Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

No I’m not. And there is no defence for terrorism of any kind from anyone for any reason.

The inability to distinguish between calls for moderation in Israel’s prosecution of its war on Hamas and apologia for Hamas or antisemitism is what is truly pathetic. I’d ask that it stop, but to paraphrase King Crimson
“I talk to the wind. My words are all carried away, The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear”.

You call it a call for moderation--but you have never given a sensible answer for what would be acceptable. Nor has anyone else.

That is a falsehood. Not only have numerous posters done that, the IDF debated moderation.
I understand you disagree with those proposals but that does not make insensible, just less murderous.

You proposed going after them like they went after the Munich terrorists--and didn't reply when I pointed out that required countries where they wouldn't simply be killed for being Jewish.

I made a number of different suggestions. I don’t reply to everyone of your bs responses.

And we see blind acceptance of all Hamas claims about the situation. You do not believe you support Hamas but in letting them feed you "reality" you end up doing what they want.

Coming from an inveterate swallower of Israeli propaganda, that is richly ironic on its own. Add that according to you and your ilk, the IDF policy you endorse is doing what Hamas wants, snd it is meta ironic.

Which does not address the issue at all.

We keep seeing the Hamas death toll treated as accurate. Despite 4k clearly bogus entries being discovered by the only ones to even try to check. And despite the two slips where Hamas people admitted most of the deaths were males.

I don’t know who the “we” is nor the relevance of your evidence-free claim of “fact”.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say “they voted for Hamas, so they chose war.” Let’s strip that logic down. You’re claiming that a single election—under siege, with the more conciliatory party discredited and corrupt—justifies 18 years of blockade, mass civilian punishment, and treating 2 million people as enemy combatants. That’s not democracy. That’s collective sentencing.

By Hamas.

You continue to not recognize that Hamas is deliberately running up the death toll to get sympathy.

I'm reminded of one of the horrors of the world I have become aware of: Parents in India deliberately crippling their child so he could beg more successfully.

You frame everything through “they brought it on themselves”—but that’s a dodge. It assumes the only relevant facts begin with Hamas and end with rockets. That’s like watching a building collapse and blaming the final brick. You erase the decades of military occupation, land dispossession, statelessness, and legal limbo that preceded it—as if injustice only starts counting once someone fights back.

If you want to go back you need to go back to the start: The Arab invasion in response to the creation of Israel.

You dismiss peace overtures as fake—but then ignore the obvious double standard: when Palestinians walk away from talks, they’re saboteurs. When Israel builds settlements through them, delays final status indefinitely, and then claims “security” requires permanent domination, you call it “caution.” If you were serious about negotiations, you’d hold both sides accountable. But your definition of “dialogue” is Palestinians accepting whatever terms Israel dictates.

Apples and oranges.

Where has Israel walked from peace talks??

Then there’s Area C. You claim there’s no data on permit denials—as if 98% rejection rates published by B’Tselem and the UN are unknowable. You wave it off with “maybe the applications are fake.” That’s not evidence. That’s conjecture. And it’s telling that you don’t apply the same skepticism to Israeli retroactive legalization of illegal settler outposts.

I wouldn't trust B'Tselem to tell me if it's raining outside. I have looked at some of their "data" that bent over backwards to hide the combatant nature of some of the dead.

As for Gaza—no, the blockade didn’t begin as a surgical response to terrorism. It began when the wrong party won an election. Israel and the U.S. openly backed a failed coup to remove Hamas, then sealed the Strip when it backfired. The blockade didn’t just restrict weapons. It crippled water, medicine, fuel, and food. UN reports have long described it as “collective punishment”—a term you ignore because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

The UN is effectively worthless.

You say child detentions are justified because some teens are used in conflict. But do you hear yourself? You’re justifying military incarceration of minors on demographic averages. That’s not law—it’s profiling. Geneva doesn’t say “it’s okay to jail kids if some of them fight.” It says you protect children from the effects of war. You’ve reversed that principle entirely.

No, I'm saying you are assuming non-combatant status based on poor data. You're saying Under 18 = not combatant, the demographics make it clear that's not the case. Doesn't say anything about any given case, just that you can't use it to declare them not a combatant.

You claim “sniper shootings at protests” are the fault of Hamas—because they “forced people” to march. That’s not a defense. That’s not even believable. You’re trying to rationalize the deaths of journalists, medics, children, and wheelchair-bound demonstrators as acts of self-defense—when every credible rights group, including Israeli ones, have documented them as unjustified.

Read.

No. I'm saying that the "sniper" deaths appear to be Hamas. We keep having examples of "IDF snipers" that somehow manage to only hit clearly civilian targets, often in front of cameras, despite not having IDF forces within range. I have yet to see one of these claimed "sniper" deaths that makes any sense as a sniper. (There was that one reporter that got hit--but there were no IDF snipers around. At first it appeared that she was hit by a stray round from combat some distance away, but the "proof" turned out to actually exonerate the IDF. I see no reason to believe the proof in the first place so I consider that one definitely not an IDF sniper but overall unproven.)

And yes, you keep calling it “pay for slay.” But then admit Israel bulldozes homes even if the suspect is dead—because it deters others. That’s not justice. That’s state vengeance. Families aren’t being punished for crimes they committed. They’re being punished as examples. That’s the textbook definition of collective punishment.

It's the family that would get the pay.

Your explanation for Israel refusing to define borders is that it would upset people. You know what else upsets people? Permanent occupation without rights. Endless checkpoints. Demolished homes. That’s what’s driving the cycle—not just Iranian cash, but the daily reality of people living in cages built to look like negotiations.

Whataboutism.

And finally, you say, “they’ve always chosen war.” No. They’ve chosen elections, diplomacy, armed resistance, international appeals, and mass nonviolent protest—and every time, they were met with either rejection or repression. What you call a “choice” is actually a narrowing corridor where every option leads back to subjugation. That’s not agency. That’s entrapment.

That's not a rebuttal.

And where's the "nonviolent protest"?? Beware that when applied to Palestinian actions anything below firearms is declared "nonviolent". And protests were used to try to infiltrate people into Israel.

 

[Arctish]

No one here is a violent terrorist apologist, so you can knock off the slurs and slander right now.

Many on here claim that Hamas' actions are due to Israel's actions. Let's reframe that a bit: rape is due to women being immodest. (The Israeli action that's behind everything: existence.)

Instead of reframing things with an extremely stupid analogy, how about you support the end of the slurs and slander on this discussion board like a moderator should?

Calling it stupid does not refute it.

What is there to refute?

No one is saying women deserve to be raped. In fact, you are the only one I can recall who ever said that rape is sometimes justified.

And no one is saying people attending a music festival, working on farms, or just going about their daily lives deserve to be murdered or kidnapped, except for a few who think it's okay as long as the victims aren't Jewish.

And you're the one that said "violent terrorist apologist". I simply pointed out an example of apologist behavior without naming anyone, you decided the shoe fit.

The shoe doesn't fit _anyone_ participating in this discussion.

That's the point, Loren.

It's just slander being used to deflect criticism.

If you think someone here is a violent terrorist apologist, provide quotes with links to their post that support the allegation. Then we'll talk about what it means to be an apologist for a political party that kills people for their perceived religious affiliations and ethnicity, and/or an ethos that judges the rightness or wrongness of bombing gatherings of civilians based on what's in it for them, and who is doing it to whom.

Very few would dispute that Hamas will kill you for being Jewish. I see no examples of Israel killing someone for being Muslim.

And "bombing" is completely irrelevant, that's a means, not a result. Look at the results. 10/7--atrocities that Hamas crows about. The Gaza war--Israel bending over backwards to evacuate targets when they were aiming at things rather than people. The crowing about part is extremely damning.

I will repeat this with added emphasis:

If you think someone here is a violent terrorist apologist, provide quotes with links to their post that supports the allegation.

Then we'll talk about what it means to be an apologist for a political party that kills people for their perceived religious affiliation, ethnicity, etc.

Support the allegation or stop making it.

The Gazans are suffering because of an ongoing war in which war crimes are being committed.

Eternally insisting there are war crimes doesn't make it so. I've already pointed out how Geneva is being misapplied.

No, you didn't.

You've already demonstrated you know even less about the Geneva Conventions than you do about UN conventions on the Rights of Refugees and the Rights of Indigenous people.

What I've shown is that Geneva keeps being used as some sort of magic spell.

No, you didn't.

You claimed that it was and then posted some clearly ignorant "interpretations" of a straw man version of the Geneva Conventions you dreamed up.

Targeting civilian food? Prohibited--but there is no such prohibition on targeting enemy supplies. At the point Hamas takes it it's a valid target.

Permitting aid to enter? Only if it's not going to be diverted. And there's a very high diversion rate.

Dead civilians? Geneva doesn't prohibit that. It says they should do as good as they can--and since they're doing far better than anyone else I consider that obligation met.

Hitting hospitals etc? They forfeit their protection if they are used by the enemy. Just look at the news: Israel has captured various hospitals--but capture implies resistance. Look up "open city"--that's how they should be behaving, there should be no defense.

We do have one clear Geneva violation but it's irrelevant: giving notice about misuse. It would be an exercise in stupidity.

And ^here^ you demonstrate your absolute ignorance. NHC has cited the relevant sections that address each of these points but clearly you didn't bother to follow those links or find new ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep repeating that your math disproves war crimes, that your skepticism overrides every global agency, and that because you didn’t personally see bodies, the famine must be fake. That’s not reason. That’s denial with a calculator.

I made no such claim. I'm certainly in no position to look for bodies, but I can look at Hamas not finding the bodies as evidence they don't exist.

Let’s start with your central crutch: “They missed bad data, so everything is invalid.” No, they didn’t “miss” anything—they published what they could verify under active bombardment, where ID systems, morgues, and hospitals were obliterated. You cite technical anomalies in ID sequences like they’re smoking guns, but ignore the conditions on the ground: no power, no fuel, no connectivity, and mass death. You treat the fog of war as proof of fraud. That’s not analysis—it’s a bad faith loophole to dismiss all evidence you find inconvenient.

They claimed it was carefully verified. There should be no obviously bad data. The presence of any obviously bad data says it clearly was not checked.

And your famine dodge? It’s grotesque. You ask “where are the bodies” like children dying quietly of dysentery, dehydration, or untreated wounds don’t count unless they collapse on live television. But famine isn’t just death. It’s wasting. It’s irreversible developmental damage. It’s watching your child’s immune system fail while trucks full of food are kept at a checkpoint because the right agency logo wasn’t on the paperwork.

I ask "where are the bodies" because there have been repeated claims of mass death expected soon. The situation hasn't changed. If the claims had any connection to reality there should be a lot of people dead of starvation. But there aren't, thus the prediction must have been wrong.

It's like the end-of-the-world-on-day-X kooks. X comes and goes, nothing happens. Believe them the 10th time around???? But you believe the famine guys the 10th time around.

This is the cruelty of your logic: unless every warning results in immediate mass graves, you say it was false. But what you’re really doing is arguing that the prevention of catastrophe proves it was never real. If people survive despite the siege, you call it proof the siege was fine. That’s not logic—it’s retroactive absolution for deliberate strangulation.

I said nothing about graves. I'm simply testing how well the prediction matches up with reality. And the answer is abysmally.

Then you pull the classic evasion: “I’m not excusing Israel—just questioning your scrutiny.” Except you’re not scrutinizing. You’re dismantling the very idea of scrutiny. You reject Amnesty, HRW, UN rapporteurs, and dozens of independent journalists, and then claim there’s no evidence. That’s not reasoned doubt. That’s scorched-earth epistemology: if a fact can’t be traced directly to the IDF press office, you pretend it doesn’t exist.

I reject sources that have shown themselves to be highly inaccurate.

You even try to reduce the entire destruction of Gaza to a math equation—“most buildings were probably empty.” As if that’s a defense. As if the legality of bombing neighborhoods hinges on your speculative occupancy rates rather than the laws of proportionality and distinction. Newsflash: You don’t get to obliterate civilian infrastructure and then retroactively declare everyone inside a combatant by absence of proof.

Saying it's not math doesn't make it not.

Military objective: tunnel.

Geneva obligation: minimize civilian casualties.

Geneva says nothing about civilian buildings falling into the collapsed tunnel.

And your final move? The same rhetorical rinse-and-repeat: “Nobody likes this, but it doesn’t prove atrocity.” Actually, it does—when it’s systemic, foreseeable, and preventable. That’s exactly what defines atrocity under international law. But instead of engaging that, you redefine war crimes as “undesirable outcomes.” As if it’s just a shame, not a choice.

Where are you getting this definition? Because "systemic" is not part of it at all. And foreseeable is only relevant if it's a wrong. Yes, a bunch of buildings collapsed into tunnel voids. But Geneva doesn't care.

You are approaching this as if civilian trumps military, but reality, and Geneva, are the other way around. Pretty much, military use = valid target.

So here’s what it comes down to: You don’t want scrutiny. You want veto power over accountability. You’ve confused your moral fatigue for clarity and your disbelief for righteousness. But history doesn’t remember the people who justified inaction by demanding perfect data. It remembers the ones who looked at a slow-motion atrocity and said, “Not until I see the bodies stacked just right.”

I have no problem with honest scrutiny. I have a big problem with a whole bunch of "human rights" (they've lost their purpose and have become political) organizations making dishonest scrutiny.

You’ve made your position clear: if the numbers are too high, they’re fake. If they’re too low, they don’t matter. If civilians die, they were probably Hamas. If aid is blocked, it must be justified. If war crimes are alleged, the real crime is saying so.

You continue to repeat your base claims as givens, preaching the word of Iran over and over.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say I didn’t address your “mirror and baby” analogy—so let me be crystal clear and finish that thought for good. If a terrorist hides behind a baby, and you knowingly take a shot that kills the baby, then both parties are responsible. One is guilty of using a shield. But the other is guilty of choosing to shoot anyway. That’s what international law says. That’s what any ethical framework with a spine says. Your decision to pull the trigger isn’t erased just because your enemy is vile. If you choose to end a child’s life knowing that outcome was likely, you own that decision—fully. There is no immunity clause for “but the other guy was worse.”

You still didn't address it, you substituted a totally different scenario that doesn't even contain a mirror.

And my question was who gets convicted, not who is morally responsible.

You also tried to twist the definition of collective punishment by saying, “to be punishment, it has to be punishment,” as if using the word in a circle absolves the reality on the ground. But international law doesn’t ask about intentions—it judges consequences. If you blockade food, restrict fuel, cut off water, and bomb neighborhoods, then the people suffering are being punished, whether or not you call it that. You don’t get to cut off incubators and flatten bakeries and pretend it’s all just unfortunate security fallout. That’s the exact kind of linguistic shell game international law was written to stop.

No, Geneva is all about intentions. And I'm not the one making the circle--I'm pointing out you failed to prove either part of your assertion.

You insist Gaza doesn’t show “worse conduct than what’s expected of a good guy in war,” but look around. Civilians are dying by the tens of thousands. Hospitals, schools, aid convoys, refugee camps—all have been hit repeatedly. These aren’t isolated incidents. And they aren’t rumors. Even the U.S. State Department—Israel’s closest ally—has publicly said Israel likely violated international humanitarian law by obstructing aid. The UN, WHO, and nearly every major humanitarian body agrees. If that still fits your definition of the “good guy,” then you’ve erased the meaning of the term altogether. At that point, “good” becomes a flag you wave, not a standard you uphold.

Hamas misuses things, they get hit. You fall for it, blame Israel, so they do it again.

And let’s not pretend this is about real scrutiny. You dismissed a mountain of casualty reports because one ID number looked off to you. One document that didn’t pass your personal smell test is enough, in your view, to invalidate the entire death toll. That’s not rational skepticism—it’s deliberate denial. It’s like watching a city on fire and saying, “Well, one spark looks suspicious, so maybe the whole thing isn’t burning.” You’re not searching for the truth. You’re working backward from the answer you already decided on.

No. I'm not remotely claiming authorship. I'm saying that the fraud is so obvious that I can see it (tweets were posted) despite not knowing the language. Let's consider a chunk of the main streets here in town, reading north to south: Lake Mead, Charleston, Sahara, Desert Inn, Desert In, Dessert Inn, Flamingo, Tropicana, Durango, Russell.

Clearly, at least two of these are fakes. You don't need to know my city to figure that out.

You keep saying the numbers don’t match “your reality,” but that’s the problem. You’re not engaging with evidence. You’re rejecting anything that threatens your preferred narrative. When the Red Cross warns of famine, you say, “Where are the bodies?” When the UN says the majority of deaths are women and children, you reply with vague speculation about who might be buried in rubble. When Israel itself confirms civilian deaths, you don’t pause—you pivot.

They say that a bunch of people are going to die if nothing is done--and their predictions never come true.

And I'm not speculating about those in the rubble, just using it as an indication of bad data because it doesn't change. That's not how reality works. The 10,000 showed up early on, never increased with additional bombing, never meaningfully decreased despite people doing things. That doesn't make sense.

And if the dead are mostly women and children, why do we have a Hamas person saying that far more kids lost their father than their mother?? Consistency check failure.

So don’t talk about “the facts” when you’ve spent this entire thread running from them. Don’t ask “who killed the baby” and then shoot while blaming the mirror. You’re not upholding principle—you’re dodging accountability. And deep down, I think you know it.

I don't regard your preaching as facts. You continue to dismiss problems with the data and jump right back to your faith, never truly comprehending my blasphemy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A nuclear program we had full access to , until the “own the libs” movement decided sabotaging Obama was more important.

Not really true. The deal only lasted for 10 years, which means that it would have expired by now anyway.
And it made no provisions for Iranian missile development and stockpiles, nor did it address the funding and support for terrorist organizations by the Tehran regime. In return for conceding very little, Tehran got sanction relief, plus $400M in frozen funds that actually belong to the Shah government, not to the ayatollahs.

Yes, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA) did allow Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the point of the deal wasn’t to stop enrichment entirely; it was to limit it to safe levels (3.67%, below weapons-grade) and impose tight restrictions on how much uranium Iran could stockpile and what kinds of centrifuges they could use. On top of that, the deal put in place the most intrusive inspections regime the IAEA has ever implemented. So no, it wasn’t Obama “giving in”, it was a calculated diplomatic trade-off to stop a nuclear bomb without starting another war.

Except it didn't. Iran took the money, simply set up some new operations elsewhere, denied they were nuclear and thus never permitted inspection.

Our own intelligence community currently confirms that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Yet you choose to believe Netanyahu, the same man who’s been claiming Iran is just 'weeks away' from a bomb for nearly 30 years.

She was weaseling.

I have no reason to think Iran is actually building a bomb. This is about enrichment. Any competent machine shop can build you a uranium gun device in weeks, the actual construction is irrelevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say Israel isn’t pulling the trigger indiscriminately—that they’re “evaluating based on actions.” But when every marked ambulance becomes a potential threat, every journalist a suspect, and every child a maybe-fighter, what you’re describing isn’t careful targeting. It’s a policy of systemic doubt that strips civilians of their legal protections unless proven otherwise. That’s not how the Geneva Conventions work. The burden of proof in war doesn’t rest on the dead to prove they were innocent—it rests on the military to ensure they weren’t targeted without cause.

All things which should be protected have been rampantly misused by Hamas. Thus combat decisions are going to be based on behavior, not symbols.

You reference a “list of terrorist journalists” and a hostage held by a rogue Al Jazeera freelancer as if that justifies the dozens of reporters killed in clearly marked gear, sometimes live on camera, with no evidence of wrongdoing. Even the Committee to Protect Journalists, which tracks deaths across all conflicts globally, has said Gaza is the deadliest conflict for journalists in modern history—and they’ve found no proof that the majority were engaged in combat. Unless you’re claiming CPJ, Reporters Without Borders, and the UN are all compromised too, that argument doesn’t hold.

UN certainly is compromised. And none have rebutted the list of "journalists" that were Hamas.

And invoking Hamas’ abuses to justify Israel’s suspicions isn’t a defense—it’s a concession. If you admit that Hamas violates humanitarian law, then the legal and moral obligation is on Israel not to follow them down that hole. That’s what separates a military that upholds law from one that collapses into tit-for-tat impunity. The whole foundation of IHL is that protection isn’t conditional on the enemy’s behavior—it exists to restrain the powerful even when provoked.

As I said before, you are setting an impossible standard.

If Israel believes a hospital or an ambulance is being used improperly, it must have clear, individualized evidence and still minimize harm—not treat every instance as potentially hostile by default. Otherwise, you’re not applying law. You’re rewriting it.

That's not how it works. Let's take that ambulance as that's the most clear cut case. Israel demanded that they stop using them as combat transports. The Red Crescent (Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross) refused to condemn the behavior. At that point the symbol becomes absolutely meaningless as an indication of non-combatant status.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Murdering barefoot shirtless men who are attempting to surrender is not self defense.

The problem is they faced many false surrenders. One soldier failed to recognize the real one amongst all the fakes.

You have claimed there were false surrenders but you have failed to provide evidence of a single one.

The problem is you are asking for something that is not news.

Utterly failed, despite multiple requests from multiple posters.

I think you are bullshitting. I think you are doing it because evidence has been posted in this thread of Israeli forces committing a war crime by killing barefoot, shirtless men who posed no danger and were waving a white flag. Additional evidence, in the form of testimony of IDF soldiers, has also been posted that the killing was due to IDF policy in force at that time, which is evidence the war crimes were planned and intentional. I think you are trying to justify an unjustifiable act and you can't find factual support, so you are utilizing your ability to make shit up to hand wave away a war crime.

Since you recall the incident you should also recall that the soldier that fired did so because he thought it was yet another fake surrender. This is all you're likely to find because it's so routine nobody's going to report on it.

Murdering a women holding the hand of a preschooler who is waving a white flag as they try to leave a dangerous area on foot is not self defense.

Agreed--but that one was so convenient. Right in front of the cameras, absolutely nothing going on that would have caused a sniper to shoot.

You are suggesting that the Israelis were baited into committing a war crime. That does not exonerate the Israelis. It indicates the commission of war crimes by IDF forces is predictable.

Get a clue!

I'm saying it would be hard for Israel to do and they would have no reason to, it would be easy for Hamas to do and very beneficial. Which explanation makes more sense? Don't blindly decide it must be Israel because they're the bad guys, look at which scenario makes more sense.

Is that really your argument? Hamas knows the Israelis will commit war crimes so it sets up cameras to catch IDF forces in the act?

The point is that without any contact with them we have no evidence that they're actually IDF. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense if they're Hamas.

Where they were was never suggested--but if they don't know where how can they know who?? And the lines were far enough away that a sniper shot would have been extremely difficult even if they had a line of sight. The whole thing makes a hell of a lot more sense as Hamas. And some of the reports on it said a burst of fire. Snipers don't fire bursts.

Murdering ambulance drivers and paramedics attempting to reach injured civilians is not self defense.

Well, if the ambulance drivers would quit ferrying combatants around they would get the protections traditionally given ambulances.

You have no evidence the ambulance drivers are ferrying combatants around, especially the ones who coordinate their activities with the IDF.

Israel has published shots of them doing it long ago. The Red Crescent refused to condemn the behavior.

Oh, yeah, you forgot about that, didn't you? That the ambulances are notifying the IDF of their planned route of travel and waiting for the IDF to greenlight the rescue attempt but are still being killed by IDF forces along with the injured civilians they are trying to reach.

Apparently you think Israel is committing this type of war crime is also predictable.

And why do you automatically assume it's true? Plenty of other claims have been proven false.

But Israel has plenty of video of ambulances being used for military purposes and the Red Crescent has refused to condemn such actions. Geneva protections do not apply.

Kidnapping doctors and nurses from clinics and confining them in prisons that even the guards say routinely subject prisoners to torture is not self defense.

"Doctor" and "Hamas" are not mutually exclusive.

And I'm not aware of any verified claims of "routinely".

This claim of yours is one I believe. You do appear to skip over links other people provide so IMO you very likely are unaware of the reports.

There have been some allegations of abuse that have been confirmed and the soldiers who did it were punished. But most of it is completely unsubstantiated, including the "routinely" bit.

Nor would it even matter--Geneva doesn't care.

And this claim I don't believe.

Geneva doesn't care. Anyone not in uniform (other than due to battlefield circumstances where you are attacked while not in uniform) is considered a spy/saboteur, not a soldier. They don't get POW status. There has been a move to extend some degree of protection to those who were fighting out of uniform, but not to spies/saboteurs.

I think you're bullshitting about the Geneva Conventions. I think you've never read them, never read anything about their application, and don't have any interest in finding out what they say or do.

No. What I see is people keeping using part of what they say and conveniently omitting the part that says it's not relevant to the situation. For example, humanitarian supplies are required to be allowed through. Omitting the part that says that that does not apply if they are likely to be diverted.

If you're fighting out of uniform (other than due to circumstances--somebody who has stripped for some reason and ends up in a combat situation without an opportunity to get dressed isn't considered out of uniform. I'm thinking of a picture from WWII--the guy stripped for a water rescue, then immediately manned a gun when back aborard) you are classed as "spies and saboteurs" and get no protections whatsoever.

Grabbing a wounded man off the street, tying him to the front of your vehicle and driving around worsening his injuries and inflicting new ones, is not self defense.

Nice framing. No, no war crime involved. He had been injured in combat.

It was a violation of the Geneva Conventions regardless of his status as a combatant, which btw, is disputed.

You don't get to do that to P.O.W.s even if you personally witnessed them shooting at your fellow soldiers.

The problem is you are placing an impossible demand on the soldiers. If they had set out to tie him to the vehicle to transport him that would be wrong. But they weren't set up for prisoner transport and came up with a field solution. Not a good one, but not a war crime.

War crimes are not self defense. But some folks try to use self defense as an excuse for them.

But you are taking Hamas' word for what are war crimes.

Hamas didn't write the Geneva Conventions and Hamas isn't the only governmental entity that ratified them.

Ffs, learn a little history, willya?

Once again, you're missing what I said.

Iran told you it was a war crime, you're playing sheep.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hamas manipulates the media for their benefit? No. Never.

Oh well. Kill them all then.

I think that is what Israel is doing. And not to belabour the point, I think it is necessary. If Hamas isn't destroyed they're going to take the rest of the Palestinians with them. I'd rather as few Palestinians as possible died. And the only way to achieve that, I think, is to exterminate Hamas. Sooner is better

Let me get this straight, when you express concern for Palestinian civilians, it's compassion. But when I do it, it's falling for Hamas propaganda? That is precisely what I've been saying all along!!

I think that is accurate. If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas your compassion for the Palestinians is bullshit posturing IMHO. No, fantasy scenarios, many of which have been tried and failed, is not viable solutions. Its a high moral horse to sit o and pass judgement.

The entire narrative of Palestinians as poor oppressed victims is such bullshit. The culture of the Palestinians is so poisoned its now toxic. There's historical reasons for this. But an explanation is not an excuse. There's no excuse for how the Palestinians of Gaza and Lebanon have behaved towards Israel.

Due to how extreme Palestinian behaviour has been, Israel is limited in what they can do to live in peace next to them.

No, Israel isn't perfect. But at least they're behaving responsibly. We have yet to see any such behaviour from Palestinians.

 

[Arctish]

Murdering barefoot shirtless men who are attempting to surrender is not self defense.

The problem is they faced many false surrenders. One soldier failed to recognize the real one amongst all the fakes.

You have claimed there were false surrenders but you have failed to provide evidence of a single one.

The problem is you are asking for something that is not news.

I am asking for your evidence that something you say happened really did happen, and that it happened often enough often enough to justify the killing of barefoot shirtless men trying to surrender to IDF soldiers in Gaza.

You have provided no evidence that supports your claims, despite repeated requests. So at this point I'm calling shenanigans.

Utterly failed, despite multiple requests from multiple posters.

I think you are bullshitting. I think you are doing it because evidence has been posted in this thread of Israeli forces committing a war crime by killing barefoot, shirtless men who posed no danger and were waving a white flag. Additional evidence, in the form of testimony of IDF soldiers, has also been posted that the killing was due to IDF policy in force at that time, which is evidence the war crimes were planned and intentional. I think you are trying to justify an unjustifiable act and you can't find factual support, so you are utilizing your ability to make shit up to hand wave away a war crime.

Since you recall the incident you should also recall that the soldier that fired did so because he thought it was yet another fake surrender. This is all you're likely to find because it's so routine nobody's going to report on it.

You say it happens so frequently it doesn't get reported. Is that your excuse for being unable to support your claim? No one reports the things you magically know by using your super senses?

If you had any interest in getting your facts straight you could have done a bit or research, not just made up stories about what happened to Alon Shamriz, Yotam Haim, and Samer Talalka. You would know it wasn't just one soldier who opened fire. You would know Haim's death is especially appalling.

You might not know it was a war crime. You don't seem to be able to identify those. But you at least would know how easy it is to spot your bullshit.

Murdering a women holding the hand of a preschooler who is waving a white flag as they try to leave a dangerous area on foot is not self defense.

Agreed--but that one was so convenient. Right in front of the cameras, absolutely nothing going on that would have caused a sniper to shoot.

You are suggesting that the Israelis were baited into committing a war crime. That does not exonerate the Israelis. It indicates the commission of war crimes by IDF forces is predictable.

Get a clue!

I'm saying it would be hard for Israel to do and they would have no reason to, it would be easy for Hamas to do and very beneficial. Which explanation makes more sense? Don't blindly decide it must be Israel because they're the bad guys, look at which scenario makes more sense.

You are saying it would be hard for Israeli snipers to kill Palestinians, or to set up video surveillance of the bombed out areas they control? Don't be ridiculous.

I agree there was nothing going on that made it necessary for a sniper to shoot. I disagree that there was nothing going on that would have caused one to shoot:

Israeli Soldiers Ordered to Shoot at Unarmed Palestinians Waiting for Aid

'No Civilians. Everyone's a Terrorist': IDF Soldiers Expose Arbitrary Kilings and Rampant Lawlessness in Gaza's Netzarim Corridor

Is that really your argument? Hamas knows the Israelis will commit war crimes so it sets up cameras to catch IDF forces in the act?

The point is that without any contact with them we have no evidence that they're actually IDF. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense if they're Hamas.

We do have evidence. We have reporters and satellite images indicating who was in control of those parts of Gaza at the time of the killings, and we have responses from the IDF when questioned about the events.

It makes sense to you that it was Hamas' doing because Hamas is all powerful and the IDF their hapless dupes whenever it suits your argument.

Where they were was never suggested--but if they don't know where how can they know who?? And the lines were far enough away that a sniper shot would have been extremely difficult even if they had a line of sight. The whole thing makes a hell of a lot more sense as Hamas. And some of the reports on it said a burst of fire. Snipers don't fire bursts.

Murdering ambulance drivers and paramedics attempting to reach injured civilians is not self defense.

Well, if the ambulance drivers would quit ferrying combatants around they would get the protections traditionally given ambulances.

You have no evidence the ambulance drivers are ferrying combatants around, especially the ones who coordinate their activities with the IDF.

Israel has published shots of them doing it long ago. The Red Crescent refused to condemn the behavior.

Oh, yeah, you forgot about that, didn't you? That the ambulances are notifying the IDF of their planned route of travel and waiting for the IDF to greenlight the rescue attempt but are still being killed by IDF forces along with the injured civilians they are trying to reach.

Apparently you think Israel is committing this type of war crime is also predictable.

And why do you automatically assume it's true? Plenty of other claims have been proven false.

You have no evidence I automatically assume anything is true, and quite a bit of evidence I check my sources and don't use the ones that post lies and exaggerations.

Did you read either of the news stories I linked to? Care to discuss them? Or are you just going to bullshit, make vague references to events you say happened, fail to support your assertions, and lie about me?

I'm putting the rest of your post behind Hide tags to minimize clutter. Your responses are mostly ignorant suppositions about what the Geneva Conventions say and pulled-straight-from-your-ass assertions about why war crimes aren't really war crimes when the IDF does them, and how reasonable you think it is to tie a wounded prisoner to the front of your truck and drive around.

Show

But Israel has plenty of video of ambulances being used for military purposes and the Red Crescent has refused to condemn such actions. Geneva protections do not apply.

Kidnapping doctors and nurses from clinics and confining them in prisons that even the guards say routinely subject prisoners to torture is not self defense.

"Doctor" and "Hamas" are not mutually exclusive.

And I'm not aware of any verified claims of "routinely".

This claim of yours is one I believe. You do appear to skip over links other people provide so IMO you very likely are unaware of the reports.

There have been some allegations of abuse that have been confirmed and the soldiers who did it were punished. But most of it is completely unsubstantiated, including the "routinely" bit.

Nor would it even matter--Geneva doesn't care.

And this claim I don't believe.

Geneva doesn't care. Anyone not in uniform (other than due to battlefield circumstances where you are attacked while not in uniform) is considered a spy/saboteur, not a soldier. They don't get POW status. There has been a move to extend some degree of protection to those who were fighting out of uniform, but not to spies/saboteurs.

I think you're bullshitting about the Geneva Conventions. I think you've never read them, never read anything about their application, and don't have any interest in finding out what they say or do.

No. What I see is people keeping using part of what they say and conveniently omitting the part that says it's not relevant to the situation. For example, humanitarian supplies are required to be allowed through. Omitting the part that says that that does not apply if they are likely to be diverted.

If you're fighting out of uniform (other than due to circumstances--somebody who has stripped for some reason and ends up in a combat situation without an opportunity to get dressed isn't considered out of uniform. I'm thinking of a picture from WWII--the guy stripped for a water rescue, then immediately manned a gun when back aborard) you are classed as "spies and saboteurs" and get no protections whatsoever.

Grabbing a wounded man off the street, tying him to the front of your vehicle and driving around worsening his injuries and inflicting new ones, is not self defense.

Nice framing. No, no war crime involved. He had been injured in combat.

It was a violation of the Geneva Conventions regardless of his status as a combatant, which btw, is disputed.

You don't get to do that to P.O.W.s even if you personally witnessed them shooting at your fellow soldiers.

The problem is you are placing an impossible demand on the soldiers. If they had set out to tie him to the vehicle to transport him that would be wrong. But they weren't set up for prisoner transport and came up with a field solution. Not a good one, but not a war crime.

War crimes are not self defense. But some folks try to use self defense as an excuse for them.

But you are taking Hamas' word for what are war crimes.

Hamas didn't write the Geneva Conventions and Hamas isn't the only governmental entity that ratified them.

Ffs, learn a little history, willya?

Once again, you're missing what I said.

Iran told you it was a war crime, you're playing sheep.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yesterday I was in a large online meeting, some calling in from Tel Aviv. In the middle of the meeting the Israelis had to leave to get into bomb shelters. It was three rockets. Two of the rockets came from Gaza and one from Yemen.

Israel was hit by 21 000 rockets over the past month.

These rockets don't make it into the news. Because it's not news. It just keeps going.. on and on and on. And has, with short breaks, for decades.

Newsflash... Hamas is not fighting a defensive war. They're fighting an aggressive war... still. Which... granted... is absurd. But most things about Hamas is absurd.

Of course Israel is going to do whatever they need to do to get rid of Hamas. Their behaviour is unacceptable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All Jews aren't Zionists. Jews have all kinds of political opinions? So what's your point?

 

[Gospel]

If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas

If your priority is to ignore EVERY FUCKING TIME I SAY HAMAS NEEDS TO GO THEN YOU NEED TO JUST STFU AND ADMIT YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT I SAY AND WOULD RATHER KEEP PARROTING BULLSHIT.

 

[Gospel]

All Jews aren't Zionists. Jews have all kinds of political opinions? So what's your point?

The point is that any Jew who disagrees with you is obviously an antisemitic Hamas sympathizer.

 

[Gospel]

The entire narrative of Palestinians as poor oppressed victims is such bullshit. The culture of the Palestinians is so poisoned its now toxic. There's historical reasons for this. But an explanation is not an excuse. There's no excuse for how the Palestinians of Gaza and Lebanon have behaved towards Israel.

You say this as if the majority of Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas, when in reality, most of them didn’t. Hamas has ruled by force for 17 years, and it’s Hamas attacking Israel, not the broader civilian population. That kind of blanket rhetoric is exactly what I take issue with. I agree that Hamas needs to go, but painting all Palestinians in Gaza with the same brush is, to put it mildly, a gross oversimplification. And when that argument gets dismantled, you pivot, like Loren, by using Jews as human shields to accuse me of falling for Hamas propaganda and being antisemitic.

 

[Gospel]

Show me a reason to think that the reason why GWDM are suffering so much couldn't have been prevented by the GWM making different choices.
Like not choosing to use the rest of Gaza as so many human shields.

Sure. Here’s a reason: because the people suffering aren’t the ones making the decisions. The average Gazan doesn’t get to choose where Hamas puts a tunnel, or whether an IDF airstrike flattens their apartment. They’re not voting on military strategy, they’re trying to survive. You’re blaming an entire population for the actions of an armed group that rules without consent. That’s not logic, it’s collective punishment with an adorable PR spin. If your argument is “Hamas did bad things, so now anyone near them deserves what they get,” then just say that. At least be honest about the cruelty you’re defending.

Except this is just how the world works. The common man suffers for the actions of the leaders.

No shit, we both recognize the same reality. The difference is, you’re too much of a coward to care about innocent people just because they live among those who hate you. You’d rather throw the baby out with the bathwater. I won’t. And instead of looking inward and realizing the real problem might be you, you deflect by labeling me a Hamas supporter, which is ridiculous, because in my book, anyone who supports Hamas is a piece of shit. So really, what you’re doing is projecting.

 

[laughing dog]

If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas

If your priority is to ignore EVERY FUCKING TIME I SAY HAMAS NEEDS TO GO THEN YOU NEED TO JUST STFU AND ADMIT YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT I SAY AND WOULD RATHER KEEP PARROTING BULLSHIT.

Pay closer attention. If you think there is any needless destruction and misery inflicted on Gazan civilians by the actions of the IDF, then you are not prioritizing the riddance of Hamas.

 

[laughing dog]

Murdering barefoot shirtless men who are attempting to surrender is not self defense.

The problem is they faced many false surrenders. One soldier failed to recognize the real one amongst all the fakes.

You have claimed there were false surrenders but you have failed to provide evidence of a single one.

The problem is you are asking for something that is not news.

Then how did you learn about fake surrenders? I ask, because it is not innate knowledge.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas

If your priority is to ignore EVERY FUCKING TIME I SAY HAMAS NEEDS TO GO THEN YOU NEED TO JUST STFU AND ADMIT YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT I SAY AND WOULD RATHER KEEP PARROTING BULLSHIT.

Yes. And then in the next breath criticise Israel for doing something about it.

Why wouldn't I think you’re just talking shit?

When organisations like Hamas runs countries, then it gets messy. Insert any tinpot dictator. Its sucks for the population.

Why the Palestinian casualties are so high is because Hamas has been planning for this all the time. Its the same deal in Lebanon. Hezbollah military headquarters are under hospitals. This is how they operate.

Instead of being horrified.. at Hamas... for the high casualties you are angry at Israel. That's fucked up imho