Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Toni]

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

Cooperated or was adjacent enough that MSF could do their jobs? I'm certain MSF has contacts with a lot of bad groups, just so that they can get in safely and render aid. MSF is in some ugly areas and security is critical.

To do your job in Gaza you must do what Hamas wants of you.

So what? Using your criterion, everyone in Gaza is a legitimate target.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

If one is going to kill civilians as collateral damage to a military strike, the strike better damn well be worth it. Was it?

And we have no way of evaluating any given military strike. We can see that overall Israel does better than anyone else. Thus the reasonable assumption is that it was worth it.

Why is it a reasonable assumption?

Quit pretending you don't understand.

Why are you so afraid to substantiate or explain yourself?

Because you are simply derailing by pretending something is unclear.

Or: You could actually add clarity by explaining.

I realize that you think you are very clear but you are not necessarily clear about what you mean--especially in relation to what ld asked you to explain or substantiate.

 

[laughing dog]

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

Cooperated or was adjacent enough that MSF could do their jobs? I'm certain MSF has contacts with a lot of bad groups, just so that they can get in safely and render aid. MSF is in some ugly areas and security is critical.

To do your job in Gaza you must do what Hamas wants of you.

So what? Using your criterion, everyone in Gaza is a legitimate target.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

If one is going to kill civilians as collateral damage to a military strike, the strike better damn well be worth it. Was it?

And we have no way of evaluating any given military strike. We can see that overall Israel does better than anyone else. Thus the reasonable assumption is that it was worth it.

Why is it a reasonable assumption?

Quit pretending you don't understand.

Why are you so afraid to substantiate or explain yourself?

Because you are simply derailing by pretending something is unclear.

You cannot read minds. There is no logical reason to assume that because Israel does military strikes better than anyone else (a debatable premise since it is undefined) that such a strike is worth it (another undefined outcome).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

So Hamas should be permitted to kill Jews with impunity because they threaten Gazan civilians?

How the fuck do you get from what I said, to what follows the word "So" in your response?

Seriously, we should have a forum rule that any response beginning with "So..." will be deleted. They are almost invariably nonsensical.

You don't like the consequences of your positions.

I'm not going to hunt it down but there's a cartoon I posted quite some time back, a Hamas soldier with a baby in their plate carrier. While obviously there are sometimes workarounds for the specific case it's meant to be a more general thing. And I have yet to see someone on the left provide a non-derailing response other than those who say they would die rather than defend themselves.

Just a head's up here. If you hunt down that cartoon and re-post it, I will post links to all the good-faith non-derailing replies you have already received that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are bullshitting about the responses you got.

There were a bunch of attempts to work around it on technicalities, but since it wasn't meant to be taken exactly literally they were all wrong.

You either accept that civilians will die in the war, or you do not permit war and Hamas attacks Israel with impunity.

And I will follow that up with links to replies you have already gotten to your inane Excluded Middle Fallacy.

No, it's an illusionary middle. You assume Israel must be wrong and they can do better and thus blame them for not doing better. But there is no evidence of better. It's all just smokescreen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What was dishonest about the quote?

I expect them to make it much clearer that it's just what Hamas said. The article acts like it's presenting facts. It's one of the standard ways reporters are dishonest. The statement is "true" in that it's being correctly attributed to some individual or organization. But that is very different than what is depicted being true.

They said where it came from. It's not up to journalists who have no access to the source to question the source. The statement itself is news, therefore it is reportable.

The problem is they act as if the quote is describing reality. It's a standard way for reporters to deceive while pretending to be honest.

 

[bilby]

Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

So Hamas should be permitted to kill Jews with impunity because they threaten Gazan civilians?

How the fuck do you get from what I said, to what follows the word "So" in your response?

Seriously, we should have a forum rule that any response beginning with "So..." will be deleted. They are almost invariably nonsensical.

You don't like the consequences of your positions.

I'm not going to hunt it down but there's a cartoon I posted quite some time back, a Hamas soldier with a baby in their plate carrier. While obviously there are sometimes workarounds for the specific case it's meant to be a more general thing. And I have yet to see someone on the left provide a non-derailing response other than those who say they would die rather than defend themselves.

You either accept that civilians will die in the war, or you do not permit war and Hamas attacks Israel with impunity.

I think you need to re-read the question, because your last two responses to me have exactly no relationship whatsoever to it. I asked @Tigers! :

"What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?"

 

[laughing dog]

What was dishonest about the quote?

I expect them to make it much clearer that it's just what Hamas said. The article acts like it's presenting facts. It's one of the standard ways reporters are dishonest. The statement is "true" in that it's being correctly attributed to some individual or organization. But that is very different than what is depicted being true.

They said where it came from. It's not up to journalists who have no access to the source to question the source. The statement itself is news, therefore it is reportable.

The problem is they act as if the quote is describing reality. It's a standard way for reporters to deceive while pretending to be honest.

Ever hear the helpful advice to stop digging when you are in an unwanted hole ?

 

[Toni]

What was dishonest about the quote?

I expect them to make it much clearer that it's just what Hamas said. The article acts like it's presenting facts. It's one of the standard ways reporters are dishonest. The statement is "true" in that it's being correctly attributed to some individual or organization. But that is very different than what is depicted being true.

They said where it came from. It's not up to journalists who have no access to the source to question the source. The statement itself is news, therefore it is reportable.

The problem is they act as if the quote is describing reality. It's a standard way for reporters to deceive while pretending to be honest.

Ever hear the helpful advice to stop digging when you are in an unwanted hole ?

It’s not like Loren would think such advice pertained to him. He’s above needing to read carefully, stop scolding people for making points that are either counter to what he is certain is true because it’s his opinion, or ever read or post links to substantiate his pov. If it differs from his pov, then by definition, it’s wrong. Because he’s in IT and they know everything.

 

[bilby]

Most killing in war is legal.

Yes. But killing people in a war zone is generally NOT legal.

Most killing in war is legal, because most of the people who do the killing in war zones show the restraint required by law. And when they don't, guess what? It's a crime. A crime committed during war. As you might say, a "war-crime".

 

[Tigers!]

Israel, by its actions, has created several new generations of people to attack it. Do people really not understand this?

Hamas, by its actions, has created new generations of Jews/Israelis who will not accept it nor trust it ever again. Do people really not understand this?

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, a lot of civilians unfortunately died too, and much of Gaza has been destroyed. But starting wars of aggression has conseqences

Which of those civilians started a war of aggression?

IIRC it was not the civilians at the Nova music festival that started a war of agression

Are you seriously suggesting that "two wrongs make a right"?

No.
But just a reminder that it is not just Gazans that have been killed in this latest bout of violence. Jews too have died.

Is seems that living in the same area as people who start wars of aggression is what has consequences. Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

It does has consequences.

So, what, you don't mind that your completely innocent family all got killed, because "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

I do mind that a complete innocent family got killed. Again nobody is thinking about consequences, just thinking with their weapons. I will do what I can to prevent such killings but both of us are sadly limited in what we can do. We see the results and can only weep.

I find that hard to believe, and suspect that you are not actually answering my question at all, but instead are answering a question you hoped I might have asked instead.

Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

Hamas did not care about the consequences at all. As has been noted previously they (Hamas) are a death cult. Leaving them to exist will not provide any security for Israel. Something must be done about them. Israel has been trying something.

 

[bilby]

But just a reminder that it is not just Gazans that have been killed in this latest bout of violence. Jews too have died.

Do you really think that anyone is unaware of this?

 

[bilby]

Something must be done about them. Israel has been trying something.

That's a politician's "logic" made famous by Yes Minister:

p1) Something must be done
p2) This is something
c) Therefore this must be done.

It's a joke. It's not supposed to be an actual policy guide.

Whatever "must be done" about Hamas, killing a bunch of people for their misfortune in living next to Hamas isn't it.

Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

If not, then why are you OK with it when the psychopathic neighbour lives next door to someone who isn't your family?

I will do what I can to prevent such killings but both of us are sadly limited in what we can do. We see the results and can only weep.

Only? You wouldn't have a harsh word for the police chief who ordered his men to kill your family, or for the officers who carried out that order?

You would say "something had to be done, and he did something, so all I can do is weep"??

And if someone did criticise the police chief, would you remind them that "it is not just my family who have been killed in this violence, cops too have died"? Or would that be both obvious, and in poor taste as a way to justify the massive and lethal over-reaction of their chief?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Something must be done about them. Israel has been trying something.

That's a politician's "logic" made famous by Yes Minister:

p1) Something must be done
p2) This is something
c) Therefore this must be done.

It's a joke. It's not supposed to be an actual policy guide.

What other viable alternative was there?

Whatever "must be done" about Hamas, killing a bunch of people for their misfortune in living next to Hamas isn't it.

Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

If not, then why are you OK with it when the psychopathic neighbour lives next door to someone who isn't your family?

I don't understand your analogy. Is Israel the unfortunate neighbour of Hamas? Who's the unfortunate neighbour of Hamas? Hamas is the govornment of Gaza. The Palestinians aren't the unfortunate neighbour of Hamas. As far as international relations go, they're the neighbour.

To make your analogy work it's more like. Are you ok with the cops busting down your door because your father has murdered a bunch of people and you are firitng guns protecting him? It's a different moral conundrum.

I will do what I can to prevent such killings but both of us are sadly limited in what we can do. We see the results and can only weep.

Only? You wouldn't have a harsh word for the police chief who ordered his men to kill your family, or for the officers who carried out that order?

You would say "something had to be done, and he did something, so all I can do is weep"??

And if someone did criticise the police chief, would you remind them that "it is not just my family who have been killed in this violence, cops too have died"? Or would that be both obvious, and in poor taste as a way to justify the massive and lethal over-reaction of their chief?

How's Israel's actions an over-reaction? They've been cautious and gone out of their way to avoid civilian deaths. Their goal was to get the hostages back and they did what needed to be done. It took two years to get back. So it's not like they were rushing it. Israel could have gone in much harder. It took two years just because they were so careful.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Allegations of collective punishment: Note the lack of proof--because there isn't any.

Segregating Palestinians into Gaza is collective punishment.

Amigo, I was kinda confused by this comment. Gaza is the home for the Gazians. Are you saying that they should be allowed to move somewhere else? Trump and the settlers want them out. But I don't think that this is what you are talking about?

 

[ZiprHead]

What was dishonest about the quote?

I expect them to make it much clearer that it's just what Hamas said. The article acts like it's presenting facts. It's one of the standard ways reporters are dishonest. The statement is "true" in that it's being correctly attributed to some individual or organization. But that is very different than what is depicted being true.

They said where it came from. It's not up to journalists who have no access to the source to question the source. The statement itself is news, therefore it is reportable.

The problem is they act as if the quote is describing reality. It's a standard way for reporters to deceive while pretending to be honest.

Reporting statements an organization makes is being dishonest???

 

[ZiprHead]

Allegations of collective punishment: Note the lack of proof--because there isn't any.

Segregating Palestinians into Gaza is collective punishment.

Amigo, I was kinda confused by this comment. Gaza is the home for the Gazians. Are you saying that they should be allowed to move somewhere else?

Why shouldn't they? You have that right. I have that right. Gazans do not.

Gaza js just an open air prison where all the guards are on the outside keeping the prisoners inside and the prison gangs now run the place.

Trump and the settlers want them out. But I don't think that this is what you are talking about?

No.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Allegations of collective punishment: Note the lack of proof--because there isn't any.

Segregating Palestinians into Gaza is collective punishment.

Amigo, I was kinda confused by this comment. Gaza is the home for the Gazians. Are you saying that they should be allowed to move somewhere else?

Why shouldn't they? You have that right. I have that right. Gazans do not.

I wish! It dosn't work that way. I'm a ski fanatic. My wife loves the beach. She wants us to move to Jamica. I want to move to Canada! Unfortunately, we can only move to another country with that country's approval.

 

[Toni]

What was dishonest about the quote?

I expect them to make it much clearer that it's just what Hamas said. The article acts like it's presenting facts. It's one of the standard ways reporters are dishonest. The statement is "true" in that it's being correctly attributed to some individual or organization. But that is very different than what is depicted being true.

They said where it came from. It's not up to journalists who have no access to the source to question the source. The statement itself is news, therefore it is reportable.

The problem is they act as if the quote is describing reality. It's a standard way for reporters to deceive while pretending to be honest.

Reporting statements an organization makes is being dishonest???

To be fair, yes: News organizations can and do report statements with the intent to further their own goals ( or that of reporters), and sometimes, do so in a deception. It’s actually happened to me: I was once ‘quoted’ in the local newspaper in a way that was deceptive—deliberately so, and left out the entire statement and context. But we may be more familiar with Fox News.

 

[ZiprHead]

Allegations of collective punishment: Note the lack of proof--because there isn't any.

Segregating Palestinians into Gaza is collective punishment.

Amigo, I was kinda confused by this comment. Gaza is the home for the Gazians. Are you saying that they should be allowed to move somewhere else?

Why shouldn't they? You have that right. I have that right. Gazans do not.

I wish! It dosn't work that way. I'm a ski fanatic. My wife loves the beach. She wants us to move to Jamica. I want to move to Canada! Unfortunately, we can only move to another country with that country's approval.

Gaza isn't another country.