Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In before, squibs and crisis actors...

Those definitely weren't squibs ...

I don't know what you mean by "Those," but let's hear it. I bet it's pretty much still squibs, if not in form, then in function.

 

[Derec]

I don't know what you mean by "Those," but let's hear it. I bet it's pretty much still squibs, if not in form, then in function.

The missiles that hit those four men.
The question is, how does the twit cited by Zipr know that they were "civilians"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't know what you mean by "Those," but let's hear it. I bet it's pretty much still squibs, if not in form, then in function.

The missiles that hit those four men.
The question is, how does the twit cited by Zipr know that they were "civilians"?

We observe unarmed persons. Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

 

[Derec]

We observe unarmed persons.

We don't know they were unarmed, but I acknowledge there were no weapons visible in the low res video.

Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

 

[ZiprHead]

. There is no quantitative data. But section 4 provides numerous examples of the Un and others denouncing the use of forced recruitment of children.

Again, that's a huge problem with children.
They're easily manipulated.

The minors in Gaza have never been anywhere or learned anything else but Hamas indoctrination. I sincerely doubt that many of them are able to distinguish between reality and what they have been taught by Gazan leadership. I see no reason to think that forcible recruitment is much of a problem.
Tom

Thank you for your thought. Here's two cents to cover your costs.

So you're fine with child soldiers, as long as they're Gazans.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Tom

Take your strawman and stuff in your mattress. You sound like you could use a rest.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't know what you mean by "Those," but let's hear it. I bet it's pretty much still squibs, if not in form, then in function.

The missiles that hit those four men.
The question is, how does the twit cited by Zipr know that they were "civilians"?

Don't you think if they were Hamas they would be carrying weapons?

 

[TomC]

. There is no quantitative data. But section 4 provides numerous examples of the Un and others denouncing the use of forced recruitment of children.

Again, that's a huge problem with children.
They're easily manipulated.

The minors in Gaza have never been anywhere or learned anything else but Hamas indoctrination. I sincerely doubt that many of them are able to distinguish between reality and what they have been taught by Gazan leadership. I see no reason to think that forcible recruitment is much of a problem.
Tom

Thank you for your thought. Here's two cents to cover your costs.

So you're fine with child soldiers, as long as they're Gazans.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Tom

Take your strawman and stuff in your mattress. You sound like you could use a rest.

How brave of you to say so.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

We observe unarmed persons.

We don't know they were unarmed, but I acknowledge there were no weapons visible in the low res video.

Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

There you go. Blow them all away and let god figure them out.

 

[lpetrich]

We observe unarmed persons.

We don't know they were unarmed, but I acknowledge there were no weapons visible in the low res video.

Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

Seems like a great pretext for genocide. All men are evil enemies. All women are support personnel for evil enemies. All children are future evil enemies or else future support personnel for evil enemies.

'Israel must be stopped' in Gaza, South Africa tells World Court | Reuters

South Africa urged the U.N.'s top court on Thursday to order a halt to Israel's offensive on Rafah, saying attacks on the southern Gaza city "must be stopped" to ensure the survival of the Palestinian people.

South Africa's ambassador to the Netherlands, Vusimuzi Madonsela, asked judges to order Israel to "immediately, totally and unconditionally, withdraw the Israeli army from the entirety of the Gaza Strip."

...
South Africa also asked the court to order Israel to allow unimpeded access to Gaza for U.N. officials, organisations providing humanitarian aid, journalists and investigators.

Israel's military campaign has killed tens of thousands of children and women, destroyed civilian infrastructure and starved the population, South Africa's legal team told the court.

"From the onset Israel's intent was always to destroy Palestinian life and to wipe them off the face of the earth. Rafah is the final stand," Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, one of the legal team, said.

ICC prosecutor faces demand for action against Israeli leaders and Russian attack over Putin warrant | AP News

The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor faced demands Tuesday for speedy action against Israeli leaders and a blistering Russian attack over the ICC’s arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin stemming from Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Karim Khan responded by telling the U.N. Security Council that he will not be swayed or intimidated as his team investigates possible war crimes or crimes against humanity in Gaza and the Palestinian territories as well as in Ukraine.

Libya’s U.N. ambassador, Taher El-Sonni, told Khan that if the Libyan cases the ICC is investigating are so complex that they won’t be completed until the end of 2025, he should allocate the court’s efforts to the war in Gaza.

So they are slowed down with investigations of the likes of Mass grave with bodies of at least 65 migrants found in the deserts of western Libya | AP News

 

[laughing dog]

We observe unarmed persons.

We don't know they were unarmed, but I acknowledge there were no weapons visible in the low res video.

Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

Of course one can make that assumption, especially since they were moving away from any action.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We observe unarmed persons.

We don't know they were unarmed, but I acknowledge there were no weapons visible in the low res video.

Rifles would have been observed if they were there.

Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

HOLY SHIT.!! ..you just justified killing all Palestinian males.

 

[TomC]

Seems like a great pretext for genocide.

It will be interesting to see how many posters criticize you for using the word "genocide".
Tom

 

[Arctish]

We observe unarmed persons.

We don't know they were unarmed, but I acknowledge there were no weapons visible in the low res video.

Rifles would have been observed if they were there.

Don't we naturally assert innocence as a default unless proven otherwise? Isn't that what you always say but then go back on? Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

HOLY SHIT.!! ..you just justified killing all Palestinian males.

He just justified killing all Israelis, male and female, between 18 and 20.

Military service is compulsory for Israelis. Only the ultra-Orthodox are exempt, and that automatic exemption is coming to an end. That makes Israeli teens and young adults almost universally military, so there is even less reason to think an apparent 18 year old in Israel is just a civilian.

 

[Arctish]

Seems like a great pretext for genocide.

It will be interesting to see how many posters criticize you for using the word "genocide".
Tom

It will be informative to see how many refuse to discuss why it would be a great pretext for a crime against humanity, and instead focus on the use of the g-word, like that's the only offensive thing under discussion.

 

[Rhea]

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

Well, here’s a thought experiment for you to imagine not assuming they are guilty and deserve death.

Imagine they are white males acused of rape. Should they be assumed to be rapists, then?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you not understand hyperlinks? Because I was linking to your post.

I understand that saying "Somewhere in there is the proof" is not supporting a claim. You have had plenty of time to support your claim, but have failed to do so.

Your willful blindness doesn't make it go away. I didn't see the need to specifically point out the primary point of the post.

I succesively fought the urge to delete that word salad in order to avoid triggering another butt hurt response. I do appreciate the effort and imagination that went into those straw men - I hope the exercise was therapeutic. Otherwise, I think you are wasting your time and any that if any reader who attempts to stumble through it. Those pseudo options are silly straw men, unworthy of your time and effort if you are trying to construct a reasoned argument.

It is wrong to kill 5 years intentionally or not. So your conclusion from your imputed answer does not follow.

Ok, I'll admit you restricted it to a 5 year old but that doesn't make a meaningful difference. This was in response to:

Option A:

Yes, you are of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and whenever the evil take hostages who can't be rescued by force it is always the duty of good men to do nothing.

Option B:

No, you are not of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. Israel would be justified in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre, even if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building.

You tried to weasel but your answer is far closer to A than to B.

If your words don't mean what they mean why are you even here?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Out of idle curiosity,
What has the ICC done concerning Hamas and it's international backers?
Tom

The Wikipedia article  War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war discusses allegations and conclusions reached by international organizations. They find much to blame on both sides. AFAIK, the ICC has not issued any indictments for this war. It has issued only 4 indictments altogether since 2022, all against Russians and related to the War in Ukraine.

On something like this Wikipedia is worse than worthless. They just give an air of credibility to the terrorists.

Let's take one of the examples on that page: "Mass Graves" as I see no way to link directly to it.

The mass grave they are accusing Israel of making exists in pictures that predate the Israeli occupation of the location. It's a Palestinian mass grave! Israel dug it up to see if any of the hostages were there, then reburied the people. Israel said what they were doing at the time they did it. Wikipedia doesn't care, though, although I can be sure it would be removed if I were to add links to said pictures.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's an interesting story that is related to Derec's big mistake about assuming military aged men* in a warzone should be shot and killed.

5 soldiers killed, 7 hurt in ‘friendly fire’ incident in northern Gaza’s Jabaliya

Initial IDF probe finds tanks shelled building where paratroopers were gathered, after mistakenly identifying them as enemy forces; commandos deployed to Rafah

www.timesofisrael.com

Read this blurb from the article, though:

Of the 278 Israeli soldiers killed in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s ground offensive against Hamas, which began in late October, at least 49 were killed by friendly fire and in other accidents, according to IDF data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to Wikipedia, there are 120,000 Gazans killed, wounded or missing. Another MILLION Gazans are "on the brink of imminent starvation and famine." Yes, that's MILLION with an "M."

And this colossal genocide -- yes, GENOCIDE, let's call a spade a spade -- isn't even the biggest problem. From this day forward, most of the world will be unable to view Israel with anything but disgust. Nor will they be pleased with Israel's enabler, the United States of America.

George W. Bush was off by a few decades. Today an "Axis of Evil" (led by Vladimir Putin) really is developing, and American power is on the verge of slowly fading away. When the history book ("Decline and Fall of the American Empire") is written a few decades from now, the tragedy in Gaza will be featured as a reason America lost its moral authority.

Wow, even the Gaza Health Ministry isn't claiming that many. Nowhere near, actually.

Note that he said "killed, wounded or missing". The Health Ministry is giving killed. 3x wounded as killed doesn't seem unreasonable. "Killed" is a far better metric because "wounded" can be hard to measure even with a good reporting system. (Under the conditions in Gaza how would they get a accurate count on those lightly wounded?)

As for the people on the brink of imminent starvation and famine--that's a whole lot of propaganda words. I don't even know what "brink of famine" would be as it doesn't have a brink--there's no dividing line. It's like saying someone is on the brink of tall. Strangely, though, the health ministry data has not added a single starvation death for quite a while. (There are some from early on--medical situations, not a lack of food.)

I haven't kept up with whether the health ministry data is still accurate but at least until recently it does appear pretty good. (After the UN started reporting the ministry numbers rather than the Hamas numbers I wouldn't be surprised if they were forced to change their tune.) The distance between the ministry numbers and the Hamas numbers also aligns pretty well with Israel's claimed combatant kills.

The numbers will still be distorted by Hamas kills being blamed on Israel. Consider this:

(Warning: People being fired upon, I see no obvious hits.)

IDF reveals Hamas terrorists use UN vehicles, UNRWA compound as cover in Rafah - watch

Several terrorists and gunfire can be seen near UN vehicles and in the area of UNRWA's logistics warehouse compound in eastern Rafah, which is a central point for the distribution of UNRWA's aid.

www.jpost.com

This was being reported because of the association of the UN vehicles with Hamas but there's also video of Hamas shooting at passersby.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It appears that a ceasefire is very close to happening:

Blinken Turns Up Pressure on Hamas to Accept Gaza Cease-Fire Deal

“The time is now,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken declared, urging Hamas to accept the terms of a proposed truce. He also made clear that he expected more from Israel.

www.nytimes.com

Seems to be in Hamas's court.

This was posted to the thread earlier:

Netanyahu vows to follow through with Rafah attack - BBC News

The Israeli prime minister says the invasion will proceed "with or without" a truce with Hamas.

www.bbc.com

Would you say that this type of communication is conducive to a ceasefire?

I want to be optimistic, but I don't know what is going to happen here.

It looks to me like Netanyahu is trying to derail talk of a ceasefire, which he has come out against repeatedly in the past. Biden appears to be feeding him with the impression that nothing he says or does will change US policy, effectively undercutting any influence that the US could have on the man's behavior.

Israel isn't interested in a cease fire that doesn't involve the return of all the hostages. Why in the world should they be expected to accept anything less?

(And note that this turned out to be false, anyway--Hamas quietly changed the terms to be utterly unacceptable.)