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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

People are abusing the word genocide (and hyperbole) in general in Israel v Hamas. Something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I think many want to view the attackers as psychopaths is because it helps place a veil over the attackers that separates them from others.

Psychopath is a mental condition. I find it unlikely that Hamas has a huge supply of them. At Tiananmen Square, did the Government replace the soldiers who didn't follow orders with a fresh group of Psychopaths or did they bring in people that were disconnected with the area? These young people are lied to, manipulated, used as fodder. If there are any psychopaths, I'd imagine they actually rise up the ranks. Instead you have teens that know nothing but what they've been indoctrinated, all so that they'll do exactly what their puppet masters want them to do. I'm sure some are true believers, but I doubt very much that they are all psychopaths.

 

[TomC]

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.

Can you give me an example of another situation like this?
One where over two million people are run by a terrorist group with no official state affiliation? One where the leadership seems to have little concern for any of the population beyond their usefulness as either militants or human shields?
I don't know about one.

So much of what is going on there is nearly unprecedented it's hard to find words to accurately describe the situation.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

People are abusing the word genocide (and hyperbole) in general in Israel v Hamas. Something doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong.

Ah, the old "No True Genocide" fallacy. I do sometimes cage with the phrase "religious ethnocide" for this very reason, but I don't really think this argument is made in good faith, either. No, a thing doesn't have to be genocide to be wrong. But neither does a thing have to be the exactly and only the Holocaust to count as an attempted genocide. Israel does not intend for the Palestinian people to exist on the other side of this conflict, at least not while in possession of their own land, faith, and culture. Their stance does not resemble that of the Nazi Party's with regard to themselves in 1945. But it is extremely similar to the Nazi Party's stance with regard to themselves in 1932.

And Hamas doesn't even hide the fact that they want Israel dead or vacated. The only thing preventing their executing that desire is the fact that they have no means whatsoever to make that happen. The Hamas Covenant's second line is a quotation:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

There's no winning this game, no "right" party to back, except for the large numbers of global citizens, Jews and Muslims and heretics alike, who truly do not desire to see this conflict end in the extermination of a people. And those that may currently support the conflict but might be convinced not to. And there are a great many people of both kinds in the world.

 

[bilby]

"Evil" and "immoral" mean the same thing

No, they don't. Evil is the state of constant and even deliberate immorality, chosen as a direct challenge to "Good".

A person can (hypothetically) be evil - such a person would consciously elect to take the immoral option over a more moral alternative, because he is fundamentally in favour of immorality of any and all kinds.

A person cannot be immoral; His actions in a given situation can be, but observing him to choose an immoral action in one circumstance does not allow us to predict that he would choose a different but always immoral action in a different circumstance, as we could were he "evil".

If John kills his wife because he made an immoral decision to do so, that tells us bupkis about how John would act if he found an unsecured and unguarded bank vault.

If, on the other hand, John killed his wife because he is evil, we can be sure that he would also rob a bank given the opportunity, and would also, if he could, kick a cute puppy, put pineapple on your pizza, and build a doomsday machine to destroy the world.

If you catch a person in an immoral act, you can take steps to educate him into behaving differently the next time he has to choose. He can, in theory, be rehabilitated. But if a person is evil, only execution or life imprisonment could ever protect society from them.

Evil is the absurd, cartoonish, super-exagerated essense of immorality.

It's not mere immorality, it's defined as irredeemable, uncaring, and unavoidable.

It's one horn of the absurd Abrahamic false dichotomy of the struggle between good and evil (though of course that absurdity pre-dates Abrahamic religion - that's just its current preferred refuge).

No person is evil, just as no person is good. Real people do both moral and immoral things, and are not limited to only one of these two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The general case is getting whoever is funding the terror to quit it. Iran's the one doing it here. And we did absolutely nothing about it--our deal was about nukes and it was a joke. Ditching it was one of the moron's few stopped clocks.

 

[Politesse]

The general case is getting whoever is funding the terror to quit it. Iran's the one doing it here. And we did absolutely nothing about it--our deal was about nukes and it was a joke. Ditching it was one of the moron's few stopped clocks.

I meant the creation of modern Iran in the first place, which resulted from exactly the kind of context-blind international meddling you're advocating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

One of those pictures is almost certainly a fake. Why should we think the rest is more realistic?

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​

HRW is not remotely credible.

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.

This is a perennial problem with aid--if you tell the truth you won't be allowed to do anything. So they soothe their conscience (and keep their jobs) by keeping silent. If the area isn't so messed up that this is a major factor then it's unlikely aid (apart from natural disasters--military forces, especially shipboard military forces, are great at disaster relief because they are designed to be self-sufficient and don't put a load on local resources) is needed in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Why should I bother with evidence you've already been presented and ignored?

I don't recall if it was this thread or the main war one but I've posted multiple polls.

 

[laughing dog]

"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?

I think evil is a special horrific form of immorality. Most people that I have observed reserve the description of evil for genocide, horrific mass murders ( e.g. Charles Manson murders), apartheid, etc… Typically lying or adultery may be viewed as immoral but not evil.

To be fair, my sampling is limited by my general lack of awareness on such issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The Jews are to blame. Ignore facts if necessary to reach this conclusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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'."

And the Marianas Trench is above sea level.

I've already pointed out that Israel stands at 6x as good a record as the norm for urban combat. And with the garbage recently discovered in the Ministry of Health data it's probably more like 7x.

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".

The assassin has plenty of time and freedom to operate.

Bin Laden's family (at least what part of it was there) died with him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We have the freedom to operate in hunting them down. Israel does not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Then it would be 100% support and you wouldn't have most everyone saying the aid distribution is political. I'm surprised the pollsters can do it, but the answers do not sound like what you would get if Hamas was rigging it.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

We have the freedom to operate in hunting them down. Israel does not.

Nonsense. Israel has the freedom to hunt them down. It is just more costly difficult, snd slower.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Hamas doesn't even hide the fact that they want Israel dead or vacated. The only thing preventing their executing that desire is the fact that they have no means whatsoever to make that happen. The Hamas Covenant's second line is a quotation:

Just because they can't do 100% doesn't make them not a threat.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

There's no winning this game, no "right" party to back, except for the large numbers of global citizens, Jews and Muslims and heretics alike, who truly do not desire to see this conflict end in the extermination of a people. And those that may currently support the conflict but might be convinced not to. And there are a great many people of both kinds in the world.

I do agree there is no winning.

And while there are many people who don't want to see either side destroyed reality isn't subject to a ballot. So long as anyone is pouring large sums into terror there will be war. Doesn't matter if 999 out of a thousand don't want that, if they don't actually act to stop it the war will continue.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Harvard Faculty Overwhelmingly Vote to Allow Seniors Disciplined Over Encampment to Graduate | News | The Harvard Crimson

Members of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences overwhelmingly voted to add 13 students back to the list of degrees recommended for conferral in May after they were initially barred from graduating at Commencement over their participation in the pro-Palestine encampment.

www.thecrimson.com

 

[bilby]

HRW is not remotely credible.

No source that doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your positions is remotely credible.

We can tell, because that's the deginition of credibility: Agrees with Loren Pechtel.

 

[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.

Then it would be 100% support

Total non- sequitur. Dangerous doesn’t mean impossible. Measurable difference could leave reality anywhere from <1% to >56%.

and you wouldn't have most everyone saying the aid distribution is political.

Wut?
Oh, right. If Hamas had zero support, as you represent my position. See above.
Stop with the strawmen Loren.

I'm surprised the pollsters can do it, but the answers do not sound like what you would get if Hamas was rigging it.

I did not say Hamas was rigging it. I said fear of Hamas could influence the poll results.
STOP WITH THE STRAWMEN LOREN.

 

[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.

Do you live in some parallel universe where Israeli police officers can just drive up to 1300 Hamas operatives' homes and arrest them?

Nah. Just one where collateral deaths to retributive actions rarely require 10x the number of actual enemy. I understand that due to it being the Middle East with religious insanity everywhere, one person’s atrocity is another’s righteous action, one person’s genocide might be another person’s regrettable but unavoidable tragedy. And, as in this case it could be one despotic leader’s political life that requires the genocidal action under consideration.