- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,200
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
I made a number of different suggestions. I don’t reply to everyone of your bs responses.You proposed going after them like they went after the Munich terrorists--and didn't reply when I pointed out that required countries where they wouldn't simply be killed for being Jewish.That is a falsehood. Not only have numerous posters done that, the IDF debated moderation.You call it a call for moderation--but you have never given a sensible answer for what would be acceptable. Nor has anyone else.No I’m not. And there is no defence for terrorism of any kind from anyone for any reason.
The inability to distinguish between calls for moderation in Israel’s prosecution of its war on Hamas and apologia for Hamas or antisemitism is what is truly pathetic. I’d ask that it stop, but to paraphrase King Crimson
“I talk to the wind. My words are all carried away, The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear”.
I understand you disagree with those proposals but that does not make insensible, just less murderous.
I don’t know who the “we” is nor the relevance of your evidence-free claim of “fact”.Loren Pechtel said:Which does not address the issue at all.Coming from an inveterate swallower of Israeli propaganda, that is richly ironic on its own. Add that according to you and your ilk, the IDF policy you endorse is doing what Hamas wants, snd it is meta ironic.Loren Pechtel said:And we see blind acceptance of all Hamas claims about the situation. You do not believe you support Hamas but in letting them feed you "reality" you end up doing what they want.
We keep seeing the Hamas death toll treated as accurate. Despite 4k clearly bogus entries being discovered by the only ones to even try to check. And despite the two slips where Hamas people admitted most of the deaths were males.
By Hamas.
You say “they voted for Hamas, so they chose war.” Let’s strip that logic down. You’re claiming that a single election—under siege, with the more conciliatory party discredited and corrupt—justifies 18 years of blockade, mass civilian punishment, and treating 2 million people as enemy combatants. That’s not democracy. That’s collective sentencing.
If you want to go back you need to go back to the start: The Arab invasion in response to the creation of Israel.You frame everything through “they brought it on themselves”—but that’s a dodge. It assumes the only relevant facts begin with Hamas and end with rockets. That’s like watching a building collapse and blaming the final brick. You erase the decades of military occupation, land dispossession, statelessness, and legal limbo that preceded it—as if injustice only starts counting once someone fights back.
Apples and oranges.You dismiss peace overtures as fake—but then ignore the obvious double standard: when Palestinians walk away from talks, they’re saboteurs. When Israel builds settlements through them, delays final status indefinitely, and then claims “security” requires permanent domination, you call it “caution.” If you were serious about negotiations, you’d hold both sides accountable. But your definition of “dialogue” is Palestinians accepting whatever terms Israel dictates.
I wouldn't trust B'Tselem to tell me if it's raining outside. I have looked at some of their "data" that bent over backwards to hide the combatant nature of some of the dead.Then there’s Area C. You claim there’s no data on permit denials—as if 98% rejection rates published by B’Tselem and the UN are unknowable. You wave it off with “maybe the applications are fake.” That’s not evidence. That’s conjecture. And it’s telling that you don’t apply the same skepticism to Israeli retroactive legalization of illegal settler outposts.
The UN is effectively worthless.As for Gaza—no, the blockade didn’t begin as a surgical response to terrorism. It began when the wrong party won an election. Israel and the U.S. openly backed a failed coup to remove Hamas, then sealed the Strip when it backfired. The blockade didn’t just restrict weapons. It crippled water, medicine, fuel, and food. UN reports have long described it as “collective punishment”—a term you ignore because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
No, I'm saying you are assuming non-combatant status based on poor data. You're saying Under 18 = not combatant, the demographics make it clear that's not the case. Doesn't say anything about any given case, just that you can't use it to declare them not a combatant.You say child detentions are justified because some teens are used in conflict. But do you hear yourself? You’re justifying military incarceration of minors on demographic averages. That’s not law—it’s profiling. Geneva doesn’t say “it’s okay to jail kids if some of them fight.” It says you protect children from the effects of war. You’ve reversed that principle entirely.
Read.You claim “sniper shootings at protests” are the fault of Hamas—because they “forced people” to march. That’s not a defense. That’s not even believable. You’re trying to rationalize the deaths of journalists, medics, children, and wheelchair-bound demonstrators as acts of self-defense—when every credible rights group, including Israeli ones, have documented them as unjustified.
It's the family that would get the pay.And yes, you keep calling it “pay for slay.” But then admit Israel bulldozes homes even if the suspect is dead—because it deters others. That’s not justice. That’s state vengeance. Families aren’t being punished for crimes they committed. They’re being punished as examples. That’s the textbook definition of collective punishment.
Whataboutism.Your explanation for Israel refusing to define borders is that it would upset people. You know what else upsets people? Permanent occupation without rights. Endless checkpoints. Demolished homes. That’s what’s driving the cycle—not just Iranian cash, but the daily reality of people living in cages built to look like negotiations.
That's not a rebuttal.And finally, you say, “they’ve always chosen war.” No. They’ve chosen elections, diplomacy, armed resistance, international appeals, and mass nonviolent protest—and every time, they were met with either rejection or repression. What you call a “choice” is actually a narrowing corridor where every option leads back to subjugation. That’s not agency. That’s entrapment.
Calling it stupid does not refute it.Many on here claim that Hamas' actions are due to Israel's actions. Let's reframe that a bit: rape is due to women being immodest. (The Israeli action that's behind everything: existence.)No one here is a violent terrorist apologist, so you can knock off the slurs and slander right now.
Instead of reframing things with an extremely stupid analogy, how about you support the end of the slurs and slander on this discussion board like a moderator should?
And you're the one that said "violent terrorist apologist". I simply pointed out an example of apologist behavior without naming anyone, you decided the shoe fit.
Very few would dispute that Hamas will kill you for being Jewish. I see no examples of Israel killing someone for being Muslim.If you think someone here is a violent terrorist apologist, provide quotes with links to their post that support the allegation. Then we'll talk about what it means to be an apologist for a political party that kills people for their perceived religious affiliations and ethnicity, and/or an ethos that judges the rightness or wrongness of bombing gatherings of civilians based on what's in it for them, and who is doing it to whom.
And "bombing" is completely irrelevant, that's a means, not a result. Look at the results. 10/7--atrocities that Hamas crows about. The Gaza war--Israel bending over backwards to evacuate targets when they were aiming at things rather than people. The crowing about part is extremely damning.
What I've shown is that Geneva keeps being used as some sort of magic spell.No, you didn't.Eternally insisting there are war crimes doesn't make it so. I've already pointed out how Geneva is being misapplied.The Gazans are suffering because of an ongoing war in which war crimes are being committed.
You've already demonstrated you know even less about the Geneva Conventions than you do about UN conventions on the Rights of Refugees and the Rights of Indigenous people.
And ^here^ you demonstrate your absolute ignorance. NHC has cited the relevant sections that address each of these points but clearly you didn't bother to follow those links or find new ones.Targeting civilian food? Prohibited--but there is no such prohibition on targeting enemy supplies. At the point Hamas takes it it's a valid target.
Permitting aid to enter? Only if it's not going to be diverted. And there's a very high diversion rate.
Dead civilians? Geneva doesn't prohibit that. It says they should do as good as they can--and since they're doing far better than anyone else I consider that obligation met.
Hitting hospitals etc? They forfeit their protection if they are used by the enemy. Just look at the news: Israel has captured various hospitals--but capture implies resistance. Look up "open city"--that's how they should be behaving, there should be no defense.
We do have one clear Geneva violation but it's irrelevant: giving notice about misuse. It would be an exercise in stupidity.
I made no such claim. I'm certainly in no position to look for bodies, but I can look at Hamas not finding the bodies as evidence they don't exist.
You keep repeating that your math disproves war crimes, that your skepticism overrides every global agency, and that because you didn’t personally see bodies, the famine must be fake. That’s not reason. That’s denial with a calculator.
They claimed it was carefully verified. There should be no obviously bad data. The presence of any obviously bad data says it clearly was not checked.Let’s start with your central crutch: “They missed bad data, so everything is invalid.” No, they didn’t “miss” anything—they published what they could verify under active bombardment, where ID systems, morgues, and hospitals were obliterated. You cite technical anomalies in ID sequences like they’re smoking guns, but ignore the conditions on the ground: no power, no fuel, no connectivity, and mass death. You treat the fog of war as proof of fraud. That’s not analysis—it’s a bad faith loophole to dismiss all evidence you find inconvenient.
I ask "where are the bodies" because there have been repeated claims of mass death expected soon. The situation hasn't changed. If the claims had any connection to reality there should be a lot of people dead of starvation. But there aren't, thus the prediction must have been wrong.And your famine dodge? It’s grotesque. You ask “where are the bodies” like children dying quietly of dysentery, dehydration, or untreated wounds don’t count unless they collapse on live television. But famine isn’t just death. It’s wasting. It’s irreversible developmental damage. It’s watching your child’s immune system fail while trucks full of food are kept at a checkpoint because the right agency logo wasn’t on the paperwork.
I said nothing about graves. I'm simply testing how well the prediction matches up with reality. And the answer is abysmally.This is the cruelty of your logic: unless every warning results in immediate mass graves, you say it was false. But what you’re really doing is arguing that the prevention of catastrophe proves it was never real. If people survive despite the siege, you call it proof the siege was fine. That’s not logic—it’s retroactive absolution for deliberate strangulation.
I reject sources that have shown themselves to be highly inaccurate.Then you pull the classic evasion: “I’m not excusing Israel—just questioning your scrutiny.” Except you’re not scrutinizing. You’re dismantling the very idea of scrutiny. You reject Amnesty, HRW, UN rapporteurs, and dozens of independent journalists, and then claim there’s no evidence. That’s not reasoned doubt. That’s scorched-earth epistemology: if a fact can’t be traced directly to the IDF press office, you pretend it doesn’t exist.
Saying it's not math doesn't make it not.You even try to reduce the entire destruction of Gaza to a math equation—“most buildings were probably empty.” As if that’s a defense. As if the legality of bombing neighborhoods hinges on your speculative occupancy rates rather than the laws of proportionality and distinction. Newsflash: You don’t get to obliterate civilian infrastructure and then retroactively declare everyone inside a combatant by absence of proof.
Where are you getting this definition? Because "systemic" is not part of it at all. And foreseeable is only relevant if it's a wrong. Yes, a bunch of buildings collapsed into tunnel voids. But Geneva doesn't care.And your final move? The same rhetorical rinse-and-repeat: “Nobody likes this, but it doesn’t prove atrocity.” Actually, it does—when it’s systemic, foreseeable, and preventable. That’s exactly what defines atrocity under international law. But instead of engaging that, you redefine war crimes as “undesirable outcomes.” As if it’s just a shame, not a choice.
I have no problem with honest scrutiny. I have a big problem with a whole bunch of "human rights" (they've lost their purpose and have become political) organizations making dishonest scrutiny.So here’s what it comes down to: You don’t want scrutiny. You want veto power over accountability. You’ve confused your moral fatigue for clarity and your disbelief for righteousness. But history doesn’t remember the people who justified inaction by demanding perfect data. It remembers the ones who looked at a slow-motion atrocity and said, “Not until I see the bodies stacked just right.”
You continue to repeat your base claims as givens, preaching the word of Iran over and over.You’ve made your position clear: if the numbers are too high, they’re fake. If they’re too low, they don’t matter. If civilians die, they were probably Hamas. If aid is blocked, it must be justified. If war crimes are alleged, the real crime is saying so.
You still didn't address it, you substituted a totally different scenario that doesn't even contain a mirror.
You say I didn’t address your “mirror and baby” analogy—so let me be crystal clear and finish that thought for good. If a terrorist hides behind a baby, and you knowingly take a shot that kills the baby, then both parties are responsible. One is guilty of using a shield. But the other is guilty of choosing to shoot anyway. That’s what international law says. That’s what any ethical framework with a spine says. Your decision to pull the trigger isn’t erased just because your enemy is vile. If you choose to end a child’s life knowing that outcome was likely, you own that decision—fully. There is no immunity clause for “but the other guy was worse.”
No, Geneva is all about intentions. And I'm not the one making the circle--I'm pointing out you failed to prove either part of your assertion.You also tried to twist the definition of collective punishment by saying, “to be punishment, it has to be punishment,” as if using the word in a circle absolves the reality on the ground. But international law doesn’t ask about intentions—it judges consequences. If you blockade food, restrict fuel, cut off water, and bomb neighborhoods, then the people suffering are being punished, whether or not you call it that. You don’t get to cut off incubators and flatten bakeries and pretend it’s all just unfortunate security fallout. That’s the exact kind of linguistic shell game international law was written to stop.
Hamas misuses things, they get hit. You fall for it, blame Israel, so they do it again.You insist Gaza doesn’t show “worse conduct than what’s expected of a good guy in war,” but look around. Civilians are dying by the tens of thousands. Hospitals, schools, aid convoys, refugee camps—all have been hit repeatedly. These aren’t isolated incidents. And they aren’t rumors. Even the U.S. State Department—Israel’s closest ally—has publicly said Israel likely violated international humanitarian law by obstructing aid. The UN, WHO, and nearly every major humanitarian body agrees. If that still fits your definition of the “good guy,” then you’ve erased the meaning of the term altogether. At that point, “good” becomes a flag you wave, not a standard you uphold.
No. I'm not remotely claiming authorship. I'm saying that the fraud is so obvious that I can see it (tweets were posted) despite not knowing the language. Let's consider a chunk of the main streets here in town, reading north to south: Lake Mead, Charleston, Sahara, Desert Inn, Desert In, Dessert Inn, Flamingo, Tropicana, Durango, Russell.And let’s not pretend this is about real scrutiny. You dismissed a mountain of casualty reports because one ID number looked off to you. One document that didn’t pass your personal smell test is enough, in your view, to invalidate the entire death toll. That’s not rational skepticism—it’s deliberate denial. It’s like watching a city on fire and saying, “Well, one spark looks suspicious, so maybe the whole thing isn’t burning.” You’re not searching for the truth. You’re working backward from the answer you already decided on.
They say that a bunch of people are going to die if nothing is done--and their predictions never come true.You keep saying the numbers don’t match “your reality,” but that’s the problem. You’re not engaging with evidence. You’re rejecting anything that threatens your preferred narrative. When the Red Cross warns of famine, you say, “Where are the bodies?” When the UN says the majority of deaths are women and children, you reply with vague speculation about who might be buried in rubble. When Israel itself confirms civilian deaths, you don’t pause—you pivot.
I don't regard your preaching as facts. You continue to dismiss problems with the data and jump right back to your faith, never truly comprehending my blasphemy.So don’t talk about “the facts” when you’ve spent this entire thread running from them. Don’t ask “who killed the baby” and then shoot while blaming the mirror. You’re not upholding principle—you’re dodging accountability. And deep down, I think you know it.
She was weaseling.Except it didn't. Iran took the money, simply set up some new operations elsewhere, denied they were nuclear and thus never permitted inspection.Not really true. The deal only lasted for 10 years, which means that it would have expired by now anyway.A nuclear program we had full access to , until the “own the libs” movement decided sabotaging Obama was more important.
And it made no provisions for Iranian missile development and stockpiles, nor did it address the funding and support for terrorist organizations by the Tehran regime. In return for conceding very little, Tehran got sanction relief, plus $400M in frozen funds that actually belong to the Shah government, not to the ayatollahs.
Yes, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA) did allow Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the point of the deal wasn’t to stop enrichment entirely; it was to limit it to safe levels (3.67%, below weapons-grade) and impose tight restrictions on how much uranium Iran could stockpile and what kinds of centrifuges they could use. On top of that, the deal put in place the most intrusive inspections regime the IAEA has ever implemented. So no, it wasn’t Obama “giving in”, it was a calculated diplomatic trade-off to stop a nuclear bomb without starting another war.
Our own intelligence community currently confirms that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Yet you choose to believe Netanyahu, the same man who’s been claiming Iran is just 'weeks away' from a bomb for nearly 30 years.
All things which should be protected have been rampantly misused by Hamas. Thus combat decisions are going to be based on behavior, not symbols.
You say Israel isn’t pulling the trigger indiscriminately—that they’re “evaluating based on actions.” But when every marked ambulance becomes a potential threat, every journalist a suspect, and every child a maybe-fighter, what you’re describing isn’t careful targeting. It’s a policy of systemic doubt that strips civilians of their legal protections unless proven otherwise. That’s not how the Geneva Conventions work. The burden of proof in war doesn’t rest on the dead to prove they were innocent—it rests on the military to ensure they weren’t targeted without cause.
UN certainly is compromised. And none have rebutted the list of "journalists" that were Hamas.You reference a “list of terrorist journalists” and a hostage held by a rogue Al Jazeera freelancer as if that justifies the dozens of reporters killed in clearly marked gear, sometimes live on camera, with no evidence of wrongdoing. Even the Committee to Protect Journalists, which tracks deaths across all conflicts globally, has said Gaza is the deadliest conflict for journalists in modern history—and they’ve found no proof that the majority were engaged in combat. Unless you’re claiming CPJ, Reporters Without Borders, and the UN are all compromised too, that argument doesn’t hold.
As I said before, you are setting an impossible standard.And invoking Hamas’ abuses to justify Israel’s suspicions isn’t a defense—it’s a concession. If you admit that Hamas violates humanitarian law, then the legal and moral obligation is on Israel not to follow them down that hole. That’s what separates a military that upholds law from one that collapses into tit-for-tat impunity. The whole foundation of IHL is that protection isn’t conditional on the enemy’s behavior—it exists to restrain the powerful even when provoked.
That's not how it works. Let's take that ambulance as that's the most clear cut case. Israel demanded that they stop using them as combat transports. The Red Crescent (Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross) refused to condemn the behavior. At that point the symbol becomes absolutely meaningless as an indication of non-combatant status.If Israel believes a hospital or an ambulance is being used improperly, it must have clear, individualized evidence and still minimize harm—not treat every instance as potentially hostile by default. Otherwise, you’re not applying law. You’re rewriting it.
The problem is you are asking for something that is not news.The problem is they faced many false surrenders. One soldier failed to recognize the real one amongst all the fakes.Murdering barefoot shirtless men who are attempting to surrender is not self defense.
You have claimed there were false surrenders but you have failed to provide evidence of a single one.
Since you recall the incident you should also recall that the soldier that fired did so because he thought it was yet another fake surrender. This is all you're likely to find because it's so routine nobody's going to report on it.Utterly failed, despite multiple requests from multiple posters.
I think you are bullshitting. I think you are doing it because evidence has been posted in this thread of Israeli forces committing a war crime by killing barefoot, shirtless men who posed no danger and were waving a white flag. Additional evidence, in the form of testimony of IDF soldiers, has also been posted that the killing was due to IDF policy in force at that time, which is evidence the war crimes were planned and intentional. I think you are trying to justify an unjustifiable act and you can't find factual support, so you are utilizing your ability to make shit up to hand wave away a war crime.
Get a clue!You are suggesting that the Israelis were baited into committing a war crime. That does not exonerate the Israelis. It indicates the commission of war crimes by IDF forces is predictable.Agreed--but that one was so convenient. Right in front of the cameras, absolutely nothing going on that would have caused a sniper to shoot.Murdering a women holding the hand of a preschooler who is waving a white flag as they try to leave a dangerous area on foot is not self defense.
The point is that without any contact with them we have no evidence that they're actually IDF. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense if they're Hamas.Is that really your argument? Hamas knows the Israelis will commit war crimes so it sets up cameras to catch IDF forces in the act?
Israel has published shots of them doing it long ago. The Red Crescent refused to condemn the behavior.Where they were was never suggested--but if they don't know where how can they know who?? And the lines were far enough away that a sniper shot would have been extremely difficult even if they had a line of sight. The whole thing makes a hell of a lot more sense as Hamas. And some of the reports on it said a burst of fire. Snipers don't fire bursts.
Well, if the ambulance drivers would quit ferrying combatants around they would get the protections traditionally given ambulances.Murdering ambulance drivers and paramedics attempting to reach injured civilians is not self defense.
You have no evidence the ambulance drivers are ferrying combatants around, especially the ones who coordinate their activities with the IDF.
And why do you automatically assume it's true? Plenty of other claims have been proven false.Oh, yeah, you forgot about that, didn't you? That the ambulances are notifying the IDF of their planned route of travel and waiting for the IDF to greenlight the rescue attempt but are still being killed by IDF forces along with the injured civilians they are trying to reach.
Apparently you think Israel is committing this type of war crime is also predictable.
There have been some allegations of abuse that have been confirmed and the soldiers who did it were punished. But most of it is completely unsubstantiated, including the "routinely" bit.But Israel has plenty of video of ambulances being used for military purposes and the Red Crescent has refused to condemn such actions. Geneva protections do not apply.
"Doctor" and "Hamas" are not mutually exclusive.Kidnapping doctors and nurses from clinics and confining them in prisons that even the guards say routinely subject prisoners to torture is not self defense.
And I'm not aware of any verified claims of "routinely".
This claim of yours is one I believe. You do appear to skip over links other people provide so IMO you very likely are unaware of the reports.
Geneva doesn't care. Anyone not in uniform (other than due to battlefield circumstances where you are attacked while not in uniform) is considered a spy/saboteur, not a soldier. They don't get POW status. There has been a move to extend some degree of protection to those who were fighting out of uniform, but not to spies/saboteurs.Nor would it even matter--Geneva doesn't care.
And this claim I don't believe.
No. What I see is people keeping using part of what they say and conveniently omitting the part that says it's not relevant to the situation. For example, humanitarian supplies are required to be allowed through. Omitting the part that says that that does not apply if they are likely to be diverted.I think you're bullshitting about the Geneva Conventions. I think you've never read them, never read anything about their application, and don't have any interest in finding out what they say or do.
The problem is you are placing an impossible demand on the soldiers. If they had set out to tie him to the vehicle to transport him that would be wrong. But they weren't set up for prisoner transport and came up with a field solution. Not a good one, but not a war crime.If you're fighting out of uniform (other than due to circumstances--somebody who has stripped for some reason and ends up in a combat situation without an opportunity to get dressed isn't considered out of uniform. I'm thinking of a picture from WWII--the guy stripped for a water rescue, then immediately manned a gun when back aborard) you are classed as "spies and saboteurs" and get no protections whatsoever.
Nice framing. No, no war crime involved. He had been injured in combat.Grabbing a wounded man off the street, tying him to the front of your vehicle and driving around worsening his injuries and inflicting new ones, is not self defense.
It was a violation of the Geneva Conventions regardless of his status as a combatant, which btw, is disputed.
You don't get to do that to P.O.W.s even if you personally witnessed them shooting at your fellow soldiers.
Once again, you're missing what I said.Hamas didn't write the Geneva Conventions and Hamas isn't the only governmental entity that ratified them.But you are taking Hamas' word for what are war crimes.War crimes are not self defense. But some folks try to use self defense as an excuse for them.
Ffs, learn a little history, willya?
Hamas manipulates the media for their benefit? No. Never.
Oh well. Kill them all then.
I think that is what Israel is doing. And not to belabour the point, I think it is necessary. If Hamas isn't destroyed they're going to take the rest of the Palestinians with them. I'd rather as few Palestinians as possible died. And the only way to achieve that, I think, is to exterminate Hamas. Sooner is better
Let me get this straight, when you express concern for Palestinian civilians, it's compassion. But when I do it, it's falling for Hamas propaganda? That is precisely what I've been saying all along!!
The problem is you are asking for something that is not news.The problem is they faced many false surrenders. One soldier failed to recognize the real one amongst all the fakes.Murdering barefoot shirtless men who are attempting to surrender is not self defense.
You have claimed there were false surrenders but you have failed to provide evidence of a single one.
Since you recall the incident you should also recall that the soldier that fired did so because he thought it was yet another fake surrender. This is all you're likely to find because it's so routine nobody's going to report on it.Utterly failed, despite multiple requests from multiple posters.
I think you are bullshitting. I think you are doing it because evidence has been posted in this thread of Israeli forces committing a war crime by killing barefoot, shirtless men who posed no danger and were waving a white flag. Additional evidence, in the form of testimony of IDF soldiers, has also been posted that the killing was due to IDF policy in force at that time, which is evidence the war crimes were planned and intentional. I think you are trying to justify an unjustifiable act and you can't find factual support, so you are utilizing your ability to make shit up to hand wave away a war crime.
Get a clue!You are suggesting that the Israelis were baited into committing a war crime. That does not exonerate the Israelis. It indicates the commission of war crimes by IDF forces is predictable.Agreed--but that one was so convenient. Right in front of the cameras, absolutely nothing going on that would have caused a sniper to shoot.Murdering a women holding the hand of a preschooler who is waving a white flag as they try to leave a dangerous area on foot is not self defense.
I'm saying it would be hard for Israel to do and they would have no reason to, it would be easy for Hamas to do and very beneficial. Which explanation makes more sense? Don't blindly decide it must be Israel because they're the bad guys, look at which scenario makes more sense.
The point is that without any contact with them we have no evidence that they're actually IDF. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense if they're Hamas.Is that really your argument? Hamas knows the Israelis will commit war crimes so it sets up cameras to catch IDF forces in the act?
Israel has published shots of them doing it long ago. The Red Crescent refused to condemn the behavior.Where they were was never suggested--but if they don't know where how can they know who?? And the lines were far enough away that a sniper shot would have been extremely difficult even if they had a line of sight. The whole thing makes a hell of a lot more sense as Hamas. And some of the reports on it said a burst of fire. Snipers don't fire bursts.
Well, if the ambulance drivers would quit ferrying combatants around they would get the protections traditionally given ambulances.Murdering ambulance drivers and paramedics attempting to reach injured civilians is not self defense.
You have no evidence the ambulance drivers are ferrying combatants around, especially the ones who coordinate their activities with the IDF.
And why do you automatically assume it's true? Plenty of other claims have been proven false.Oh, yeah, you forgot about that, didn't you? That the ambulances are notifying the IDF of their planned route of travel and waiting for the IDF to greenlight the rescue attempt but are still being killed by IDF forces along with the injured civilians they are trying to reach.
Apparently you think Israel is committing this type of war crime is also predictable.
There have been some allegations of abuse that have been confirmed and the soldiers who did it were punished. But most of it is completely unsubstantiated, including the "routinely" bit.But Israel has plenty of video of ambulances being used for military purposes and the Red Crescent has refused to condemn such actions. Geneva protections do not apply.
"Doctor" and "Hamas" are not mutually exclusive.Kidnapping doctors and nurses from clinics and confining them in prisons that even the guards say routinely subject prisoners to torture is not self defense.
And I'm not aware of any verified claims of "routinely".
This claim of yours is one I believe. You do appear to skip over links other people provide so IMO you very likely are unaware of the reports.
Geneva doesn't care. Anyone not in uniform (other than due to battlefield circumstances where you are attacked while not in uniform) is considered a spy/saboteur, not a soldier. They don't get POW status. There has been a move to extend some degree of protection to those who were fighting out of uniform, but not to spies/saboteurs.Nor would it even matter--Geneva doesn't care.
And this claim I don't believe.
No. What I see is people keeping using part of what they say and conveniently omitting the part that says it's not relevant to the situation. For example, humanitarian supplies are required to be allowed through. Omitting the part that says that that does not apply if they are likely to be diverted.I think you're bullshitting about the Geneva Conventions. I think you've never read them, never read anything about their application, and don't have any interest in finding out what they say or do.
The problem is you are placing an impossible demand on the soldiers. If they had set out to tie him to the vehicle to transport him that would be wrong. But they weren't set up for prisoner transport and came up with a field solution. Not a good one, but not a war crime.If you're fighting out of uniform (other than due to circumstances--somebody who has stripped for some reason and ends up in a combat situation without an opportunity to get dressed isn't considered out of uniform. I'm thinking of a picture from WWII--the guy stripped for a water rescue, then immediately manned a gun when back aborard) you are classed as "spies and saboteurs" and get no protections whatsoever.
Nice framing. No, no war crime involved. He had been injured in combat.Grabbing a wounded man off the street, tying him to the front of your vehicle and driving around worsening his injuries and inflicting new ones, is not self defense.
It was a violation of the Geneva Conventions regardless of his status as a combatant, which btw, is disputed.
You don't get to do that to P.O.W.s even if you personally witnessed them shooting at your fellow soldiers.
Once again, you're missing what I said.Hamas didn't write the Geneva Conventions and Hamas isn't the only governmental entity that ratified them.But you are taking Hamas' word for what are war crimes.War crimes are not self defense. But some folks try to use self defense as an excuse for them.
Ffs, learn a little history, willya?
Iran told you it was a war crime, you're playing sheep.
If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas
All Jews aren't Zionists. Jews have all kinds of political opinions? So what's your point?
The entire narrative of Palestinians as poor oppressed victims is such bullshit. The culture of the Palestinians is so poisoned its now toxic. There's historical reasons for this. But an explanation is not an excuse. There's no excuse for how the Palestinians of Gaza and Lebanon have behaved towards Israel.
Except this is just how the world works. The common man suffers for the actions of the leaders.Show me a reason to think that the reason why GWDM are suffering so much couldn't have been prevented by the GWM making different choices.
Like not choosing to use the rest of Gaza as so many human shields.
Sure. Here’s a reason: because the people suffering aren’t the ones making the decisions. The average Gazan doesn’t get to choose where Hamas puts a tunnel, or whether an IDF airstrike flattens their apartment. They’re not voting on military strategy, they’re trying to survive. You’re blaming an entire population for the actions of an armed group that rules without consent. That’s not logic, it’s collective punishment with an adorable PR spin. If your argument is “Hamas did bad things, so now anyone near them deserves what they get,” then just say that. At least be honest about the cruelty you’re defending.
Pay closer attention. If you think there is any needless destruction and misery inflicted on Gazan civilians by the actions of the IDF, then you are not prioritizing the riddance of Hamas.If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas
If your priority is to ignore EVERY FUCKING TIME I SAY HAMAS NEEDS TO GO THEN YOU NEED TO JUST STFU AND ADMIT YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT I SAY AND WOULD RATHER KEEP PARROTING BULLSHIT.
Then how did you learn about fake surrenders? I ask, because it is not innate knowledge.The problem is you are asking for something that is not news.The problem is they faced many false surrenders. One soldier failed to recognize the real one amongst all the fakes.Murdering barefoot shirtless men who are attempting to surrender is not self defense.
You have claimed there were false surrenders but you have failed to provide evidence of a single one.
If your priority isn't getting rid of Hamas
If your priority is to ignore EVERY FUCKING TIME I SAY HAMAS NEEDS TO GO THEN YOU NEED TO JUST STFU AND ADMIT YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT I SAY AND WOULD RATHER KEEP PARROTING BULLSHIT.