Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

One that surprised me. Hamas said the quiet part out loud.



The aid goes to Hamas, not to the people that are supposedly receiving it.

 

[laughing dog]

Innocent people usually are killed in war. That is not a yardstick to determine right or wrong.

Since Hamas is at war with Israel, their vicious killing of civilians cannot be a yardstick to determine right or wrong?

Israel isn't targeting civilians. Hamas did.

For someone who isn't targeting civilians, the IDF does a damn good job of killing them in quantities that vastly outnumber Hamas victims. Right now the ration of Gazan civilian causalities to Isreali ones is between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1.

Using your standard, innocent people get killed in war, so their deaths do not determine right or wrong. You did not mention intent. Using your standard, Hamas is no more wrong than the IDF. Since you do not think the IDF is wrong, consistency requires you to stop claiming Hamas is wrong.

I am simply pointing out your standard is ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

Innocent people usually are killed in war. That is not a yardstick to determine right or wrong.

Yeah, it really is.

Killing innocent people is wrong.

Not sure how you missed that fact, but it's pretty fundamental to morality in the post-religious era. It follows directly from the observation that there's no afterlife, and therefore no heavenly reward for the innocent, after they have been killed.

 

[bilby]

It's perfectly permissible to attack anything being used for military purposes even if that thing is a hospital.

Only under Loren Pechtel Law.

Under actual International Law, that's not the case. Many nations, including Israel, are signatories to conventions limiting the permissible targets in war.

None, as far as I am aware, have subscribed to Loren Pechtel Law, though that Law does bear a number of similarities to the rules of engagement embraced by Imperial Japan in WWII.

 

[bilby]

Israel isn't targeting civilians.

Then they seriously need to learn how to improve their aim.

 

[Arctish]

Arafat and the PLO officially recognized everything on the Israel side of the 1967 borders as part of the State of Israel, that those lands would not be part of the Palestinian State, and agreed to make some land swaps so that the border could be somewhat adjusted. They explicitly and openly agreed to a land for peace deal and followed through on their end of it until the peace process stopped when the Israeli Prime Minister backing it was murdered.

I really think you should read up on the Oslo Accords and the history of its implementation.

I really think you should read up on the right of return.

Got a source you'd recommend?

Yes, Arafat would have accepted 67 border and right of return--because that would give him all of Israel. It's not actually a concession!

And what exactly was Arafat proposing? For the Rights of Indigenous People to be acknowledged? For a token return of a few thousand refugees? For compensation to be offered by the State of Israel to those who were deliberately targeted in Plan Dalet? That's not controversial to anyone who isn't determined to screw over people of other races, ethnicities, and religious faiths.

Why are you making it sound like Arafat was being unreasonable?

It's only in the minds of the apologists that it was a token return--reality would have been that all Palestinians would have been forced to return.

Ooh, are you still working on that horror pulp story, Return of the Saf Saf Villagers? Or is this a new one where Palestinians who managed to get out of Israel are dragged back in eldritch chains by the cold, dead hand of Yassir Arafat?

If you need a beta reader before you post in on Fanfiction.com or Wattpad or wherever, you could ask for volunteers in the Media & Culture forum.

We are making it sound like Arafat was being unreasonable because he was. Your refusal to see the poison pill doesn't make it go away.

Your objection is nothing more than an appeal to racism and religious bigotry. Anyone who isn't already biased against non-Jews isn't going to take your word for it that allowing some of them to return to their former homes inside the 1967 borders is "poison".

Are you going to support any of the claims you have made in this thread, or are you just going to keep bullshitting your way throughout the entire discussion?

 

[Rhea]

Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza | Human Rights Watch - December 18, 2023 - "Evidence Indicates Civilians Deliberately Denied Access to Food, Water"

But it's fine when Hamas does it? Besides, it's not a war crime anyway--siege is permitted in war. Where it becomes a war crime is if surrender is not permitted.

Like, for example, shooting people who are trying to surrender because you claim that any attempt at surrender is a trick?

Even to the degree that you can’t call shooting Israeli Hostages wrong?

That sounds exactly like not permitting surrender to the families of the dead Israeli hostages, doesn’t it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One that surprised me. Hamas said the quiet part out loud.



The aid goes to Hamas, not to the people that are supposedly receiving it.

Extremists often say extremist things. Therefore, I wouldn't put it past an extremist to say something extreme. However, I am not observing a proof that this particular extremist said that particular extreme thing. I know someone said he said it, but have you considered Internet hearsay really isn't a verification he said it?

For that matter, have you considered the logical consequences 5 steps down the road if he did actually say it? Both sides want to dehumanize the other side, and this meme is being used to make excuses not to provide aid to ordinary Palestinians, including children. People want to say, don't send aid because it will all go to Hamas. But then you don't send aid. Maybe you should be in favor of some other method of humanitarian aid, whatever that would mean, I don't know. Even if not, there is a crisis there. Tanks are rolling into refugee camps and civilians are starving and being slaughtered. How many weeks of no aid would starve them to death, including the hostages? You said you want Hamas to "cry uncle" (your words), but how far are you willing to take it to its logical conclusion?

 

[repoman]

If anyone is in HR, when people are arrested for protesting for a ceasefire will that put their future employment in either low end or high jobs in jeopardy?

This is not getting in to the "extreme"-ness of the protest they were arrested a.

What about someone arrested at a BLM protest (not riot) vs arrested for a Gaza ceasefire protest?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Innocent people usually are killed in war. That is not a yardstick to determine right or wrong.

Since Hamas is at war with Israel, their vicious killing of civilians cannot be a yardstick to determine right or wrong?

Israel isn't targeting civilians. Hamas did.

For someone who isn't targeting civilians, the IDF does a damn good job of killing them in quantities that vastly outnumber Hamas victims. Right now the ration of Gazan civilian causalities to Isreali ones is between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1.

Using your standard, innocent people get killed in war, so their deaths do not determine right or wrong. You did not mention intent. Using your standard, Hamas is no more wrong than the IDF. Since you do not think the IDF is wrong, consistency requires you to stop claiming Hamas is wrong.

I am simply pointing out your standard is ridiculous.

When you use a lawnmower to remove weeds from your lawn it’s not like you’re targeting the grass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Innocent people usually are killed in war. That is not a yardstick to determine right or wrong.

Since Hamas is at war with Israel, their vicious killing of civilians cannot be a yardstick to determine right or wrong?

Israel isn't targeting civilians. Hamas did.

For someone who isn't targeting civilians, the IDF does a damn good job of killing them in quantities that vastly outnumber Hamas victims. Right now the ration of Gazan civilian causalities to Isreali ones is between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1.

Once again, that is a completely irrelevant yardstick. This isn't some sporting competition!

You realize the IDF sometimes rejects our suggestions because they would cause too many civilian casualties? Even in the current mess where they aren't being as surgical as they usually are.

Using your standard, innocent people get killed in war, so their deaths do not determine right or wrong. You did not mention intent. Using your standard, Hamas is no more wrong than the IDF. Since you do not think the IDF is wrong, consistency requires you to stop claiming Hamas is wrong.

I am simply pointing out your standard is ridiculous.

Innocent implies whether they are valid targets or not. You're playing language games again instead of actually addressing the point.

 

[laughing dog]

Innocent people usually are killed in war. That is not a yardstick to determine right or wrong.

Since Hamas is at war with Israel, their vicious killing of civilians cannot be a yardstick to determine right or wrong?

Israel isn't targeting civilians. Hamas did.

For someone who isn't targeting civilians, the IDF does a damn good job of killing them in quantities that vastly outnumber Hamas victims. Right now the ration of Gazan civilian causalities to Isreali ones is between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1.

Once again, that is a completely irrelevant yardstick. This isn't some sporting competition!

You realize the IDF sometimes rejects our suggestions because they would cause too many civilian casualties? Even in the current mess where they aren't being as surgical as they usually are.

“They could kill more” is s completely irrelevant yardstick.

Using your standard, innocent people get killed in war, so their deaths do not determine right or wrong. You did not mention intent. Using your standard, Hamas is no more wrong than the IDF. Since you do not think the IDF is wrong, consistency requires you to stop claiming Hamas is wrong.

I am simply pointing out your standard is ridiculous.

Innocent implies whether they are valid targets or not. You're playing language games again instead of actually addressing the point.

That is your standard evasion when your emperor is wearing no clothes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's perfectly permissible to attack anything being used for military purposes even if that thing is a hospital.

Only under Loren Pechtel Law.

Under actual International Law, that's not the case. Many nations, including Israel, are signatories to conventions limiting the permissible targets in war.

None, as far as I am aware, have subscribed to Loren Pechtel Law, though that Law does bear a number of similarities to the rules of engagement embraced by Imperial Japan in WWII.

Geneva addresses this. Such things become valid targets when used for military purposes. It wasn't written with terrorist conduct in mind and says that notification should be given of believed impermissible use as a guard against mistakes. The notification bit has become meaningless in the era of terrorist/human shield tactics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are making it sound like Arafat was being unreasonable because he was. Your refusal to see the poison pill doesn't make it go away.

Your objection is nothing more than an appeal to racism and religious bigotry. Anyone who isn't already biased against non-Jews isn't going to take your word for it that allowing some of them to return to their former homes inside the 1967 borders is "poison".

Are you going to support any of the claims you have made in this thread, or are you just going to keep bullshitting your way throughout the entire discussion?

And you persist in thinking it would be a token number.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza | Human Rights Watch - December 18, 2023 - "Evidence Indicates Civilians Deliberately Denied Access to Food, Water"

But it's fine when Hamas does it? Besides, it's not a war crime anyway--siege is permitted in war. Where it becomes a war crime is if surrender is not permitted.

Like, for example, shooting people who are trying to surrender because you claim that any attempt at surrender is a trick?

Even to the degree that you can’t call shooting Israeli Hostages wrong?

That sounds exactly like not permitting surrender to the families of the dead Israeli hostages, doesn’t it?

Once again, the blame lies with the Palestinians. So many fake civilians that real ones are sometimes mistaken for more deception.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One that surprised me. Hamas said the quiet part out loud.



The aid goes to Hamas, not to the people that are supposedly receiving it.

Extremists often say extremist things. Therefore, I wouldn't put it past an extremist to say something extreme. However, I am not observing a proof that this particular extremist said that particular extreme thing. I know someone said he said it, but have you considered Internet hearsay really isn't a verification he said it?

Got some evidence it's fake? The diversion of the aid has been reported repeatedly, his statement matches up with reality.

For that matter, have you considered the logical consequences 5 steps down the road if he did actually say it? Both sides want to dehumanize the other side, and this meme is being used to make excuses not to provide aid to ordinary Palestinians, including children. People want to say, don't send aid because it will all go to Hamas. But then you don't send aid. Maybe you should be in favor of some other method of humanitarian aid, whatever that would mean, I don't know. Even if not, there is a crisis there. Tanks are rolling into refugee camps and civilians are starving and being slaughtered. How many weeks of no aid would starve them to death, including the hostages? You said you want Hamas to "cry uncle" (your words), but how far are you willing to take it to its logical conclusion?

Meme? Why do you call it a meme? It's simply reality.

And I note you can't come up with what sort of humanitarian aid--because there is none. Hamas wants the people to starve for the world press, thus they will starve.

 

[laughing dog]

Once again, the blame lies with the Palestinians.So many fake civilians that real ones are sometimes mistaken for more deception.

Don’t you mean Hamas?

“The blame?” The 3 IDF soldiers have no responsibility at all for shooting 3 shirtless men waving a white flag without bothering to ascertain whether anyone was in danger?

How exactly is the IDF supposed to complete the “ rescue the hostages” part of the mission if they don’t distinguish who are hostages?


IDF report on the killing of 3 hostages - that indicates that 15 minutes elapsed between the killing of the first two. Even though the IDF says the commander gave the order not to shoot the last hostage, a solider "did not hear the order" and killed the last hostage.

 

[Rhea]

Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza | Human Rights Watch - December 18, 2023 - "Evidence Indicates Civilians Deliberately Denied Access to Food, Water"

But it's fine when Hamas does it? Besides, it's not a war crime anyway--siege is permitted in war. Where it becomes a war crime is if surrender is not permitted.

Like, for example, shooting people who are trying to surrender because you claim that any attempt at surrender is a trick?

Even to the degree that you can’t call shooting Israeli Hostages wrong?

That sounds exactly like not permitting surrender to the families of the dead Israeli hostages, doesn’t it?

Once again, the blame lies with the Palestinians. So many fake civilians that real ones are sometimes mistaken for more deception.

Nope. I will not blame the Palestinians for the IDF making it so that no surrender is possible.

You’ve just confirmed that you think the IDF is making it so that no surrender is possible, making this a war-crime.

In Ukraine they are taking surrenders from Russian troops even though they are obviously, definitely and unequivocally part of the enemy. Ukraine still manages to make surrender possible.

 

[Bomb#20]

After Israel sucks America dry, like the tick they are, which country will they latch onto next?

That's quite an achievement. You managed to fit at least four gross errors of fact into just three clauses, AND to be wildly offensive for no cause, AND to cram in at least five false inferences, in a three clause, eighteen word comment. ... Congratulations. I guess.

One more error: he should have said “onto which country…”.

Dude! "Next" is not a preposition!

 

[Shadowy Man]

After Israel sucks America dry, like the tick they are, which country will they latch onto next?

That's quite an achievement. You managed to fit at least four gross errors of fact into just three clauses, AND to be wildly offensive for no cause, AND to cram in at least five false inferences, in a three clause, eighteen word comment. ... Congratulations. I guess.

One more error: he should have said “onto which country…”.

Dude! "Next" is not a preposition!

“Onto” is.

Therefore, “onto which country will they latch…” would be more ‘proper’ grammar.