Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

What evidence do you gave that the 70,000 estimate is “unquestionably bad”?

1) It's dead during the war. They are blaming Israel for natural causes deaths.

2) There has been internal conflict in Gaza. Once again, counted as Israel.

3) Fairly early on Israel caught ~4k bad entries. Hamas eventually removed them--but without a corresponding ~4k drop in deaths. In other words, they must have made up replacements that weren't so blatantly wrong.

Edit: 4) I forgot about the friendly fire. Typically 20-25% of casualties, but probably less this time. (Hamas rockets are far from reliable, many fall in Gaza.)

Let me get this straight-the Israeli military accepts the total Gaza deaths of around 70,000 but you know more than the Israeli military.

BTW, if you had bothered to read Reuters article, you’d know it is 70,000 killed in total. Which means no natural deaths. Nor is the any attribution as to who did the killing.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. It can be because Gazans tend to congregate by sex and the iDF targets area with males.

Why would IDF do that instead of hitting areas with terrorists?…

Males are in the areas with terrorists. That does not make the male victims terrorists. Duh. Hence your reliance on disparate outcomes as evidence in that case is open you the same criticisms you levy in other situations.

We are not the ones claiming disparate outcomes are discrimination. Rather, disparate outcomes usually imply some other factor at work beyond what's being measured. This case, for example--the chart measures age and sex, not military service. But the excess casualties look an awful lot like the demographics of a military force. We know there is a military force fighting there. What's the least astonishing answer? We are looking at combatant deaths.

Occam got it a bit wrong. You do not only look for the simplest explanation that explains the facts, but you look for the explanation that requires the least abnormal behavior.

LOL - you can spin it all you want but you using disparate outcomes as your proof.

 

[Patooka]

Apparently this thread has always been about Israel, despite its name never being in the title.


Zionist love this fact.


People are confused why there is war in the Middle East.


Nope. It's pretty simple. The Israel of the 90s doesn't exist but there are dishonest people who try to pretend it does. The PLO was dogshit and has been replaced by Hamas by the same liars who are pretending Israel is in a 90s time bubble.


Netanyahu is under trial and he is a pussy so he is using war as a distraction.


This thread is proof of that.


Trump invaded Iran as a distraction


This thread is proof of that.

 

[Derec]

LOL - you can spin it all you want but you using disparate outcomes as your proof.

Wrong. You are using the "disparate outcome" exactly backwards, as I have already explained. An argument is not strengthened by holding on to it, and repeating it, despite being offered reasons as to why it's wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

LOL - you can spin it all you want but you using disparate outcomes as your proof.

Wrong. You are using the "disparate outcome" exactly backwards, as I have already explained.

Nope.

An argument is not strengthened by holding on to it, and repeating it, despite being offered reasons as to why it's wrong.

Your ironic response is amusing but unconvincing.

 

[Arctish]

Israeli minister orders West Bank hamlet evicted after hearing he may face arrest warrant overseas

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel’s finance minister has ordered the eviction of a Palestinian village in the Israeli-occupied West Bank that has long been a target of Israeli authorities, saying the measure is a response to reports that he may be a target of international war crimes prosecutors.

“From today, any economic or other target that I have the power to harm within the framework of my powers as Minister of Finance and as a minister in the Ministry Defense will be attacked,” he said.

Looks like yuck, but I don't trust the reporting.

"Long-disputed Bedouin village"--that's most likely an encampment on land they do not own. It's a recurring problem. They're trying to live a nomadic lifestyle on other people's land.

So you didn't read the article or bother looking up anything about the village, you just posted some random thoughts that occurred to you.

I read the article. AP is not to be trusted over there. A former AP guy admitting it:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israel-insider-guide

There has been much discussion recently of Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail—that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll—because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)

And it's a perennial problem with the Bedouin "villages" that keep springing up. Why should I think this is different?

You say you read the article and yet you're still posting bullshit.

The village is in the West Bank. Barely 6 hours ago you said that for practical purposes Gaza and the West Bank are 2 separate nations. Hamas has fuck all to do with this.

Smotrich admits he's targeting Khan Al-Ahmar because he's lashing out at the possibility of being charged with war crimes:

“From today, any economic or other target that I have the power to harm within the framework of my powers as Minister of Finance and as a minister in the Ministry Defense will be attacked,” he said.

He said his first target would be Khan Al-Ahmar, a village of Palestinian Bedouins long caught up in a legal battle to remain on their land. Smotrich, who oversees West Bank settlement policy, signed a directive calling for the immediate evacuation of the village.


It was not clear if the order could be legally challenged and when it would take effect. Israeli media reported that the order still requires approval by Israel’s security cabinet. But past attempts to empty the village and relocate its inhabitants have been challenged in court.

This is not some recently established pop-up community. The threat of demolition has been going on for years. It is also clearly outside Israel's internationally recognized borders so any Israeli settlements built in its place would be illegal. Any Israelis who move in there will be complicit in Smotrich's crimes.

 

[Derec]

Your ironic response is amusing but unconvincing.

Nothing ironic about it. You just don't understand the concept of "disparate impact" and keep showing off your ignorance.

 

[laughing dog]

Your ironic response is amusing but unconvincing.

Nothing ironic about it. You just don't understand the concept of "disparate impact" and keep showing off your ignorance.

An unconvincing but super ironic considering your eloquent “An argument is not strengthened by holding on to it, and repeating it, despite being offered reasons as to why it is wrong.”

 

[Derec]

An unconvincing but super ironic considering your eloquent “An argument is not strengthened by holding on to it, and repeating it, despite being offered reasons as to why it is wrong.”

I explained why you are wrong upthread. Loren Pechtel then explained it to you again.
And yet you keep repeating the same thing like a mantra. The irony is all on you.

 

[laughing dog]

An unconvincing but super ironic considering your eloquent “An argument is not strengthened by holding on to it, and repeating it, despite being offered reasons as to why it is wrong.”

I explained why you are wrong upthread. Loren Pechtel then explained it to you again.
And yet you keep repeating the same thing like a mantra. The irony is all on you.

I realize you have faith in your explanation but it is undeserved. You used disparate outcomes as the basis of your analysis. There is no shame in that - it is a rational approach even if it is based on tenuous underlying assumptions in this case.

Why you wish to deny using a rational approach is fascinatingly funny. And the irony-resistant responses are amusing. Thank you for the master lessons.

 

[Derec]

I realize you have faith in your explanation but it is undeserved.

Again, repeating a falsehood does not make it better. Both I and Loren tried to explain it to you, but you are unteachable.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize you have faith in your explanation but it is undeserved.

Again, repeating a falsehood does not make it better.

Ironically that is so true.

Both I and Loren tried to explain it to you, but you are unteachable.

That is untrue. I’ve learned a lot from reading your posts.

 

[ZiprHead]

This thread should be renamed " US just launched an unprovoked attack on Iran".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This thread should be renamed " US just launched an unprovoked attack on Iran".

I wouldn't use the term unprovoked. It disturbed a status quo, but it isn't as if Iran wasn't causing serious problems. The trouble is in thinking what they were going to enact was going to work. It didn't work. The wonks said it wouldn't work. It made things much worse!

The OP starter wants to use the term War to mean any time the US military bills half and hour to a cause. This wasn't ever a "war". This was a military assault aimed at decapitating the Iranian Theocracy. It wasn't out of the blue, it came on the heels (long heels) of the 10/7 massacre. Israel carried out the assassinations while the US just blew shit up, wasting an incredibly expensive amount of munitions on an incredibly worthless set of targets. And then followed up methodically bombing targets (that typically secure a ground invasion) to look like we were doing something as Trump and Netanyahu waited for a political collapse / revolution that wouldn't actually happen.

So the thread title should be "Netanyahu / Trump Enact Doomed From the Start Military Assault".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This thread should be renamed " US just launched an unprovoked attack on Iran".

I wouldn't use the term unprovoked. It disturbed a status quo, but it isn't as if Iran wasn't causing serious problems. The trouble is in thinking what they were going to enact was going to work. It didn't work. The wonks said it wouldn't work. It made things much worse!

I don't think we should look at the title purely logically, but instead in reference to Derec's title of the Gaza thread in context. Derec's title seemed incorrect, i.e. there _was_ provocation, but not justification nor chance of long-term success by Hamas. This pretty much means a new thread title that alludes to Derec's title need not be strictly correct either, but could by trying to make a single point by analogy.

While the author might need to illuminate that narrow analogy, I would point out that the US stated the provocation was related to an imminent danger of nuclear development 3 weeks away. That turned out to be false.

 

[ZiprHead]

This thread should be renamed " US just launched an unprovoked attack on Iran".

I wouldn't use the term unprovoked. It disturbed a status quo, but it isn't as if Iran wasn't causing serious problems. The trouble is in thinking what they were going to enact was going to work. It didn't work. The wonks said it wouldn't work. It made things much worse!

I don't think we should look at the title purely logically, but instead in reference to Derec's title of the Gaza thread in context. Derec's title seemed incorrect, i.e. there _was_ provocation, but not justification nor chance of long-term success by Hamas. This pretty much means a new thread title that alludes to Derec's title need not be strictly correct either, but could by trying to make a single point by analogy.

While the author might need to illuminate that narrow analogy, I would point out that the US stated the provocation was related to an imminent danger of nuclear development 3 weeks away. That turned out to be false.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Hours before fresh military strikes were exchanged in the strait of Hormuz, vice-president JD Vance continued to reiterate the administration’s triumphant line on the war with Iran.

“If we make the final deal, then great,” the US vice-president told HBO’s Bill Maher.

“If we don’t make the final deal, their nuclear program is still destroyed. They’re still much weaker as a country, so my attitude is America wins either way.”

Do you feel like you've won something? I would if I had Secert Service pumping my gas or at least had a US Govt gas purchase card.

Too much winning!

 

[Tigers!]

The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.

The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.

What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?

How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.

Yet Hamas has a distressing tendency to put missile launchers in streets between houses.
Israel fires a missiles, hits rocket launcher. Destroys, damages housing. Tragically locals are killed, hurt. You complain about Israel.
What should Israel do?

 

[ZiprHead]

The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.

The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.

What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?

How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.

Yet Hamas has a distressing tendency to put missile launchers in streets between houses.
Israel fires a missiles, hits rocket launcher. Destroys, damages housing. Tragically locals are killed, hurt. You complain about Israel.
What should Israel do?

I already said it. You just repeated it. Yes, missiles are indiscriminate and will cause collateral damage. They don't destroy entire neighborhoods and bury 500 people under rubble to get one rocket laucher.

5000 lb bombs have a lethal radius of 650 feet and a severe structure damage of over 2600 feet, almost a half mile. They should not be used in urban settings at all, unless killing civilians is part of the plan.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.

The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.

What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?

How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.

Yet Hamas has a distressing tendency to put missile launchers in streets between houses.
Israel fires a missiles, hits rocket launcher. Destroys, damages housing. Tragically locals are killed, hurt. You complain about Israel.
What should Israel do?

I already said it. You just repeated it. Yes, missiles are indiscriminate and will cause collateral damage. They don't destroy entire neighborhoods and bury 500 people under rubble to get one rocket laucher.

5000 lb bombs have a lethal radius of 650 feet and a severe structure damage of over 2600 feet, almost a half mile. They should not be used in urban settings at all, unless killing civilians is part of the plan.

So let's all be angry at Hamas for forcing Israels hand.

Given the circumstances Israel had no other option. And Hamas knew it.

The attack was to force Israel into an impossible situation where, no matter what they did, they'd look bad

So please blame the people responsible for the Palestinian suffering, Hamas