Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

I never said they weren’t. What’s your usual stupid point here?

You pretend that Hamas is somehow apart from Gaza, rather than being an integral part of Gazan society.
You also pretend that only Hamas took part in the 10/7 atrocities.

 

[TomC]

Clipping a portion of a response to change its meaning is disingenuous.

I responded to the part of the post I quoted. What's hard about that?

How do you know Gazan civilians dug the tunnels and, if they did, that they knew they were to be used for?

I knew about the tunnels and what they were being used for. Are you saying that Gazans are too stupid to understand it?

I don't think that they are. I think that they knew better than I did what the goal was.
Tom

 

[Derec]

It should further be noted that Pakistan is also a parliamentary democracy and — ye gads! — even elected a woman as prime minister — something yet to be achieved in the good ol’ USA when it comes to president.

Electing a president more of less directly is very different than the parliament electing a prime minister.
Take France as an example of a hybrid system where the president is not a ceremonial role but that still has a prime minister.
France never elected a female president, but they had female prime ministers.

Still, just because Pakistan had Benazir Bhutto, a nepo baby, as prime minister does not make them secular. I mean, they are officially an "Islamic Republic".

TomC is clueless whereof he speaks. But do keep on slurring all Muslims as terrorists and against democracy.

Pakistan is a bad example for democracy given their penchant for military coups.
Also, nobody is saying that "all Muslims are terrorists". But you must admit that there is a terrorism problem in modern-day Islam, especially political Islam.

 

[laughing dog]

Clipping a portion of a response to change its meaning is disingenuous.

I responded to the part of the post I quoted. What's hard about that?

That is nothing hard about being disingenuous. If it was hard, you couldn't do it.

How do you know Gazan civilians dug the tunnels and, if they did, that they knew they were to be used for?

I knew about the tunnels and what they were being used for. Are you saying that Gazans are too stupid to understand it?

I don't think that they are. I think that they knew better than I did what the goal was.
Tom

You didn't answer the question. Reread the question, pay attention to each part and to the verb tenses.

 

[laughing dog]

Your obsession with comparing WWI - a world war between countries- with the conflict
In the Middle East is inane.

WWII actually.
And while there are obviously differences, there are also similarities.

Not consequential enough to justify your obsession.

 

[pood]

Here is more on the crap claim that all or most Gazans support Hamas.

It is interesting, too, that there were elections, given TomC’s ridiculous assertion that Muslims are against any kind of democracy.

 

[Derec]

The problem is the Middle East has never been with Muslims.

Of course it has. Specifically, political Islam has always been a problem, ever since Mohammed started conquering territory after territory in the name of Allah.
And political Islam is a problem not only in the Middle East. It is a problem in many places in the world, and increasingly also in the West due to mass migration from Islamic countries like Somalia, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The problem is, as Chris Hedges explains in the article I linked,

Chris Hedges, the far-left, rabidly anti-Israel writer?

that the Middle East is the fault line and flash point, the intersection, between the industrialized West, which grew wealthy from colonization and imperialism, and the largely still underdeveloped East, which was historically colonized and exploited by the industrial West.

"West bad, mkay" is so on brand for the self-hating western Leftists. As is their islamophilia.

After World War I, the victorious allies carved up the defeated Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence for their own benefit, without the slightest regard for the indigenous populations.

I am sure Hedges does not condemn the imperialism of Ottoman Turks, or of the Arab Caliphates before that. It's not as if the area of the Middle East was made up of natively ruled nation states before the evil Westerners showed up. It was under imperial control for millennia before then, going at least back - with interruptions - to Assyria and Egypt taking turns controlling the Levant.
And as I said before, the last time "Palestine' was ruled natively was the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel. Before that it was Seleucid Greeks, after that the Romans.

After World War II, the Western powers decided to make a homeland for displaced Jews after the Holocaust.

The Zionist movement started in the 19th century, long before WWII. And historically, Israel is Jewish homeland, not Arab homeland. Why do you think an Arab who immigrated from Egypt or Yemen is "indigenous" to the Land of Israel, but a Jew who immigrated from Germany or Poland (or, for that matter, also from Yemen) is a "settler colonist"?

The intention might have been noble, but the motives perhaps not so much — President Harry Truman, who was instrumental in this campaign, said he pushed it because in the U.S., there were more Jewish voters than Arabs.

Due to disastrous immigration policies of recent decades, that is changing. Especially in places like Dearbornistan and Hamtramckabad.

Truman himself, of course, was both an anti-Semite and a racist,

[Citation needed]

and killed a lot of innocent people by dropping two atomic bombs.

Not significantly more than have been killed due to conventional bombing campaigns.
And I wonder how many innocent people were saved by hastening the end of WWII in the Pacific.

That is how we got the nakbah, details of which I have already linked.

"Nakbah" is Arabic for "fuck around, find out". Arabs wanted to push Jews into the sea, and Jews pushed back.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You pretend that Hamas is somehow apart from Gaza, rather than being an integral part of Gazan society.
You also pretend that only Hamas took part in the 10/7 atrocities.

For me im not pretending anything. I’m rejecting your attempt to erase the distinction between a militant organization and 2.2 million civilians—because that erasure is precisely how mass atrocities get justified.

You say Hamas is “an integral part of Gazan society.” What does that mean, exactly? That every child, doctor, teacher, and grandmother is fair game? That every bomb dropped on a home is just “defense” because someone in Gaza voted 18 years ago? Gaza hasn’t had elections since 2006. Over half the population wasn’t even alive then. Are they “integral to Hamas” too?

Yes, some non-Hamas actors likely participated in October 7. But again: that doesn’t justify obliterating the entire population. That’s not justice. That’s collective punishment—a war crime under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

You’re not talking about defense. You’re arguing for guilt by geography. By that logic, every American should’ve been fair game after Abu Ghraib. Every Israeli a target after Sabra and Shatila. You don’t believe that, and you’d call it terrorism if someone tried it.

This isn’t about denying Hamas’s integration into the political reality of Gaza. It’s about refusing to accept your logic that being born in Gaza is a death sentence. That’s not defense. That’s extermination.

And you can dress it up however you like—but history will remember that argument for what it is.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

By a violent Muslim apologist.

Well done. I feel privileged to be one of the people who calls out violent terrorism, in the modern world, by name.

Next I'll go get myself called out by some Trumpistas. Then some transists. Then some wokesters.

I post on the Internet to get called out by dumbasses. And it's easy to do. And fun.

When someone runs out of arguments, they reach for slurs. “Muslim apologist”? That’s not a response—that’s a retreat behind tribal lines. You didn’t address a single fact I laid out: not the legal definition of collective punishment, not the death toll, not the starvation, not the proportion of children killed. Instead, you played the culture war greatest hits and patted yourself on the back for “getting called out.” That’s not moral clarity—it’s performance.

You’re not standing up to terrorism. You’re excusing state violence on a mass scale, provided the victims are dehumanized first. That’s the oldest trick in history. And every generation has people who cheerlead it and pretend it’s virtue.

Calling out Hamas for its crimes is right. I’ve done it. But using that as a shield to justify the mass killing of civilians isn’t brave—it’s cowardice wrapped in bluster.

You say you post to be “called out by dumbasses.” That’s convenient, because it means you never have to engage when someone holds a mirror to your logic. You can just dismiss them as part of a list: Trumpistas, transists, wokesters, Muslims—any category but “human beings.”

At some point, you’ll have to decide whether you’re more committed to moral grandstanding, or to truth—even when it makes your side uncomfortable.

Because if your outrage only works in one direction, it’s not morality. It’s just a costume.

NHC

 

[pood]

TomC getting schooled by NHC.

 

[pood]

Here is more on the crap claim that all or most Gazans support Hamas.

It is interesting, too, that there were elections, given TomC’s ridiculous assertion that Muslims are against any kind of democracy.

It's also interesting how much you resort to lies and slurs when you don't want to actually respond to what I say.

I won't report you though, I don't care that much.
Tom

Which lies and slurs are those? There aren’t any, and you know it. You’re just losing the argument, falling apart and throwing tantrums, like your nauseating rape post.

 

[TomC]

Here is more on the crap claim that all or most Gazans support Hamas.

It is interesting, too, that there were elections, given TomC’s ridiculous assertion that Muslims are against any kind of democracy.

It's also interesting how much you resort to lies and slurs when you don't want to actually respond to what I say.

I won't report you though, I don't care that much.
Tom

Which lies and slurs are those? There aren’t any, and you know it. You’re just losing the argument, falling apart and throwing tantrums, like your nauseating rape post.

I'd report your slurs and lies.
But I know the staff well enough to know it won't make any difference.
Tom

 

[pood]

Here is more on the crap claim that all or most Gazans support Hamas.

It is interesting, too, that there were elections, given TomC’s ridiculous assertion that Muslims are against any kind of democracy.

It's also interesting how much you resort to lies and slurs when you don't want to actually respond to what I say.

I won't report you though, I don't care that much.
Tom

Which lies and slurs are those? There aren’t any, and you know it. You’re just losing the argument, falling apart and throwing tantrums, like your nauseating rape post.

I'd report your slurs and lies.
But I know the staff well enough to know it won't make any difference.
Tom

Which lies and slurs are those? You know there aren’t any, so you are just going to make chickenshit accusations without providing evidence — unlike me, who clearly showed how unfounded and libelous your accusations are that you leveled against me and NHC and others.

 

[pood]

To be clear for the hard of understanding here: No one here excuses what Hamas did on Oct. 7. No one here is anti-Semitic. No one here hates Jews. Do try to compose yourselves. We know you are losing the argument, but please try to do so with a modicum of dignity and self respect.

 

[pood]

TomC is reduced to argument by smilies. Pitiful. What a pitiful performance from you in this thread.

 

[TomC]

TomC is reduced to argument by smilies. Pitiful. What a pitiful performance from you in this thread.

Why don't you just report me?
I keep trying to explain the difference between aggression and defense, and you keep pretending you don't understand it.
Tom

 

[NoHolyCows]

I keep trying to explain the difference between aggression and defense, and you keep pretending you don't understand it.

I understand the difference between aggression and defense just fine. You’re the one redefining “defense” to include bombing civilians, starving children, and destroying entire city blocks. You’ve taken the language of moral legitimacy and stretched it so far it now covers atrocities.

Defense has limits—legal and moral. It requires proportionality. It requires distinction between combatants and civilians. It doesn’t mean wiping out a population because the attackers live among them. That’s not defense. That’s collective punishment—and it’s a war crime under international law, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

The irony is, you keep repeating “aggressor” and “defender” like it’s a mic drop. But if your so-called defense involves killing 35,000 people—mostly women and children—then maybe the line between defense and aggression isn’t as clean as you want it to be.

If someone hits you with a rock, and you respond by leveling their entire neighborhood and blocking food to everyone who lives there, you’re not defending yourself. You’re escalating into atrocity.

So yes, I understand aggression and defense. What you’re doing is refusing to recognize when one turns into the other.

NHC

 

[TomC]

I understand the difference between aggression and defense just fine.

Then explain why you think that Gazan attacks on Israel, last month, aren't yet more Muslim terrorists attacks. And why you think that Israeli defense against those attacks is a moral issue.
Tom

 

[NoHolyCows]

Then explain why you think that Gazan attacks on Israel, last month, aren't yet more Muslim terrorists attacks. And why you think that Israeli defense against those attacks is a moral issue.

Because not everything can be reduced to a slogan like “Muslim terrorist attack.” That label isn’t about clarity—it’s about shutting down thought. You’re not asking a question, you’re issuing a verdict and daring anyone to challenge it. And when they do, you act as if it’s immoral to even raise the possibility that mass civilian death might be a moral issue.

It is.

If Hamas targets civilians, it’s a crime. If Israel targets civilians—or knowingly bombs areas full of them—that’s also a crime. That’s not moral relativism. That’s moral consistency. The second you say one group’s violence is terrorism and the other’s is automatically justified “defense,” you’ve left morality behind and entered into raw tribal justification. That’s how every atrocity in history gets excused.

You keep demanding I see this as simple. But nothing about war crimes is simple. Nothing about bombing children, starving families, or flattening entire neighborhoods is morally uncomplicated. And the moment you act like it is, you’ve stopped defending values and started defending impunity.

The reason this is a moral issue is because the overwhelming majority of the people dying aren’t fighters—they’re civilians. Children. Women. Families who never held a weapon. If your version of “defense” allows for that, then you’re not defending a people, you’re justifying a machine.

If you want to talk morality, start by applying it universally. If the same act horrifies you when “they” do it, but you find ways to justify it when “we” do it, you’re not on the side of justice. You’re on the side of power.

NHC

 

[pood]

TomC is reduced to argument by smilies. Pitiful. What a pitiful performance from you in this thread.

Why don't you just report me?
I keep trying to explain the difference between aggression and defense, and you keep pretending you don't understand it.
Tom

I already have, for your slur that we are apologists for Muslim terror when no one supports any such thing, or any terror, including the Israeli variety. Maybe you ought to try to be consistent in your condemnations of terror.