war. What you’re defending isn’t lawful wartime conduct. It’s starvation as leverage.

You don’t quote the full provision because you know what it says. You pretend the moment there’s any risk of diversion, a state can simply choke an entire population. But international law isn’t written to comfort strongmen. It’s written to restrain them.

You try to shift the blame to Tehran. That’s not a legal argument; it’s a distraction. International law does not assign guilt in zero-sum equations. One party’s violation does not erase the obligations of the other. That’s why Geneva exists in the first place—to prevent war from becoming a moral free-for-all. You invoke Iran to avoid looking at Israel’s actions. But Israel is the one enforcing the blockade. Israel is the one bombing convoys, targeting civilian infrastructure, and obstructing international aid. That’s not a matter of opinion. It’s documented by every major humanitarian body, international press outlet, and yes, even U.S. intelligence.

You accuse me of chanting instead of proving guilt. But that’s because you refuse to recognize evidence that doesn’t wear your team colors. The bombing of hospitals, refugee camps, schools—these aren’t just allegations. They’re confirmed through satellite footage, eyewitness accounts, and official Israeli statements. The death toll isn’t a rumor. It’s been corroborated not just by the Gaza Health Ministry, but by the WHO, the U.N., and even the U.S. State Department. The targeting of aid workers is confirmed by the very organizations they belonged to. The facts are there. You just don’t like what they prove.

Then you take your cynicism a step further. You claim radicalization isn’t about trauma, but perception. As if decades of occupation, displacement, and siege are just footnotes to a psychological trick. But you can’t have it both ways. If radicalization happens when people believe they’re under attack, and you’re the one dropping bombs, bulldozing homes, and cutting off food and water, then you’re the one validating that belief. Whether or not you accept their suffering as legitimate, your policies are what give the extremists their material. You can’t bomb grievances out of existence.

Your entire stance reduces to a cowardly loop. You say we can’t trust the facts. But if we can, they don’t matter. But if they do matter, it’s someone else’s fault. You move goalposts like a reflex, not a tactic.

And here’s the truth you can’t say out loud: you know exactly what’s happening. You just can’t admit that the side you’re defending is violating the laws you claim to understand.

You’ve run out of arguments, so now you’re just hoping the rest of us will run out of outrage.

I won’t. And the law won’t either. You can bury facts in spin and excuses, but the mass graves don’t lie.

This debate ends here, because the evidence doesn’t need your permission to be real.

NHC

 

[pood]

What is going on here is that there are certain people who, unable to rationally defend their positions, resort to the oldest trick in the book — character assassination, libel, sliming and slurring their interlocutors. Against forced displacement and starvation tactics used in Gaza? You are automatically an anti-Semite. Against U.S. involvement in an illegal war against Iran? You are automatically a supporter of the mullahs in Tehran.

 

[pood]

Duly reported,

ETA: I just removed the quoted material so the mods won’t have to clean up twice, as hopefully they will do at least once.

 

[TomC]

Duly reported,

As opposed to "I didn't say that."
Tom

 

[pood]

But look at little man TomC, coming right out and calling me a liar when I say that I do not support Hamas or the Iranian mullahs, both of whom I find utterly contemptible. But does little Tommy have any evidence to support his claim that I am lying? No, he does not — he just gets off on slurring and libeling others.

 

[pood]

Duly reported,

As opposed to "I didn't say that."
Tom

Whatever that means. Keep on making a fool of yourself.

 

[TomC]

Duly reported,

As opposed to "I didn't say that."
Tom

Whatever that means. Keep on making a fools of yourself.

It means you did lie about me. You said it, on IIDB. It was not true, but it worked for you to say it.
I've never said that babies are Hamas.
FU
Tom

 

[pood]

Duly reported,

As opposed to "I didn't say that."
Tom

Whatever that means. Keep on making a fools of yourself.

It means you did lie about me. You said it, on IIDB. It was not true, but it worked for you to say it.
I've never said that babies are Hamas.
FU
Tom

That was called satire, which is used as a reductio of an untenable position. I forced you with satire to confront the hideous implications of your violent rhetoric. And FU, too.