Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[TomC]

", I am Hamas, because TomC said so!"
Remember that part?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Your 2nd sentence is internally inconsistent: Gazans suffering because they are shields is a tacit admission of collective punishment. Pointing out your illogica claims has nothing to do with justifying terrorism by Muslims or anyone for that matter, so when you sling such bs, it makes your posts appear more like the ravings of a genocidal anti-Arab bigot than a reasoned defense of of Israel's actions.

No. Punishment implies intent. The intent is to harm Hamas, there is no intent on Israel's part to harm the civilians. (There clearly is an intent to harm them on Hamas' part but it's to use them as a weapon, generally not as punishment.)

If that were so then why do you insist on keeping Gazan civilians locked up with the violent terrorists to use as human shields?

Still waiting for an answer to this question from the usual suspects.

 

[Gospel]

Your 2nd sentence is internally inconsistent: Gazans suffering because they are shields is a tacit admission of collective punishment. Pointing out your illogica claims has nothing to do with justifying terrorism by Muslims or anyone for that matter, so when you sling such bs, it makes your posts appear more like the ravings of a genocidal anti-Arab bigot than a reasoned defense of of Israel's actions.

No. Punishment implies intent. The intent is to harm Hamas, there is no intent on Israel's part to harm the civilians. (There clearly is an intent to harm them on Hamas' part but it's to use them as a weapon, generally not as punishment.)

If that were so then why do you insist on keeping Gazan civilians locked up with the violent terrorists to use as human shields?

Still waiting for an answer to this question from the usual suspects.

Still waiting for someone to convince me those Iranian women celebrating in Zoidberg’s video would spare a second glance for some goofy, morally bankrupt rich guy playing pretend-normal while bragging about his rope-bunny lifestyle.

 

[TomC]

Your 2nd sentence is internally inconsistent: Gazans suffering because they are shields is a tacit admission of collective punishment. Pointing out your illogica claims has nothing to do with justifying terrorism by Muslims or anyone for that matter, so when you sling such bs, it makes your posts appear more like the ravings of a genocidal anti-Arab bigot than a reasoned defense of of Israel's actions.

No. Punishment implies intent. The intent is to harm Hamas, there is no intent on Israel's part to harm the civilians. (There clearly is an intent to harm them on Hamas' part but it's to use them as a weapon, generally not as punishment.)

If that were so then why do you insist on keeping Gazan civilians locked up with the violent terrorists to use as human shields?

Still waiting for an answer to this question from the usual suspects.

Gazans are not locked up.

They either prefer to stay or they can not leave because they are not allowed to, by Egypt and Hamas and Hamas' supporters.

I honestly believe that a bunch of them would rather escape Hamas. Israel would rather that they did. So, why is there not a big bunch of Gazans fleeing Gaza?

Because the GWM and their international supporters don't want to lose them. Those people need human shields to use for the media.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Your 2nd sentence is internally inconsistent: Gazans suffering because they are shields is a tacit admission of collective punishment. Pointing out your illogica claims has nothing to do with justifying terrorism by Muslims or anyone for that matter, so when you sling such bs, it makes your posts appear more like the ravings of a genocidal anti-Arab bigot than a reasoned defense of of Israel's actions.

No. Punishment implies intent. The intent is to harm Hamas, there is no intent on Israel's part to harm the civilians. (There clearly is an intent to harm them on Hamas' part but it's to use them as a weapon, generally not as punishment.)

If that were so then why do you insist on keeping Gazan civilians locked up with the violent terrorists to use as human shields?

Still waiting for an answer to this question from the usual suspects.

Gazans are not locked up.

They either prefer to stay or they can not leave because they are not allowed to, by Egypt and Hamas and Hamas' supporters.

I honestly believe that a bunch of them would rather escape Hamas. Israel would rather that they did. So, why is there not a big bunch of Gazans fleeing Gaza?

Because the GWM and their international supporters don't want to lose them. Those people need human shields to use for the media.
Tom

This is what happens when you mistake a siege for a subway station. Gazans aren’t 'choosing to stay', they’re encircled by blockades. Israel controls the air and sea, Egypt keeps Rafah mostly sealed, and Hamas doesn’t exactly run a travel agency. You’re absolutely right that Hamas exploits civilians as human shields and propaganda tools, they don’t care about Palestinian lives, only the destruction of Israel. But you're way off if you think people can just pack up and leave.

They already moved, en masse. But why do you think they stopped? Why do they end up in specific zones? Because Israel directs where they go. They issue relocation orders within Gaza, not a full evacuation out of it. Show me one source, just one, where Israel, Egypt, or Jordan offered a complete, unconditional exit for the general population. This isn’t about people refusing to leave. It’s about there being no door to walk through.

Edit: Honestly, I thought we’d already had this conversation, loud and clear. Nobody wants them, not Egypt, not Jordan, and certainly not Israel. Not unless they surrender, renounce any claim to Palestinian statehood, and abandon their hatred and resistance to Israel’s existence. And yeah, I’ve said before, that kind of shift is possible, but it takes time. Generations, even. The only other option seems to be the one Zoidberg’s drooling for, wipe them all out and call it peace.

 

[Arctish]

likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany)

Why would he point out the obvious?

Why would he “point out” the unobvious? Israel’s suffering under Iran attack isn’t even a fraction of what London endured, and besides, he started this war. Did he think Iran would not strike back? Or in his monstrous hubris did he imagine that Israel’s air defenses were totally impregnable?

But just think of his shared suffering with Israelis who have died or lost loved ones: his son had to postpone his wedding!

He might have lost his deposit for renting the venue, plus the caterers might be booked solid for the next 8 months.

 

[TomC]

He might have lost his deposit for renting the venue, plus the caterers might be booked solid for the next 8 months.

How American of you.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

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

DrZoidberg is telling no one that something won't happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

Meanwhile, earlier in this thread, Derec was slavering over using a bunker-buster bomb on Fordo. One big problem: It likely won’t work. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely be required. Since the general consensus among experts seems to be that if Fordo is not destroyed, Iran’s nuclear program would likely emerge largely intact, more and more Israel’s attack is looking like a colossal blunder in addition to being illegal. But let’s count on Dr. Zoidberg saying, “go go Israel” another puke worthy number of times.

Furthermore, Trump has postponed a decision on intervention (even though it is not his decision, it is Congress’s fucking decision) for two weeks — which is what he always does. .

Yup, those bunker busters don't have the capability to reach as deep as those labs are. Iran set off a test nuke some time ago and we didn't know anything about it because it was so deep underground.

Just watched an expert on the situation in Iran who said Iraq, a three year debacle that cost thousands upon thousands of US soldiers lives, would be considered a cake walk compared to trying to do the same thing in Iran. And we are already seeing the same recycled arguments as used then about Iraq.

BTW, Derec, the recruiting office is that way ----> if you want a war.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Long drive today. AM radio is calling for regime change. Heard Trump will make a decision in two weeks. Why with the damn cliffhanger bullshit?

However, in this case, if Iran is weeks away from a bomb, Trump wouldn't wait weeks to make a decision.

 

[Derec]

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

The JPost article is from March. It was meant to illustrate how far the regime has come with enrichment - 20x the level required for civilian applications.
The only thing your article adds is details about some of the attacks on the nuclear sites. Which in no way contradicts the point I was making.

 

[Derec]

Note too that he rise of the Mullahs in Iran is directly linked to the U.S instigating a coup in Iran in 1953.

The two events are 26 years apart. How do you think one event directly caused the other?

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?

After WWII there was this little thing called the Cold War. While many things were handled sub-optimally by the US, I do not think things would have been better had US retreated into isolationism and let USSR run roughshod all over the world.
And the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan is one of the biggest blunders of the Biden administration - certainly the biggest foreign policy blunder. That does not mean that it was wrong to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, but there should not have been a long-term US/coalition presence without having a plan for the day after. Iraq also served as a distraction that left Afghanistan as an afterthought for years.

 

[Derec]

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

It shows that it is a common term, in use for decades in its current meaning. It is not something that Dr. Zoidberg made up, like you ignorantly claimed.

Islamism is a bullshit concept.

That's your opinion, backed up by absolutely nothing.

No, unlike you, I am fully literate,

Unlike you, I have actual arguments and not just cheap insults.

made my living with words and I have nothing to do with AI or ChatGPT.

Perhaps.

Whatever I say? Are you calling me a liar?

You call people on here far worse.

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 you say, and yet you even deny that Islamism is a cogent concept.

So either post proof that I am lying or retract.

Only when you retract your baseless insults about me and Zoidberg being semiliterate.

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

I am fully literate, thank you very much, and I know what the em-dash is. I know that it has widespread use in published works, which is how ChatGPT picked up on it in the first place.
However, unlike the humble hyphen, the em-dash is not part of the standard keyboard layout. So you either have to go out of your way to use it in the reply field, or you copy and paste a text from somewhere else, e.g. from the ChatGPT output.

I have to admit though, my quip about ChatGPT was not fair. Even ChatGPT, were it self-aware, would be embarrassed if it came up with the drivel you post here. And it generally has a much nicer disposition too.

 

[Derec]

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,

You are the one insulting fellow members by calling us "semi-literate".
This is what you wrote earlier:

Except for the fact that there is no such thing as “Islamism” — it’s word you made up in your usual retarded, semi-literate way —

Against forced displacement and starvation tactics used in Gaza?

What starvation tactics? Whenever photos of people in Gaza are shown, they generally look well-fed.
By the way:
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation delivers more than 2.8m meals, bringing total to 33m

Against U.S. involvement in an illegal war against Iran? You are automatically a supporter of the mullahs in Tehran.

You even deny that the mullahs are Islamists. In fact, you accused Zoidberg of having made up that word.

 

[Derec]

Long drive today. AM radio is calling for regime change. Heard Trump will make a decision in two weeks. Why with the damn cliffhanger bullshit?

I ask myself too about the two week deliberation.
About AM radio and call for the regime change, do you happen to remember which show it was?

However, in this case, if Iran is weeks away from a bomb, Trump wouldn't wait weeks to make a decision.

Well, Israel has been able to inflict some damage on the regime's nuclear program.

 

[barbos]

 

[bilby]

Iran set off a test nuke some time ago

No, they didn't.

and we didn't know anything about it because it was so deep underground.

Then how do you know about it??

Seriously, the Cold War left a number of legacies, one of which was a global system for detecting nuclear explosions (probably more than one, though the Soviet system is likely no longer operational). If a test had occurred, it would be detected no matter how deep it was, both by seismometry and by atmospheric radioisotope analysis.

The best hidden attempt at a secret test was the Vela Incident in 1979. That test was carried out in a remote ocean location in the southern hemisphere, thereby avoiding seismic traces and most radioisotope detection systems (which are concentrated in the northern hemisphere); Even so, Iodine-131 traces were detected in Australia, and the flash of the explosion was noted by the Vela satellite (which gave its name to the incident).

The US almost certainly covered up the test for political reasons (it was a joint Israeli/South African test), but even so, the truth came out.

The US Government have no reason to cover up any Iranian test, and have far better ways to detect such a test (were one to occur) than were available in 1979.

 

[Arctish]

He might have lost his deposit for renting the venue, plus the caterers might be booked solid for the next 8 months.

How American of you.
Tom

Did you read the article?

Thousands are dying in Gaza, hostages and children are starving, hundreds have been killed in Iran and more than a dozen in Israel during the recent exchange of missiles and drones, and Netanyahu is talking about the suffering he and his family have endured due the postponement of his son's wedding:

“Each of us bears a personal cost, and my family has not been exempt,” Netanyahu said at the Soroka hospital, which was struck on Thursday morning by an Iranian missile, causing light injuries.

“This is the second time that my son Avner has cancelled a wedding due to missile threats. It is a personal cost for his fiancee as well, and I must say that my dear wife is a hero, and she bears a personal cost.”

Oh, the suffering of Bibi's wife, unable to have the big party she was planning. Why, it might even get to the point that her son will marry his fiancee in a private ceremony in front of a Rabbi. How awful for them.

 

[NoHolyCows]

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.

Loren, your latest argument—that Geneva “technically only applies to signatories”—is exactly the kind of legal distortion that international law was created to prevent. You’re confusing formality with legitimacy. And worse, you’re turning a technicality into a permission slip for war crimes.

Let’s get the legal facts clear first. The Geneva Conventions—especially Common Article 3—apply to all parties in all conflicts, regardless of whether they’ve signed. That’s not a fringe interpretation. That’s the judgment of the International Court of Justice, the ICRC, and every serious war crimes tribunal since WWII. Common Article 3 sets the minimum standard of humanity, and it has become customary international law. That means it binds all actors in all conflicts—not because they consented to it, but because it reflects universal legal and moral principles.

So when you say “they didn’t sign it,” what you’re really saying is that the absence of a signature cancels the basic rules of civilization. But imagine if we applied that logic anywhere else.

Suppose a driver speeds through a red light, kills a pedestrian, and then argues in court, “Well, I never signed the traffic code.” Would we accept that? Of course not. The rules still apply because they exist to protect others from harm—not to be followed only by the voluntarily ethical.

That’s exactly how the Geneva Conventions work. They were written not to protect those who follow the rules, but to restrain those who might not. They exist precisely because war is often fought against actors who don’t respect law—and who never will. And that’s the point: the law doesn’t bend to match the enemy’s behavior. It binds us in spite of it.

Now let’s address the implication behind your argument: that Hamas’s lawlessness justifies Israel discarding its obligations. But this idea—that international protections are conditional—is exactly how you legitimize collective punishment. You frame the entire civilian population as outside the law’s protection because of who governs them. That’s not just wrong. That’s how humanitarian catastrophes are rationalized.

It’s also tactically short-sighted. If we abandon the universality of humanitarian law every time we face a non-signatory, we set a precedent that any nation can kill civilians with impunity—as long as they can point to a lawless enemy. That undermines the entire post-WWII legal order. It doesn’t just hurt the other side—it destroys our own credibility and restraints.

You don’t protect civilization by lowering yourself to the standards of those who attack it. You protect it by upholding the principles that make it worth defending in the first place.

So no, the absence of a signature doesn’t excuse war crimes. It’s not a loophole. It’s not a technicality. And it’s not a defense. If anything, it raises the stakes—because when one side abandons humanity, it becomes even more essential that the other refuses to.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

The JPost article is from March. It was meant to illustrate how far the regime has come with enrichment - 20x the level required for civilian applications.
The only thing your article adds is details about some of the attacks on the nuclear sites. Which in no way contradicts the point I was making.

No, it was far more than that. A something needs to be done about Iran-please help poor little Israel plea. The point by providing the whole story of the conditions of Iran's nuclear program is to say situation is not nearly as dire as the Netanyahu regime wants others to believe it is.