Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

Yes, a lot of civilians unfortunately died too, and much of Gaza has been destroyed. But starting wars of aggression has conseqences

Which of those civilians started a war of aggression?

IIRC it was not the civilians at the Nova music festival that started a war of agression.

Thanks for the helpful “whataboutism”,

Is seems that living in the same area as people who start wars of aggression is what has consequences. Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

It does has consequences. Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

“War of aggression “ has many different levels. How are you privy to know that Hamas expected the actual level of aggression?

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to note that it was diplomacy, not genocide, that saved these final survivors of the horror. In particular, American influence. Any American president could have chosen to do as Trump has done. Violence freed 8 hostages. 3 were murdered by their rescuers. 168 were rescued by conference. Let the lesson be clear.

I wonder what will save the next batch of Israeli civilians kidnapped by Gazan militants.
The clear lesson is that violent Muslim supremacists can kidnap civilians and their supporters, like you, will rally to their cause!
Tom

Leave ‘Muslim’ out of it. Like every other conflict, it’s all motivated by money and power, hiding under a cloak of religion.

There are two parts to what he said.

Yes, like every other conflict it's about power (money is a means to power).

But what he was referring to is how much the left supports one of the viler organization on Earth. Why do you bend over backwards to avoid blaming them for what they have done??

I think that Hana’s is vile. That is unrelated to Islam or Muslims.

Just as some, usually white ‘Christians ‘ are Nazis and/or white supremacists, most white people are not Nazis or white supremacists. Nor are most Christian’s Nazis or white supremacists. In fact, most Christians would say that Nazis white supremacists are are not Christians.

You aren't addressing my point at all. You say you don't like Hamas--but you keep taking their side over Israel. Just like most of the left does. You say they are vile but you blindly accept their propaganda and reach the position they are after.

Ignoring the massive irony of your accusation, produce one post from Toni that blindly accepts Hamas’s propaganda. There are three criteria for your proof to meet to be valid
1) the post is from Toni,
2) the post has an actual acceptance of a Hamas statement, and
3) the “propaganda” is actually false.

If you cannot meet all 3 criteria, you should apologize to Toni because your accusation was uncalled for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

And note that Israel has called for the evacuation of Gaza City. Everyone there is either Hamas or a human shield.

You know this because you personally interviewed the remaining inhabitants? And since when is it moral to kill someone because they are making your task harder?

You object to Israel hitting civilians in combat areas, but you also object to Israel calling for civilians to leave combat areas. In other words, the only acceptable compliance is just sit there waiting to be killed.

That is non responsive to my question of how do you know that anyone remaining is either Hamas or a human shield? Please stop evading questions with straw men responses and ridiculous conclusions.

Civilians normally get out of the path of war if possible. Forces that we would typically consider to be on the good side generally try to get civilians out of the way (but can't always--they certainly wouldn't have told the French to get out of the way of the D-Day landings!) Civilians typically do get out of the way--except in Gaza. We have multiple examples of people describing being shot at for getting out of the danger zone and plenty of examples of Hamas deliberately forcing civilians into the danger zone.

And we have plenty if examples if exhausted or injured civilians unable to move. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

Cooperated or was adjacent enough that MSF could do their jobs? I'm certain MSF has contacts with a lot of bad groups, just so that they can get in safely and render aid. MSF is in some ugly areas and security is critical.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

If one is going to kill civilians as collateral damage to a military strike, the strike better damn well be worth it. Was it?

 

[Politesse]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

And note that Israel has called for the evacuation of Gaza City. Everyone there is either Hamas or a human shield.

You know this because you personally interviewed the remaining inhabitants? And since when is it moral to kill someone because they are making your task harder?

You object to Israel hitting civilians in combat areas, but you also object to Israel calling for civilians to leave combat areas. In other words, the only acceptable compliance is just sit there waiting to be killed.

That is non responsive to my question of how do you know that anyone remaining is either Hamas or a human shield? Please stop evading questions with straw men responses and ridiculous conclusions.

Civilians normally get out of the path of war if possible. Forces that we would typically consider to be on the good side generally try to get civilians out of the way (but can't always--they certainly wouldn't have told the French to get out of the way of the D-Day landings!) Civilians typically do get out of the way--except in Gaza. We have multiple examples of people describing being shot at for getting out of the danger zone and plenty of examples of Hamas deliberately forcing civilians into the danger zone.

And we have plenty if examples if exhausted or injured civilians unable to move. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

It can be categorically shown that members of the mafia sometimes wear police officer's uniforms in service of crimes, even lethal crimes. That is itself a crime, and if caught, they should go go jail. This does not however, make it legal for me to shoot anyone I see wearing a police uniform.

Similarly, it is a crime to impersonate a medic in a war zone, and anyone who does so makes themselves a combatant. Bit it is not legal to kill any medic you meet just because someone else once impersonated their identity. Ditto members of the press, children, and other sorts of aid workers. It is obvious that the Geneva Convention did not intend for its rulings to be a blank check to justify any murder, as you have attempted to interpret it.

 

[laughing dog]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

That is not addressing the point. You have no evidence to show he was a terrorist.

And note that Israel has called for the evacuation of Gaza City. Everyone there is either Hamas or a human shield.

You know this because you personally interviewed the remaining inhabitants? And since when is it moral to kill someone because they are making your task harder?

You object to Israel hitting civilians in combat areas, but you also object to Israel calling for civilians to leave combat areas. In other words, the only acceptable compliance is just sit there waiting to be killed.

That is non responsive to my question of how do you know that anyone remaining is either Hamas or a human shield? Please stop evading questions with straw men responses and ridiculous conclusions.

Civilians normally get out of the path of war if possible. Forces that we would typically consider to be on the good side generally try to get civilians out of the way (but can't always--they certainly wouldn't have told the French to get out of the way of the D-Day landings!) Civilians typically do get out of the way--except in Gaza. We have multiple examples of people describing being shot at for getting out of the danger zone and plenty of examples of Hamas deliberately forcing civilians into the danger zone.

And we have plenty if examples if exhausted or injured civilians unable to move. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

We have reports in reputable news media. You have kneejerk denial of reality.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

First you deny bombing of safe zones. Now justify it. All in the same post. Are you posting drunk?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your constant criticism of Israel, your barely audible mutterings about Hamas tell us very clearly that you have taken sides as noted earlier.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it more true. Post proof of my "support of Hamas", or retract your false statement about me.

If you are very vocal about a particular sins of a "side" e.g. Israel yet barely mentioned the sins of the other then that tells us whom you care more about.

Wow, just piling it on, aren't you? No, I haven't, and no it doesn't, anyway. It does reflect my bias in the sense that I don't think the US should be involved in another nation's conflicts to begin with, and we're only backing one of the warring parties. Also, MSF is an organization I have a longstanding relationship with and care deeply about. Those are biases, yes, but they do not by any wild stretch of the imagination constitute an endorsement of Hamas, an organization which also, famously, treats civilians and aid workers as legitimate targets of violence.

We ended up involved because the 1973 war had the potential to go nuclear and from that the potential of WWIII. And while it probably wouldn't start WWIII these days we still have a major interest in avoiding a situation where they resort to the Sampson option. The only real option with nuclear weapons is to ensure nobody needs to fire one.

As for MSF--yes, they do good. But they have become highly politicized. And in a situation like Gaza aid workers do the bidding of the oppressor. They try to pretend otherwise but that doesn't make it go away. And nobody addressed the study I posted a while back that exposed this elephant.

If your constantly say we should sanction Israel (as an example) yet have nothing to say what could be done against Hamas then you tell us whom you care most about.

I did not in fact say that, nor do I think we should "sanction" Israel, unless you consider refusing to bankroll genocidal actions a "sanction".

Wife-beating.

You first need to establish that genocide is taking place.

The famous quote ""The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"" also applies to Hamas, not just Israel.

The famous aphorism, perhaps. It is not really a quote. But I do agree with it, which is why I am not quiet about my objections to genocide, nor idle in tending to the needs of its survivors such as I can in my role.

What you fail to realize is that to the extent that your actions are relevant you are actually siding with the evil, not opposing it. Any one person, a drop in the bucket. Lots and lots of people--you get what you reward. And what you reward is dead civilians.

If nothing is done about Hamas it will triumph. The only ones doing something about Hamas are the Israelis.

Israel's "solution" has accomplished nothing. It's not even a solution, anymore than a gasoline/petrol canister is a solution to wildfires. The only party that has "solved" anything here in the sense of bringing a conflict to some sort of resolution have been President Biden and President Trump, respectively, and the diplomatic pressure of the Gulf kingdoms that have wisely (unlike the US) refused to just straightfowardly endorse one of the militant groups.

1) They have destroyed many years worth of Hamas infrastructure.

2) They have virtually destroyed Hamas' senior leadership. This will degrade their abilities going forward for quite a while.

3) They found an Achilles heel: Hamas is dependent on the aid to maintain power. The GHF was bypassing this.

This solved nothing, it postponed the next 10/7. That's all that Israel can expect to accomplish.

You, the UN, have done nothing about stopping Hamas except clucth your pearls, swoon and wring your hands.

I am not the UN, nor do they have a blank check from me much though I admire that organization when it is at its best. The UN is the UN, and they have a long and complicated history of attempted interventions in Israel/Palestine over several decades. Some good, some bad.

The UN's record is abysmal. Everything they do is propping up the bad guys. Whatever pressure got them to tell the truth about the aid diversion (>90%) has failed, they're back to publishing the numbers of what reaches the warehouses as if it's a measure of what crossed the border. There's no reason to think the diversion rate went down.

That, in this case, is next to useless.

So is blowing children to pieces and then killing the doctors who arrive to try and stitch them back together. Neither children nor aid workers are "Hamas", and random terrorist acts inflame rather than soothing tensions, as Hamas itself has decisively proven in this conflict.

Nice attempt at a derail, but I'd still like for you to apologize for lying about what I said or believe, now that you have tried and failed to find any evidence of your claims about me.

Aid workers might not actually be Hamas (but some are), but there's no way they can operate without doing the bidding of Hamas.

And where are the random terrorist acts by Israel? You continue to blame them without considering facts. Mistakes in war are not terrorism, and the vast majority of what you blame them for is legitimate military action or were actually Hamas in the first place. (Don't simply accept a claim of Israel did X. Consider exactly how they supposedly did X--again and again we find scenes that do not match up with real world weapons. And we find scenes that look like low energy explosives.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Killing in war generally isn't unlawful.

Yes it is. Killing enemy combatants, when the Rules of Engagement permit it, isn't unlawful, but killing anyone else most certainly is.

You can't lawfully kill civillians, reporters, or even combatants who are on your own side. Even enemy combatants cannot be lawfully killed if your RoE and/or lawful
orders prohibit their killing in the given circumstances - for example if they are hors de combat.

Yet again your oversimplification renders your position laughably wrong.

You are citing cases where you can't kill but that doesn't mean you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sorry. You're not getting a free pass on this. Especially not at a time when the world suddenly turned antisemitic on a dime. That was not the time and place to try to wiggle out of moral responsibility.

A genocide apologist is lecturing me on morality? There's a joke in there, but i doubt anyone would care to laugh.

You're the one who have been criticising Israel, the only side in the conflict trying to stop genocide.

The accusations against Israel for genocide was always just bullshit. You know that, right?

They have accepted the propaganda to the point they don't know that.

There was no side you could have picked in this conflict that wouldn't have led to suffering. Pretending their was is moral cowardice IMHO.

Which is why, unlike you, I didn't pick a side. Genocide is not a sport, Israel and Palestine aren't teams, and if war is a game, the only way to win it is not to play. This war could have been stopped in its tracks a half dozen times over the last several decades, and it should have been. Would have been, if outside powers weren't leaning on the buttons, including my own nation.

You most certainly picked a side.

Yes, this war could have been stopped. It's just that Palestinians seem unwilling to live in peace with Jews. What is the Israeli govornment supposed to do about that?

It's not the Palestinians. It's those who keep providing them money for war. Terrorist movements always have backers. The problem can only be resolved by those backers quitting.

Israel has been on the brink of destruction since it's founding. All of it's Muslim neighbours constantly looking for ways to take it down and destroy it. You are aware of this?

They've internalized the propaganda too deeply for this. They do not understand that they are demanding death for the Jews.

In the geopolitical context we live in, pacifism is just another way to say that might makes right. In practice it means a willing submission to whoever is the most aggressive and violent. Peace is acheived by a capacity and willingness to fight but making the choice to de-escalate when possible. Aggressive powers will attack anyone who shows weakness.

Exactly. It's the standard leftist problem of always blaming the side with the apparent power.

That's what I think about your moral position. Due to the world we live in now, pacificism isn't just amoral, it's immoral IMHO.

No. It's only immoral when you demand it of others. Someone can choose to submit, they don't get to demand that others submit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What Israel proved to Hamas is that Hamas can't use civilians as human shields as a deterrent. That's a powerful message. Hopefully this is the first and last time a combatant ever tries to use that tactic.

If you believe that, you're a child.

Ok. Please explain to me why I am wrong

What it showed is that parading dead kids in front of the camera was not enough to shield them from something as big as 10/7.