Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

Loren Pechtel said:

And here's more of the problem. We understand your position--it's just we are following it to it's logical conclusion and you are refusing to look at said conclusion. In logic terms:

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

Click to expand...

Um, don't do that. In logic terms,
is a fallacy.

If p->q and q is false, p is false. If p->q, that's the same thing as ~q->~p. So if you have a good case that p->q and a good case that q is false, then you can construct a good case that p is false. So say "You say p, and here's why p is false." and present that case. When you say that, you'll be right. When you say "You also say q.", you're wrong, because he didn't also say q. Your discussion will go a lot better for both of you if you take this advice.

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Tigers! said:

laughing dog said:

IMO it is sociopathic to defend the needless slaughter of civilians for any reason.

IMO it is delusional to assert that Israel’s tactics are the only feasible form of defense.

Click to expand...

To avoid being delusional could you could tell us some the other forms of defence tactics Israel could employ?

Click to expand...

Here’s an easy one - respecting their designated safety zones by not bombing them until they designate a different one.

Click to expand...

You have not established that they didn't.

Click to expand...

Here are two latest bombings (there are more)
 September_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack
 13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack

The point is that these are safe zones declared by Israel. So unless the IDF rescinds that designation officially, they are bombing a safe zone.

Arctish said:

Tigers! said:

I have been paying attentionto this thread. You have said that Hamas should not be a part of any Gazan future but you have never given any practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim. Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.

Click to expand...

It was multiple posts.

The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region. We have no reason to think the same won't hold true for the Middle East, only racist nonsense about the character of Semitic people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

Click to expand...

How many lives on both sides of WWII could have been saved, if only the Marshall Plan had begun in 1944 instead of 1948! But the Allies just kept on shooting and bombing Germans, no doubt because Americans believed racist nonsense about the character of German people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Here's a Javelin, the time machine is going to yeet you to Braunau am Inn at midnight of April 20, 1889 but the link can't be maintained, you snap back in 30 seconds. What do you do in those 30 seconds?

Click to expand...

Do I retain the memory of who that baby would become? Think about that question, Loren, it's important.

Click to expand...

So it's your perception of what you did vs the actual outcome?

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Here's a Javelin, the time machine is going to yeet you to Braunau am Inn at midnight of April 20, 1889 but the link can't be maintained, you snap back in 30 seconds. What do you do in those 30 seconds?

Click to expand...

Do I retain the memory of who that baby would become? Think about that question, Loren, it's important.

Click to expand...

So it's your perception of what you did vs the actual outcome?

Click to expand...

I'm not answering your hypothetical scenario. My concern is that you are justifying the deaths of individuals based on a perceived, non-imminent threat. While Hamas combatants pose a clear and immediate danger, the same cannot be said for Palestinian civilians, especially children. Your argument seems to imply that these children are destined to become future Hitlers, which you use to rationalize the kind of decision you'd entertain in a time-travel scenario. Why else would you ask if I’d kill the infant, in what appears to be an attempt to persuade me to support the killing of Palestinian children?

Swammerdami said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Swammerdami said:

And why do anti-Netanyahu and anti-Israel morph in your mind into "anti-Jewish"?

Click to expand...

I didn't address it because it's a strawman.

Click to expand...

YOU insist on inferring "anti-Jewish" from "anti-Netanyahu" and then accuse us rational thinkers of inventing "Strawmen"??
Are you auditioning to write for The Onion?

Click to expand...

You're the one that's pretending it's something other than anti-Jewish in the first place.

Israel is being attacked because they threw off the repression. This started in 1948 with the announcement of the creation of Israel. Netanyahu wasn't in charge, he can't be the cause. Israel had simply declared it's existence. That means the trigger is the existence of Israel.

None of the supposed causes existed when the attacks started and thus can't be the cause of it.

Arctish said:

The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region. We have no reason to think the same won't hold true for the Middle East, only racist nonsense about the character of Semitic people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

Click to expand...

Nobody was trying to stir up another war in Europe so the Marshall Plan worked.

Arctish said:

I said if you want peace you have to allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper. You can't expect peace when you keep fucking them over.

Click to expand...

You realize they're being fucked over by their own leaders? They used to be the most prosperous non-oil Arab nation--and they threw that away with the second intifada. Prosperity is the enemy of the terrorists, they ensure it can't happen.

Arctish said:

I said the PA should be rewarded for renouncing violence and being committed to seeking a diplomatic resolution via the international community. I said the Rights of the Palestinian people to remain in their homes and participate in the government that rules over them should be openly respected and fully supported. No more lip service. It's time to make a stand.

Click to expand...

The PA that still considers terrorist pensions to be the most important budget item?

Arctish said:

Hamas must be militarily defeated. It must be politically defeated, too. The new interim government of Gaza should be run by the PA until new elections are held ASAP.

Click to expand...

And who is there to elect? Hamas ensures there's no rivals.

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

2) Actions speak louder than words--you condemn Hamas but support their tactics.

Click to expand...

That is a blatant slander and pretty ironic coming from someone who condemns ethnic cleansing by Isreal while supporting their ethnic cleansing tactics.

Click to expand...

"Support" as in demand that their human shield tactics be allowed to tie Israel's hands.

And where is Israel doing any ethnic cleansing? A lot of people got displaced in Gaza but that's not cleansing as there won't be any change in the population balance in the end.

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

I have no idea if a deal could have been arranged nor what might have entailed if it had materialized. Neither do you. But since you invoke history, it is pretty clear from history that Hamas takes hostages in order to make prisoner swaps.

My point was that if a prisoner swap had been done, some of the death and destruction would likely have been avoided. Nothing in your response rebuts that.

Click to expand...

The last prisoner swap ended up killing a lot more Israelis than the prisoners they got back. Thus it was a very bad deal for Israel--so of course the world is trying to cram it down their throat.

Click to expand...

The only entity cramming anything down anyone’s throats is you with your straw men.

Nothing you have written rebut the observation that an exchange would have likely avoided the massive destruction and death of the IDF’s war.

Click to expand...

You are the one claiming things will be different than historical precedent.

Click to expand...

Yet another straw man.

Click to expand...

Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. You are making an assertion that things would be very different than in the past …

Click to expand...

No I am not, which is what makes it a straw man.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are.

I'm pointing out that the last swap resulted in more dead Israelis than recovered Israelis. A bunch of the people from the swap were part of 10/7.

Why would a swap now not have that same outcome? What's different?

Click to expand...

Nothing is different, you behave as if Gazans don’t count at all.

Click to expand...

Nothing is different, but you are saying it would have a different outcome. You realize that's one of the definitions of insanity?

And I'm not saying the Gazans don't count. I'm saying that you're arguing for Gazan civilian lives to be used as a weapon.

laughing dog said:

Here are two latest bombings (there are more)
 September_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack

Click to expand...

There is far less info about this strike than about the July strike below. Still, it seems that there were Hamas fighters that were targeted there.

 13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack

Click to expand...

This was an attack that successfully targeted Mohammed Deif, the second-in-command of Al-Qassam-Brigades (the "military" wing of Hamas), and the commander of the Khan Yunis brigade Rafa Salama (making his rank equivalent of a one star general). Note that the death toll is given by Hamas and is not independently verified, and it furthermore does not differentiate between combatants and civilians. Not even a gender or adult/minor breakdown is provided.
Hamas Health Ministry has largely stopped providing demographic breakdowns of the casualties of airstrikes because they show that they are targeting militants. For example, the Tal-el-Sultan attack in Rafah in May, as reported had 23 "women, children and elderly" among 45 fatalities. That means that 22, almost half, were non-elderly adult men. But that demographic is less than 1/4 of the population (half are under 18, half of the rest are women, and then you have to subtract a couple of percent for the "elderly"), making them overrepresented by a factor of 2! That is highly unlikely if it wasn't a strike on militants. Note also that "children" refers to <18s, and Hamas and other terror groups routinely recruit minor teenagers. So not even all of those designated as "children" are civilians.

Note also the secondary explosion that indicates that there were weapons or explosives stored at the site that was hit.

The point is that these are safe zones declared by Israel. So unless the IDF rescinds that designation officially, they are bombing a safe zone.

Click to expand...

Should a safe zone be a safe zone for Hamas commanders and fighters? Is it ok for it to be used by Hamas to launch attacks on Israel?
A "safe zone" is only viable if all the belligerents respect it. The moment Hamas starts using it for military purposes, it becomes a legitimate military target. Same with hospitals and other civilian infrastructure.

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

I have no idea if a deal could have been arranged nor what might have entailed if it had materialized. Neither do you. But since you invoke history, it is pretty clear from history that Hamas takes hostages in order to make prisoner swaps.

My point was that if a prisoner swap had been done, some of the death and destruction would likely have been avoided. Nothing in your response rebuts that.

Click to expand...

The last prisoner swap ended up killing a lot more Israelis than the prisoners they got back. Thus it was a very bad deal for Israel--so of course the world is trying to cram it down their throat.

Click to expand...

The only entity cramming anything down anyone’s throats is you with your straw men.

Nothing you have written rebut the observation that an exchange would have likely avoided the massive destruction and death of the IDF’s war.

Click to expand...

You are the one claiming things will be different than historical precedent.

Click to expand...

Yet another straw man.

Click to expand...

Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. You are making an assertion that things would be very different than in the past …

Click to expand...

No I am not, which is what makes it a straw man.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are.

I'm pointing out that the last swap resulted in more dead Israelis than recovered Israelis. A bunch of the people from the swap were part of 10/7.

Why would a swap now not have that same outcome? What's different?

Click to expand...

Nothing is different, you behave as if Gazans don’t count at all.

Click to expand...

Nothing is different, but you are saying it would have a different outcome. You realize that's one of the definitions of insanity?

Click to expand...

Not saying that at all. IMO, if there were a hostage swap instead of an invasion, there would be less death and destruction overall.

Loren Pechtel said:

And I'm not saying the Gazans don't count. I'm saying that you're arguing for Gazan civilian lives to be used as a weapon.

Click to expand...

I don't understand where you get these idiotic and slanderous interpretations of yours. Perhaps it is to deflect from you underlying sociopathic defense of slaughtering of civilians as the only conceivable course of action by the IDF?

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You say Israel can't bomb children in self defense. That means that Hamas is absolutely immune from any form of area attack, they can walk right over Israel and accomplish their goal of genocide. Despite all your protests that you don't support Hamas you are taking the position that stopping them is immoral.

Click to expand...

The idea that refraining from bombing children means you can’t confront or defeat an enemy is not only absurd,it’s downright lazy. No one is suggesting that Hamas should get a free pass to commit atrocities. The focus is on employing military tactics that don’t involve the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, especially children.

Click to expand...

Realistically, Hamas has the ability to ensure said confrontations result in civilian deaths.

Saying no civilian deaths is saying no defense.

Gospel said:

Even the Israeli government isn’t approaching this war in the same way you, DrZoidberg, and TomC (via pathetic like button) are yapping about. Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has spoken about avoiding civilian casualties and his goal of removing Hamas to pave the way for Palestinians to return and govern themselves. Your, DrZoidbergs and TomC's rhetoric, on the other hand, is inflammatory and completely misrepresents both Israel’s stance and my own arguments.

Click to expand...

And you are ascribing a false position to us. We don't like civilian casualties--it's just we don't like letting Hamas commit genocide even more.

Click to expand...

I never demanded a casualty-free war, a ludicrous expectation no sane person holds. My call for caution, echoed even by the IDF's own stated operational guidelines, was a direct rebuke to the barbaric rhetoric that paints every Palestinian as a legitimate target, conflating them with Hamas. This poisonous narrative, which you yourself seem eager to defend, spits in the face of the very principles Israel purports to uphold. Let's be clear: I'm not inventing this stance; you've actively championed it.

Click to expand...

Nobody's painting every Palestinian as a legitimate target.

What you seem to miss is that not a legitimate target doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong for them to be collateral damage.

Gospel said:

Stop your disingenuous attempts to twist my words. My critique of the appalling rhetoric spewed by DrZoidberg and yourself is precisely that—a critique of your rhetoric. It is not, and never has been, an attack on Israel or the Jewish people as a whole. Your blatant conflation of these distinct entities is a cheap and intellectually bankrupt tactic designed to silence legitimate criticism. I will not be deterred by such transparently manipulative maneuvers.

Click to expand...

You realize I disagree with him on many of the details? I do not think you support Hamas, you've just fallen for their Israel-is-the-problem propaganda. And I don't think Islam is inherently a problem--the problem is that Islam has a lot of support for terrorism. It's mostly been Iran behind it but both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have turned to terrorism as a means of dealing with their own radicals (hey, here's money to go bash those guys)--and in both cases it's been coming back to bite them.

Derec said:

laughing dog said:

Here are two latest bombings (there are more)
 September_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack

Click to expand...

There is far less info about this strike than about the July strike below. Still, it seems that there were Hamas fighters that were targeted there.

 13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack

Click to expand...

This was an attack that successfully targeted Mohammed Deif, the second-in-command of Al-Qassam-Brigades (the "military" wing of Hamas), and the commander of the Khan Yunis brigade Rafa Salama (making his rank equivalent of a one star general). Note that the death toll is given by Hamas and is not independently verified, and it furthermore does not differentiate between combatants and civilians. Not even a gender or adult/minor breakdown is provided.
Note also the secondary explosion that indicates that there were weapons or explosives stored at the site that was hit.

The point is that these are safe zones declared by Israel. So unless the IDF rescinds that designation officially, they are bombing a safe zone.

Click to expand...

Should a safe zone be a safe zone for Hamas commanders and fighters? Is it ok for it to be used by Hamas to launch attacks on Israel?
A "safe zone" is only viable if all the belligerents respect it. The moment Hamas starts using it for military purposes, it becomes a legitimate military target. Same with hospitals and other civilian infrastructure.

Click to expand...

To be clear - I have established that the IDF bombs safe zones.

A zone is either safe or it is not. No belligerent should designate a zone as safe and then bomb it. There is nothing stopping the IDF as officially announcing the zone as no longer safe. Instead of justifying the violation of the safe zone on the basis of expediency, do you have any evidence that the IDF did rescind the safe zone designation.

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

Click to expand...

Just because you believe that criticizing Israeli policy weakens Israel doesn't make it true. There's your problem.

Click to expand...

Once again, you're not even addressing it.

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You are failing to do so because you are considering anything they do in self defense to be unacceptable.

Click to expand...

You're saying my endorsement of Israel's aim to eliminate Hamas means I actually disapprove of it? I don't follow your logic.

Click to expand...

No, you want to see Hamas gone. You just aren't considering what is actually going on there and are playing right into their hand. By far the most powerful weapon Hamas has is it's own dead civilians--but it only works if you let it work.

laughing dog said:

To be clear - I have established that the IDF bombs safe zones.

Click to expand...

You have established that IDF bombs terrorists/militants operating from "safe zones".

A zone is either safe or it is not. No belligerent should designate a zone as safe and then bomb it.

Click to expand...

Safety of a civilian safe zone is contingent upon it remaining a civilian zone.

There is nothing stopping the IDF as officially announcing the zone as no longer safe. Instead of justifying the violation of the safe zone on the basis of expediency, do you have any evidence that the IDF did rescind the safe zone designation.

Click to expand...

It was Hamas that violated the safe zone by using it for their own purposes.

Note that Al Mawasi is still relatively safe compared to urban warfare in built-up areas, especially in the north.

Bomb#20 said:

Loren Pechtel said:

And here's more of the problem. We understand your position--it's just we are following it to it's logical conclusion and you are refusing to look at said conclusion. In logic terms:

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

Click to expand...

Um, don't do that. In logic terms,

​

You say p.​

We say p->q.​

Thus we say you also say q.​

​

is a fallacy.

If p->q and q is false, p is false. If p->q, that's the same thing as ~q->~p. So if you have a good case that p->q and a good case that q is false, then you can construct a good case that p is false. So say "You say p, and here's why p is false." and present that case. When you say that, you'll be right. When you say "You also say q.", you're wrong, because he didn't also say q. Your discussion will go a lot better for both of you if you take this advice.

Click to expand...

Q isn't false, it's a matter of whether we consider q good or bad. Let's try a comparison: p = unprotected sex, q = babies. If you have unprotected sex expect babies.

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

You are failing to do so because you are considering anything they do in self defense to be unacceptable.

Click to expand...

You're saying my endorsement of Israel's aim to eliminate Hamas means I actually disapprove of it? I don't follow your logic.

Click to expand...

No, you want to see Hamas gone. You just aren't considering what is actually going on there and are playing right into their hand. By far the most powerful weapon Hamas has is it's own dead civilians--but it only works if you let it work.

Click to expand...

The justifications for Israel's incursion into Gaza were the dead Israelis and the return of the hostages. So, would you agree those justifications only work if you let them work? And if you do agree, then why should it only work in one instance and then the other?

I ask to illustrate the sociopathy underlying your argument because I find it repugnant on every level.

Derec said:

laughing dog said:

To be clear - I have established that the IDF bombs safe zones.

Click to expand...

You have established that IDF bombs terrorists/militants operating from "safe zones".

Click to expand...

Not just terrorist/militants, but civilians as well.

Derec said:

A zone is either safe or it is not. No belligerent should designate a zone as safe and then bomb it.

Click to expand...

Safety of a civilian safe zone is contingent upon it remaining a civilian zone.

There is nothing stopping the IDF as officially announcing the zone as no longer safe. Instead of justifying the violation of the safe zone on the basis of expediency, do you have any evidence that the IDF did rescind the safe zone designation.

Click to expand...

It was Hamas that violated the safe zone by using it for their own purposes.

Click to expand...

What stops the IDF from announcing its cancellation of the safe zone designation? Come on, instead of deflecting from the issue by appealing to expediency, answer the question.

laughing dog said:

Loren Pechtel said:

laughing dog said:

Tigers! said:

laughing dog said:

IMO it is sociopathic to defend the needless slaughter of civilians for any reason.

IMO it is delusional to assert that Israel’s tactics are the only feasible form of defense.

Click to expand...

To avoid being delusional could you could tell us some the other forms of defence tactics Israel could employ?

Click to expand...

Here’s an easy one - respecting their designated safety zones by not bombing them until they designate a different one.

Click to expand...

You have not established that they didn't.

Click to expand...

Here are two latest bombings (there are more)
 September_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack
 13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack

The point is that these are safe zones declared by Israel. So unless the IDF rescinds that designation officially, they are bombing a safe zone.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember something about the first one, in looking for it I find:

article said:

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Israel has shifted the boundaries of the evacuation zone numerous times, claiming that Hamas fighters have used it to take shelter.

Click to expand...

In other words, your handwave assertion that the original boundaries are still in effect is definitely disproven.

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.