Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Loren Pechtel]

Is that number derived from the poll you cited here. I don't think you read it all the way through. You seem to have missed the significance of the responses from people who hadn't seen the evidence of war crimes who nevertheless overwhelmingly condemned them.

What's the relevance? Yeah, those who have seen the videos are more likely to say they were war crimes, but most of those who have seen the videos do not consider them war crimes. And that has nothing to do with the 57% saying it was the right thing.

That is incorrect.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone who actually read the article could have come up with the idea that those who have seen the videos do not consider what they saw were war crimes. It looks like you're bullshitting, as usual.

But in the interests of clarity, please quote the part of the article that talks about what the people who saw the videos think about them.

Have you not looked at the multiple polls which show that amongst those who have seen the videos the rate of calling them war crimes is much higher, but still far below a majority? It's not that they don't know what happened, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that's proper behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This shit has been going since the 10/7 attacks btw.
This protest, clearly supportive of the Hamas massacre in Israel, happened just one day after the massacre.

From here.

You are correct. That non-violent protest happened after 10/7. Also, the non-standard message someone wrote "By Any Means Necessary" is deplorable and immoral.

Front and center, obviously well done sign that says "From the River to the Sea". That's a dog whistle for genocide.

Original Party Platform of the Likud Party

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty

Whataboutism.

It wasn't but your interpretation leads to your concession.

It doesn't address my point at all, it's just trying to portray the Jews as bad. Whataboutism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas is a terrorist organization whose actions are unjustifiable and unforgiveable. The difference between you and me is that when I meet a terrorist, my first thought is to eschew their methods, not to try and match their level of depravity in my actions toward them, still less to draw new innocents into the cycle of violence who weren't already.

So your response to terror is to give them what they want because the alternative is too bloody?

No, my response to terror is to first of all calm the fuck down, then design an effective response based on interventions that are known to work, rather than committing acts of panicked retributive violence that look to the entire rest of the world like attempted genocide.

Interventions that are known to work: Taking out Iran.

Terrorist movements end when their source of funding goes away. Do you have any example of a terrorist movement that stopped not due to a lack of funding?

 

[bilby]

Hamas is a terrorist organization whose actions are unjustifiable and unforgiveable. The difference between you and me is that when I meet a terrorist, my first thought is to eschew their methods, not to try and match their level of depravity in my actions toward them, still less to draw new innocents into the cycle of violence who weren't already.

So your response to terror is to give them what they want because the alternative is too bloody?

No, my response to terror is to first of all calm the fuck down, then design an effective response based on interventions that are known to work, rather than committing acts of panicked retributive violence that look to the entire rest of the world like attempted genocide.

Interventions that are known to work: Taking out Iran.

Terrorist movements end when their source of funding goes away. Do you have any example of a terrorist movement that stopped not due to a lack of funding?

The IRA?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This shit has been going since the 10/7 attacks btw.
This protest, clearly supportive of the Hamas massacre in Israel, happened just one day after the massacre.

From here.

You are correct. That non-violent protest happened after 10/7. Also, the non-standard message someone wrote "By Any Means Necessary" is deplorable and immoral.

Front and center, obviously well done sign that says "From the River to the Sea". That's a dog whistle for genocide.

Original Party Platform of the Likud Party

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty

Whataboutism.

It wasn't but your interpretation leads to your concession.

It doesn't address my point at all, it's just trying to portray the Jews as bad. Whataboutism.

It shows your point is ridiculous. NOT Whataboutism.

 

[ZiprHead]

Have you not looked at the multiple polls which show that amongst those who have seen the videos the rate of calling them war crimes is much higher, but still far below a majority? It's not that they don't know what happened, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that's proper behavior.

Oh, cool. Now it's multiple poles instead of just one. Citations needed or I call shenanigans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

" Useful idiot" is a term of art. Wikipedia defines it thus:

A useful idiot or useful fool is a person who thinks they are fighting for a cause without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions, and who is cynically manipulated by the cause's leaders or by other political players.[1][2] The term was often used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and psychological manipulation.[1]

It fits well those who are not Hamas supporters but get manipulated by those who are to blame Israel for everything and to protest against Israel.

Excellent point. I see that it can also be applied to those who do not favor killing, injuring, and starving innocent people in Gaza but get manipulated by those who blame Hamas exclusively for all of it and believe that Israel is beyond reproach. There are "useful idiots" on both sides. Those are the ones who consistently defend just one side of the conflict and dismiss all criticism of the other side.

But there's nobody who says Israel has done no wrong.

I think it fair to say that many people blame Hamas exclusively for many of the wrongs that Israel is accused of--for example, targeting civilians and failing to allow enough humanitarian supplies into the area to prevent starvation and treat health crises.

Goalposts.

Targeting: You're mixing up aiming at civilians with accepting that there will be civilians in the blast area.

Supplies: There have been troublemakers in Israel blocking supplies but they are a tiny impediment compared to Hamas. And, once again, the red herring of "starvation". The ministry of health hasn't listed a starvation death in months.

And you're not rebutting the fact that the injuring and "starving" (remarkably ineffectively) innocent people in Gaza is a Hamas mission objective, to be used as a weapon against Israel.

A remarkable case in point. The IDF isn't there to distribute food, and humanitarian aid organizations unanimously blame Israel for blocking adequate supplies to get to the population. The claim (not fact) that the starvation regime is what Hamas wants is an obvious effort to deflect blame from the force that is actively blocking the aid. The "Hamas made us do it" excuse flies in the face of Israel's legal obligation to prioritize the health and safety of civilians in a war zone that they control.

Except the impediment of the Israeli protesters is tiny compared the impediment of Hamas taking the stuff or simply letting it sit there at the border. Removing the Israeli obstacles would have minimal effect, removing the Hamas obstacles would have a major effect. The crossing isn't being saturated, their security checks are not a factor.

 

[Politesse]

Interventions that are known to work: Taking out Iran.

What the hell are you talking about? The US' attempted "management" of Iran was one of the most notorious political fiascos of the past century, which resulted in the collapse of its govenrment, the rise of a brutal theocratic regime, and sponsorship of quite a lot of international terrorism.

 

[Copernicus]

" Useful idiot" is a term of art. Wikipedia defines it thus:

A useful idiot or useful fool is a person who thinks they are fighting for a cause without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions, and who is cynically manipulated by the cause's leaders or by other political players.[1][2] The term was often used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and psychological manipulation.[1]

It fits well those who are not Hamas supporters but get manipulated by those who are to blame Israel for everything and to protest against Israel.

Excellent point. I see that it can also be applied to those who do not favor killing, injuring, and starving innocent people in Gaza but get manipulated by those who blame Hamas exclusively for all of it and believe that Israel is beyond reproach. There are "useful idiots" on both sides. Those are the ones who consistently defend just one side of the conflict and dismiss all criticism of the other side.

But there's nobody who says Israel has done no wrong.

I think it fair to say that many people blame Hamas exclusively for many of the wrongs that Israel is accused of--for example, targeting civilians and failing to allow enough humanitarian supplies into the area to prevent starvation and treat health crises.

Goalposts.

You are the one who moved the goalposts, since I never claimed that the people who "defend just one side of the conflict" also claimed that "Israel has done no wrong". The simply don't want to appear to be blaming Israel for anything, even if they realize that Israel must be blameworthy for some of the bad things that are happening there.

Targeting: You're mixing up aiming at civilians with accepting that there will be civilians in the blast area.

Even you must realize that people ordered to fire artillery, drones, and missiles don't make a decision based on whether they think civilians are in the area. They are aiming at targets, regardless of who might happen to be in the targeted area. The Chef Andres convoy was something else. That seems to have had the effect of shutting down his effort to aid Palestinian civilians. Whether or not that was intentional, it is hard to understand why they would have fired on those vehicles. The Israeli government knew of the convoy in advance, and the drone operators must have been able to see the vehicles in order to target them precisely. Did their cameras also not see the civilians in the area?

Supplies: There have been troublemakers in Israel blocking supplies but they are a tiny impediment compared to Hamas. And, once again, the red herring of "starvation". The ministry of health hasn't listed a starvation death in months.

False. April 9:

Gaza: Israel’s Imposed Starvation Deadly for Children​

And you're not rebutting the fact that the injuring and "starving" (remarkably ineffectively) innocent people in Gaza is a Hamas mission objective, to be used as a weapon against Israel.

A remarkable case in point. The IDF isn't there to distribute food, and humanitarian aid organizations unanimously blame Israel for blocking adequate supplies to get to the population. The claim (not fact) that the starvation regime is what Hamas wants is an obvious effort to deflect blame from the force that is actively blocking the aid. The "Hamas made us do it" excuse flies in the face of Israel's legal obligation to prioritize the health and safety of civilians in a war zone that they control.

Except the impediment of the Israeli protesters is tiny compared the impediment of Hamas taking the stuff or simply letting it sit there at the border. Removing the Israeli obstacles would have minimal effect, removing the Hamas obstacles would have a major effect. The crossing isn't being saturated, their security checks are not a factor.

Then why is it that no organization delivering humanitarian aid blames Hamas? I think I know what your kneejerk answer would be to that, but I would expect there to be at least some of these organizations that would be blaming Hamas for the obstacles. I have seen no evidence of that, but maybe you can persuade me otherwise. Or perhaps you just think that these organizations are all in cahoots with Hamas terrorists.

 

[Arctish]

Is that number derived from the poll you cited here. I don't think you read it all the way through. You seem to have missed the significance of the responses from people who hadn't seen the evidence of war crimes who nevertheless overwhelmingly condemned them.

What's the relevance? Yeah, those who have seen the videos are more likely to say they were war crimes, but most of those who have seen the videos do not consider them war crimes. And that has nothing to do with the 57% saying it was the right thing.

That is incorrect.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone who actually read the article could have come up with the idea that those who have seen the videos do not consider what they saw were war crimes. It looks like you're bullshitting, as usual.

But in the interests of clarity, please quote the part of the article that talks about what the people who saw the videos think about them.

Have you not looked at the multiple polls which show that amongst those who have seen the videos the rate of calling them war crimes is much higher, but still far below a majority?

I'm going to say "no" in the (somewhat forlorn) hopes you will post links, with quotes and highlights of the parts that support your claims.

It's not that they don't know what happened, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that's proper behavior.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hamas is a terrorist organization whose actions are unjustifiable and unforgiveable. The difference between you and me is that when I meet a terrorist, my first thought is to eschew their methods, not to try and match their level of depravity in my actions toward them, still less to draw new innocents into the cycle of violence who weren't already.

Remind us of whom you're accusing Loren of trying to rape.

So your response to terror is to give them what they want because the alternative is too bloody?

No, my response to terror is to first of all calm ... down, then design an effective response based on interventions that are known to work, rather than committing acts of panicked retributive violence that look to the entire rest of the world like attempted genocide.

Thank you, Donald Trump. I'll see your "look to the entire rest of the world like attempted genocide" and raise you Hamas is genocidal, Israel is not genocidal, their respective behavior proves this conclusively, and everyone here knows it. The constant unevidenced accusations of genocide against Israel are of a piece with DJT's constant unevidenced accusations of stealing the 2020 election against Biden.

 

[laughing dog]

Hamas is a terrorist organization whose actions are unjustifiable and unforgiveable. The difference between you and me is that when I meet a terrorist, my first thought is to eschew their methods, not to try and match their level of depravity in my actions toward them, still less to draw new innocents into the cycle of violence who weren't already.

So your response to terror is to give them what they want because the alternative is too bloody?

No, my response to terror is to first of all calm the fuck down, then design an effective response based on interventions that are known to work, rather than committing acts of panicked retributive violence that look to the entire rest of the world like attempted genocide.

Interventions that are known to work: Taking out Iran.

I an afraid to ask, how does take out Iran in a way that is known to work?

 

[Jarhyn]

You're mixing up aiming at civilians with accepting that there will be civilians in the blast area

From the evidence of history and military action in general, there is a clear distinction here in that the numbers we see coming out of the events, and the frequency of "collateral damage" here is much higher than other such situations.

It's implausible, given how far the collateral damage is above the norm, that it is "aiming at combatants and getting a couple civilians too" and "aiming at civilians with a fig leaf of 'there were some Hamas there'."

It reminds me honestly of a trend I see in movies where there's an assassination attempt, and there's this big consternation "how to kill the bad guy without killing their spouse and child".

The numbers we are seeing are clearly the result of the thought process "three for the price of one", not "spare the spouse and child".

 

[Bomb#20]

I knew they were evil.

You say it sarcastically, but indeed they are evil. Remember, they started this war by brutally attacking Israel.

They are not psychopathic. They had reasons, that made sense in their situation.

Thank you, John "No, no. A psychopath kills for no reason. I kill for money." Cusack. It's a popular meme, and it's nonsense. Of course psychopaths have reasons that make sense in their situation. Of course the 10/7 terrorists are psychopathic. Being psychopathic is part of their situation.

One of their major reasons for their decision to attack was that they (like you) foolishly believe that evil is a real thing.

In the exact same situation, you would be one of them too.

Of course he would -- that's a tautology. In order to be in the exact same situation in the first place, Derec would have to have their exact same brain malfunction.

Evil is a cartoonish nonsense promoted by theists and other empathy-deficient non-thinkers to "explain" why people don't behave as they wish, without taking the trouble and effort to grasp that they are real people who have different experiences, but remain fundamentally human.

Dude, you personally have accused other people of immorality. I don't know what fairy tale you need to tell yourself about human thought processes to convince yourself that you're an enlightened empathetic thinker because you use the word "immoral" while they're all empathy-deficient non-thinkers because they use the word "evil", but whatever that fairy tale is, it's self-congratulatory claptrap. "Evil" and "immoral" mean the same thing: that the part of the perpetrator's brain with the function of implementing ethical constraints is failing to do its job. "Evil" is not an accusation that the person is not fundamentally human. Duh! Nobody calls a rapist evil when the rapist is a duck.

 

[laughing dog]

Dude, you personally have accused other people of immorality. I don't know what fairy tale you need to tell yourself about human thought processes to convince yourself that you're an enlightened empathetic thinker because you use the word "immoral" while they're all empathy-deficient non-thinkers because they use the word "evil", but whatever that fairy tale is, it's self-congratulatory claptrap. "Evil" and "immoral" mean the same thing: that the part of the perpetrator's brain with the function of implementing ethical constraints is failing to do its job. "Evil" is not an accusation that the person is not fundamentally human. Duh! Nobody calls a rapist evil when the rapist is a duck.

I don’t think evil and immoral are the ssme thing at all. I see the term evil to mean something much more than just immoral. My limited powers of observation suggest to me that I am not unique in that distinction.

 

[Jarhyn]

[it is] foolish[ly] [to] believe that evil is a real thing

I will take issue at that; certainly "asymmetric rejections of the generalized goals of others" exists. Fairly universally we view unilateral violation of consent as something "evil", when approached from a direction of ethical philosophy (or at least most of us), and this does create "sides", wherein one side acknowledges that the answer to the paradox of tolerance is that accepting tolerance is the price of requesting it.

As such, we can pretty well identify the reality of such unilateral intolerance and give it a name: evil.

Now, you could argue that this very real phenomena is not appropriate to call "evil", but you can't claim reasonably that this thing I described does not exist, nor that it fails to be a problem.

 

[Elixir]

Of course the 10/7 terrorists are psychopathic. Being psychopathic is part of their situation.

I could say the same about the 1/6 terrorists. But I doubt that Loren or anyone else here would excuse killing 30,000 trumpsuckers in response.

 

[Elixir]

Just because it says something you don't want to hear doesn't make it wrong.

Just because you like the look of the numbers presented, doesn’t make them accurate. Even YOU have pointed out that it would be dangerous for any Gazan to admit that they oppose Hamas’ actions.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Evil" and "immoral" mean the same thing: that the part of the perpetrator's brain with the function of implementing ethical constraints is failing to do its job. "Evil" is not an accusation that the person is not fundamentally human. Duh! Nobody calls a rapist evil when the rapist is a duck.

I don’t think evil and immoral are the ssme thing at all. I see the term evil to mean something much more than just immoral. My limited powers of observation suggest to me that I am not unique in that distinction.

What do you think the difference in their meanings is, and what have you observed that makes you think that?

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course the 10/7 terrorists are psychopathic. Being psychopathic is part of their situation.

I could say the same about the 1/6 terrorists. But I doubt that Loren or anyone else here would excuse killing 30,000 trumpsuckers in response.

Do you live in some parallel universe where Israeli police officers can just drive up to 1300 Hamas operatives' homes and arrest them? Is it the same universe where the 1/6 terrorists raped and maimed and murdered 1200 congress members and said they were going to do it again?