Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Tigers!]

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

There was no diverse opinion within Gaza as how to proceed

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

The point is that Hamas has and had agency. It made choices, And it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with living in peace or keeping Gazans safe

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I never said Hamas did. The Bedouin "village" problem is to the east, not the west.

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

The report says he is. I already explained that I do not trust the reporting so I don't know if it's an accurate portrayal or not.

And note that it doesn't mean it's going after improper things.

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.

You aren't proving your point. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, building "villages" on land they do not own.

And just because it's in the West Bank doesn't make the Bedouins the lawful owners of the land. Building things on Israeli-owned land has been a common tactic over there in the propaganda war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So you have turned this into a circus about disparate impact rather than addressing the original issue of the large number of military age males who died.

What is your explanation for the disparity?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We've been over this before. See any areas of devastation you would expect from a 2000# bomb in Gaza? By your numbers there should be lots and lots of mile-across circles of damage. But that's not what keeps getting posted. Instead we see lines of severe damage. Now, what would cause a line? Certainly not a bomb--but a line is exactly what you would expect if that bomb had not exploded in the city, but underneath it in a tunnel. And, at least as of some time ago Israel was averaging less than one person killed per bomb. To accomplish that requires some careful aim and evacuation. The actual death toll is way below what you would get from simply randomly yeeting munitions into Gaza even considering that most such would fall in open areas. And note that many Hamas tunnels were deep--need a big bomb to get down there.

And watch the video of Israeli airstrikes. You can generally see the blast going far more up than out--exactly what you would expect from a bomb exploding underground.

Edit: I forgot: several scenes of damage from tunnel collapse with no hint of other damage. Clearly the tunnel damage goes farther than the blast damage when a bomb explodes in a tunnel. That says you will minimize surface destruction if you drop bigger bombs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We've been over this before. See any areas of devastation you would expect from a 2000# bomb in Gaza? By your numbers there should be lots and lots of mile-across circles of damage. But that's not what keeps getting posted. Instead we see lines of severe damage. Now, what would cause a line? Certainly not a bomb--but a line is exactly what you would expect if that bomb had not exploded in the city, but underneath it in a tunnel. And, at least as of some time ago Israel was averaging less than one person killed per bomb. To accomplish that requires some careful aim and evacuation. The actual death toll is way below what you would get from simply randomly yeeting munitions into Gaza even considering that most such would fall in open areas. And note that many Hamas tunnels were deep--need a big bomb to get down there.

And watch the video of Israeli airstrikes. You can generally see the blast going far more up than out--exactly what you would expect from a bomb exploding underground.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok, let's hear it. What was the alternatives?

Plenty of alternatives. Targeted assignations of leadership. Or not waiting until the target went home before dropping a bomb on the structure. Those are just two options.

We talked about assassination quite some time back. And you were completely unable to suggest how Israel might conduct assassinations in hostile territory.

And the reason to drop a bomb on the house is that that will minimize civilian casualties. Fewer people around, the bomb can explode underground in their escape tunnel to further reduce bystanders being killed.

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

Fantasy.

The reality is all governments are constrained to some degree. Democracies far more so--don't go after the hostages, a new government would have been voted in that did. They functionally had no choice, the only question was just how to go about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of alternatives. Targeted assignations of leadership.

I guess it must have slipped your mind that they tried that?

And they got told off by Trump for trying. The Hamas leaders live in Qatar

They didn’t try targeted killings in Gaza. And bombing the crap out of Gaza doesn’t affect Hamas in Qatar.

Of course they didn't try targeted killings. It's a fantasy answer with no connection to what can actually be done.

And while bombing the crap out of Gaza did nothing to the Hamas leadership it severely degraded their ability to fight.

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

You make it sound like Israel is all powerful.

They had limited options and used their available tools well... I think

Of course you feel that way. Those who don’t share such feelings are not necessarily antisemitic nor wrong.

But you aren't evaluating whether your answers are viable.

The question remains what viable paths did they have? Remember, there are a lot of highly trained military leaders in the world that are hostile to Israel. If they saw a better strategy do you think they would not have pointed it out to make Israel look bad?? You think you know more about military strategy than the vast majority of people whose job it is do evaluate such things??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't realize you were such an expert on Gaza and Gazans because you've hid your expertise so well in your responses.

You don't have to be an expert to see the obvious. But I can't help but notice that you didn't suggest I was wrong, much less give a better explanation.
Just a stupid ad hom and a heaping helping of self righteousness.
Tom

Irony is your metier.

Contrary to your previous post, Israel stated it wants to eliminate Hamas.

What they want and what they think they can realistically accomplish are two different things. Just like pretty much any politician.

 

[Arctish]

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.

I never said Hamas did. The Bedouin "village" problem is to the east, not the west.

You used Hamas as an excuse to mistrust AP reporting from Israel about a village in the West Bank.

It was a very dishonest dodge. But if there is a different source you trust to accurately quote a member of the Israeli government, tell us what it is.

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

The report says he is. I already explained that I do not trust the reporting so I don't know if it's an accurate portrayal or not.

And note that it doesn't mean it's going after improper things.

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.

You aren't proving your point. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, building "villages" on land they do not own.

And just because it's in the West Bank doesn't make the Bedouins the lawful owners of the land. Building things on Israeli-owned land has been a common tactic over there in the propaganda war.

Israel doesn't own the land. Neither do unnamed "Israelis". Neither does Israel have legal authority over property ownership or land claims any place that isn't inside Israel's 1967 borders. Khan Al-Ahmar isn't inside those borders, therefore it isn't inside Israel, therefore Smotrich has no lawful business ordering its destruction.

The on-going problem is Israel asserting an authority it does not possess so that it can forcibly removed Palestinians and build illegal settlements in Palestine.

And the problem with Smotrich is that he's a racist with the ability to harm people he's prejudiced against and he's threatening to do just that because of a rumor the international justice community is preparing to charge him with war crimes he has almost certainly committed.

 

[laughing dog]

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

There was no diverse opinion within Gaza as how to proceed

Perhaps within Hamas, but do you have any evidence about Gaza?

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

The point is that Hamas has and had agency. It made choices, And it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with living in peace or keeping Gazans safe

No dispute there. Hamas instigated this tragedy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Couple of bits from recent events.

1) Yet another case of saying the quiet part out loud:

Microsoft worker emails thousands of colleagues about company's support for genocidal 'Israel'

A Microsoft worker has quit and sent a mass email detailing Microsoft's complicity in surveillance tech Israel uses to hunt Palestinians

www.thecanary.co

Yeah, it's talking about Israeli intercepts of Palestinian telephones. But:

Nour went on to highlight Microsoft’s pseudo-investigation of the above, amounting to a whitewash. He said Microsoft colluded with the terror regime in Tel Aviv to shift the data off Dutch servers and into Occupied Palestine, sometimes incorrectly referred to as ‘Israel’.

2) Israel published a rebuttal to many of allegations. Long

(direct link, can't download)

(follow the link, can download)

https://embassies.gov.il/usa/en/news/https-govextragovil-foreign-affairs-justthefactsjune19-home

On casualties:

Researchers estimate that, even when accepting Hamas-run MoH figures, Israel’s combatant-to-noncombatant casualty ratio in Gaza (1:1.2–1:1.4) is the lowest recorded in modern urban warfare, lower than in U.S. operations in Iraq (1:3) or in Mosul (1:2.5).

On famine:

• Between October 2023 and October 2025, approximately 2.2 million tons of aid entered Gaza, including nearly 1.7 million tons of food, amounting to roughly 3,000 kcal/capita/day on average, far exceeding the minimum international standard for war zones of 2,100 kcal/capita/day.
• The UN misreported the number of humanitarian aid trucks entering Gaza by tens of thousands.
• Hamas diverted up to 90% of aid, generating $500 million in revenue in a single year.
• Over a dozen “starvation” images used by major outlets such as CNN and The New York Times were staged or omitted crucial context: Every subject had preexisting medical conditions unrelated to hunger.

 

[ZiprHead]

I didn't realize you were such an expert on Gaza and Gazans because you've hid your expertise so well in your responses.

You don't have to be an expert to see the obvious. But I can't help but notice that you didn't suggest I was wrong, much less give a better explanation.
Just a stupid ad hom and a heaping helping of self righteousness.
Tom

You think Gazans like to be used as human shields by Hamas?

Apparently they do, Hamas is in the 20th year of a 4 year term.

Most people would determine that means the Gazans have no choice in the matter. But you do you.

I don't pretend to understand why Gazans keep doing this, but they do. The military buildup to the Oct '23 attack was years in the making. Gazans built military installations under a bunch of civilian infrastructure. They put missle launching platforms all over the place, including the roofs of hospitals.

Don't tell me that the bulk of Gazans didn't know about that.
Tom

You really seem to think Gazans have a choice. Hamas is just as brutal to Gazans who express dissatisfaction with Hamas as they are to Jews.

 

[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.

So you have turned this into a circus about disparate impact rather than addressing the original issue of the large number of military age males who died.

What is your explanation for the disparity?

You’ve turned this into the circus with your denial of reality. I pointed out a double standard. I have no problem with disparate outcomes as suggestive evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

Plenty of alternatives. Targeted assignations of leadership.

I guess it must have slipped your mind that they tried that?

And they got told off by Trump for trying. The Hamas leaders live in Qatar

They didn’t try targeted killings in Gaza. And bombing the crap out of Gaza doesn’t affect Hamas in Qatar.

Of course they didn't try targeted killings. It's a fantasy answer with no connection to what can actually be done.

And while bombing the crap out of Gaza did nothing to the Hamas leadership it severely degraded their ability to fight.

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

You make it sound like Israel is all powerful.

They had limited options and used their available tools well... I think

Of course you feel that way. Those who don’t share such feelings are not necessarily antisemitic nor wrong.

But you aren't evaluating whether your answers are viable.

The question remains what viable paths did they have? Remember, there are a lot of highly trained military leaders in the world that are hostile to Israel. If they saw a better strategy do you think they would not have pointed it out to make Israel look bad?? You think you know more about military strategy than the vast majority of people whose job it is do evaluate such things??

Ah, the argument of authority.

Plenty of alternatives. Targeted assignations of leadership.

I guess it must have slipped your mind that they tried that?

And they got told off by Trump for trying. The Hamas leaders live in Qatar

They didn’t try targeted killings in Gaza. And bombing the crap out of Gaza doesn’t affect Hamas in Qatar.

Of course they didn't try targeted killings. It's a fantasy answer with no connection to what can actually be done.

Since the IDF did targeted killings outside of Gaza, I'd say your response is a fantasy answer.

And while bombing the crap out of Gaza did nothing to the Hamas leadership it severely degraded their ability to fight.

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

You make it sound like Israel is all powerful.

They had limited options and used their available tools well... I think

Of course you feel that way. Those who don’t share such feelings are not necessarily antisemitic nor wrong.

But you aren't evaluating whether your answers are viable.

The question remains what viable paths did they have? Remember, there are a lot of highly trained military leaders in the world that are hostile to Israel. If they saw a better strategy do you think they would not have pointed it out to make Israel look bad?? You think you know more about military strategy than the vast majority of people whose job it is do evaluate such things??

First, you dispute IDF findings on a regular basis. Second, Ami Alyalon (former head of Shin Bet), Tamir Pardo, (former chief of Mossad), Matan Vilnai (former deputy of Israeli army chief), Ehud Barak (former Israeli PM and IDF General), and Moshe Ya'alon (former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff) are examples of Israelis with extensive experience who disagreed with the prosecution of the war. You think you more than those highly trained and experienced people?

Viability depends on a number of factors - goals, timeline and methods - are but 3 of the influences. But if viability is your metric, clearly bombing the shit out of Gaza to eliminate Hamas and get the hostages back alive wasn't viable.

 

[Tigers!]

And every possible course of options has its drawbacks and its benefits.

There was plenty of diverse opinion within Israel as to how to proceed.

There was no diverse opinion within Gaza as how to proceed

Perhaps within Hamas, but do you have any evidence about Gaza?

2 part process
A. How would be know if there was diverse opinion in Gaza? It would keep it's mouth very shut.
B. See A.

The point is that the gov’t of Israel has and had agency. It made choices. And, it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with taking Hamas out or keeping Israelis safe.

The point is that Hamas has and had agency. It made choices, And it appears that some of the factors influencing the choices had nothing to do with living in peace or keeping Gazans safe

No dispute there. Hamas instigated this tragedy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So you have turned this into a circus about disparate impact rather than addressing the original issue of the large number of military age males who died.

What is your explanation for the disparity?

You’ve turned this into the circus with your denial of reality. I pointed out a double standard. I have no problem with disparate outcomes as suggestive evidence.

Then how about addressing the point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question remains what viable paths did they have? Remember, there are a lot of highly trained military leaders in the world that are hostile to Israel. If they saw a better strategy do you think they would not have pointed it out to make Israel look bad?? You think you know more about military strategy than the vast majority of people whose job it is do evaluate such things??

Ah, the argument of authority.

There are a lot of people that would have liked making Israel look bad. None did. Why?

Plenty of alternatives. Targeted assignations of leadership.

I guess it must have slipped your mind that they tried that?

And they got told off by Trump for trying. The Hamas leaders live in Qatar

They didn’t try targeted killings in Gaza. And bombing the crap out of Gaza doesn’t affect Hamas in Qatar.

Of course they didn't try targeted killings. It's a fantasy answer with no connection to what can actually be done.

Since the IDF did targeted killings outside of Gaza, I'd say your response is a fantasy answer.

Look at how much time goes into setting up such things. It's not a viable wartime strategy.

First, you dispute IDF findings on a regular basis. Second, Ami Alyalon (former head of Shin Bet), Tamir Pardo, (former chief of Mossad), Matan Vilnai (former deputy of Israeli army chief), Ehud Barak (former Israeli PM and IDF General), and Moshe Ya'alon (former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff) are examples of Israelis with extensive experience who disagreed with the prosecution of the war. You think you more than those highly trained and experienced people?

Viability depends on a number of factors - goals, timeline and methods - are but 3 of the influences. But if viability is your metric, clearly bombing the shit out of Gaza to eliminate Hamas and get the hostages back alive wasn't viable.

I'm not arguing details of how they go about it. I'm talking about whether they have an alternative substantially different than what they did. Remember, the media is going to report any slight disagreement as big because that's what drives news. (Not specific to Israel--just news need controversy. Things get reported in the way that makes the most controversy. "Nothing that matters happened" doesn't get eyeballs.)

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

We've been over this before. See any areas of devastation you would expect from a 2000# bomb in Gaza? By your numbers there should be lots and lots of mile-across circles of damage. But that's not what keeps getting posted. Instead we see lines of severe damage. Now, what would cause a line? Certainly not a bomb--but a line is exactly what you would expect if that bomb had not exploded in the city, but underneath it in a tunnel. And, at least as of some time ago Israel was averaging less than one person killed per bomb. To accomplish that requires some careful aim and evacuation. The actual death toll is way below what you would get from simply randomly yeeting munitions into Gaza even considering that most such would fall in open areas. And note that many Hamas tunnels were deep--need a big bomb to get down there.

Post some photos of these lines. I posted photos of Khan Younis, a city of 400,000 people. Virtually complete devastation.

And watch the video of Israeli airstrikes. You can generally see the blast going far more up than out--exactly what you would expect from a bomb exploding underground.

I see lots of videos of Israeli bombings that strike the lower side of a building at the base then spreading outward to bring the entire building down and damage neighboring buildings.





I could post dozens more.

 

[Arctish]

The Archives are down for maintenance so I can't link to any of the original posts (they might not be there anyway) but about 12 years ago, maybe more, there was a common refrain being repeated by Israel supporters about Palestinians needing to take out Hamas before there could be peace. I asked them if they were on-board with building up the PA military wing so that it was actually capable of winning that fight, like having PA fighters being well armed, well funded, training with American special forces soldiers, learning counter-terrorism measures from the FBI, access to electronic monitoring equipment, data sharing with Interpol, Mossad, and the CIA, etc.

The howls of outrage were deafening. No one who wanted to give the job of taking out Hamas to the Palestinians was in favor of them having the means to do it. They wanted the Palestinians to be weak, unarmed, and helpless while still criticizing them for not being victorious over a well armed, well supported terrorist organization.

So I have to ask, has anything changed?

What level of support for the Gazans fighting Hamas are people here suggesting the US and other nations provide? Are you in favor of Gazans acquiring the weapons, funds, training, and material support they would need to accomplish that task? Or are you just blaming kids and unarmed civilians for the fact that a terrorist organization runs the isolated enclave they were born into?

 

[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.

So you have turned this into a circus about disparate impact rather than addressing the original issue of the large number of military age males who died.

What is your explanation for the disparity?

You’ve turned this into the circus with your denial of reality. I pointed out a double standard. I have no problem with disparate outcomes as suggestive evidence.

Then how about addressing the point?

Hey ringmaster, I did.