Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you expect a news organization to not publish such statements?
Sounds like you do not want a news organization, you want a propaganda machine.

I expect them to not just parrot statements made by Hamas uncritically.

I expect news outlets to report what people say, not what their readers and listeners prefer to read and hear.

That would be good. Unfortunately, it has little connection to reality anymore. A news organization that actually did this would alienate too many readers and soon be out of business.

So you want journalists to be propagandists for your side but complain up and down when you feel journalists are being propagandists for the other side. And you don't see the double standard.

It's not what I want. It's what's actually happening--they are propagandists for Hamas. I want them to be honest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you expect a news organization to not publish such statements?
Sounds like you do not want a news organization, you want a propaganda machine.

I expect them to not just parrot statements made by Hamas uncritically.

I expect news outlets to report what people say, not what their readers and listeners prefer to read and hear.

That would be good. Unfortunately, it has little connection to reality anymore. A news organization that actually did this would alienate too many readers and soon be out of business.

So you want journalists to be propagandists for your side but complain up and down when you feel journalists are being propagandists for the other side. And you don't see the double standard.

It's worse than that.

If someone is relying on propagandists for information then factual reporting, no matter how well sourced and documented, will appear to be propaganda for other viewpoints.

If someone is making claims based on propaganda then those claims will be unsupported by actual evidence unless that person is willing to seek out accurate information from better sources.

If someone only wants to read and hear what they already believe to be true then they will inevitably wind up with a very skewed worldview.

Yeah, you are describing exactly what is happening to the left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So here is where we are. Both Hamas and Netanyahu’s renegade government (not Jews in general, for you slimy slanderers) are accusing the other of breaking the so-called cease fire.

It is pretty clear that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire.

Why is it pretty clear? Israel was attacked and there are terrorists unaffiliated with Hamas. Hamas denies it was them. They may be lying, but it isn’t pretty clear at this point.

There is a lot of cooperation between the groups. They aren't going to attack if Hamas says no.

 

[bilby]

What's going on is we find your demand that people not defend themselves unacceptable.

If you could quote me making that demand, or apologise to me and withdraw your claim that I did, I would be most grateful.

 

[bilby]

It's called war.

A name is not a morality.

 

[bilby]

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

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

So Hamas should be permitted to kill Jews with impunity because they threaten Gazan civilians?

How the fuck do you get from what I said, to what follows the word "So" in your response?

Seriously, we should have a forum rule that any response beginning with "So..." will be deleted. They are almost invariably nonsensical.

 

[bilby]

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.

I am not "citing cases" at all. And I am not seeking to show that "you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt", and indeed, I never said not implied that.

I am successfully showing that your claim:

Killing in war generally isn't unlawful.

Is false.

Any conclusions you reach from that false premise are therefore baseless.

Do you have any defence of your false claim? Or the moral fibre to retract it now that you have had its falsity clearly shown to you?

It seems the answer is "No".

Or rather is "No, but I would like to deflect attention from that".

You still aren't addressing the basic issue: showing that there are unlawful cases doesn't make all cases unlawful.

Nobody is suggesting that all cases are unlawful.

You said "Killing in war generally isn't unlawful"; And that statement is false, even though there are many cases that are lawful.

As I already explained:

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.

Killing in war is not always unlawful. But it is generally unlawful, so your claim that it is not is simply wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

At no point did anyone serious really think it was an actual genocide.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit.

 List of humanitarian and human rights groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza

I think these all have a political agenda. I think they're all aware it's not a litteral genocide.

The problem is that the entire world left is now ganging up on Israel. This creates the illusion im the general population that there's substance to the accusations. But there's not.

I think Netanyahu can still be convicted of genocide. Because I think it will be hard for him to get a fair trial now

 

[laughing dog]

So here is where we are. Both Hamas and Netanyahu’s renegade government (not Jews in general, for you slimy slanderers) are accusing the other of breaking the so-called cease fire.

It is pretty clear that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire.

Why is it pretty clear? Israel was attacked and there are terrorists unaffiliated with Hamas. Hamas denies it was them. They may be lying, but it isn’t pretty clear at this point.

There is a lot of cooperation between the groups. They aren't going to attack if Hamas says no.

Forgive me if I think you have no clue about the fragmentation of terrorists and degree of coordination among them, particularly at this time.

 

[laughing dog]

At no point did anyone serious really think it was an actual genocide.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit.

 List of humanitarian and human rights groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza

I think these all have a political agenda. I think they're all aware it's not a litteral genocide.

You have a political agenda, Does that mean you are aware it is a genocide?

I don’t think Israel is engaging in genocide yet. The current situation in Gaza and the West Bank is ethnic cleansing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In all the time this thread has gone on, since the start of the Gaza war, not one person here — not one — has expressed support for Hamas terrorists, and not one person here has displayed a scintilla of anti-Semitism. Yet we are constantly accused of being pro-Hamas and anti-Jew.

How filthy and vile is that?

You do not believe you support Hamas. But you do exactly what they want you to do and that sure looks like support.

And the blind acceptance of anything anti-Israel sure looks like antisemitism. I disagree with Z on this, I do not believe it's conscious antisemitism, but rather the left always blames the side with the perceived power.

I don't believe the antisemitism is conscious either.

That's what makes this kind of antisemitism so insidious. It's racists convinced that they're not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

To do your job in Gaza you must do what Hamas wants of you.

Careful, Dr. Z might call you an anti-Semite.

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?

And we have no way of evaluating any given military strike. We can see that overall Israel does better than anyone else. Thus the reasonable assumption is that it was worth it.

That mentality isn't how we turned things around in Iraq. Granted, this isn't exactly on the same terms, but you have a long history defaulting to presuming action was warranted, when the people you support took action. I'm not judging whether any particular strike was justified or not. But in the aggregate, seeing that Hamas is still around, the violence and destruction seemed to be the goal, not the defeat of Hamas, which everyone knows isn't possible militarily (or at least the people who are involved).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Diplomacy involves Iran, not Hamas.

Exactly--but note that they have never even been willing to talk.

Obama was able to squeeze an arrangement out of them. He managed to get an arrangement without giving Iran too much in the deal, all the while providing the US a camel nose opportunity. And in a process of trying to resolve Iran and the US's baggage with the nation, it was a viable first step. Trump and the GOP fucked that up, because it is easier to have Iran the enemy than Iran, the working on diplomatic ties to try and help out Israel in the long-term.

Iran isn't easy to manage, but that is what we need to do. Saying it is too hard is whiny.

The other consideration is that a deal with Iran is not only hard because of their tyrannical leadership, but because of Saudi Arabia who don't want us to be thawing relations with Iran. If Iranian oil became like Saudi oil, that'd possibly create a threat to Saudi Arabia.

That's why there is no diplomatic solution and thus why blaming Israel for not finding a diplomatic solution is nonsense.

Carter got a deal with Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. It required shrewdness, it required some underhanded dealing, it required a good deal of money. But Israel stopped needing to worry about those portions of the border and that deal has stuck for several decades.

 

[ZiprHead]

Now that the ceasefire’s been broken, what next?

Trump declares victory and demands a Nubile Peace Prize.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you expect a news organization to not publish such statements?
Sounds like you do not want a news organization, you want a propaganda machine.

I expect them to not just parrot statements made by Hamas uncritically.

I expect news outlets to report what people say, not what their readers and listeners prefer to read and hear.

That would be good. Unfortunately, it has little connection to reality anymore. A news organization that actually did this would alienate too many readers and soon be out of business.

So you want journalists to be propagandists for your side but complain up and down when you feel journalists are being propagandists for the other side. And you don't see the double standard.

It's not what I want. It's what's actually happening--they are propagandists for Hamas. I want them to be honest.

What was dishonest about the quote?

 

[ZiprHead]

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

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

So Hamas should be permitted to kill Jews with impunity because they threaten Gazan civilians?

How the fuck do you get from what I said, to what follows the word "So" in your response?

Seriously, we should have a forum rule that any response beginning with "So..." will be deleted. They are almost invariably nonsensical.

At another board I'm on that's called "the rule of So".

 

[ZiprHead]

At no point did anyone serious really think it was an actual genocide.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit.

 List of humanitarian and human rights groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza

I think these all have a political agenda. I think they're all aware it's not a litteral genocide.

The problem is that the entire world left is now ganging up on Israel. This creates the illusion im the general population that there's substance to the accusations. But there's not.

I think Netanyahu can still be convicted of genocide. Because I think it will be hard for him to get a fair trial now

You think, you think, you think.

What makes you think your thoughts are better founded in reality than the organizations listed? What makes you think you don't have a political agenda?

 

[DrZoidberg]

At no point did anyone serious really think it was an actual genocide.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit.

 List of humanitarian and human rights groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza

I think these all have a political agenda. I think they're all aware it's not a litteral genocide.

The problem is that the entire world left is now ganging up on Israel. This creates the illusion im the general population that there's substance to the accusations. But there's not.

I think Netanyahu can still be convicted of genocide. Because I think it will be hard for him to get a fair trial now

You think, you think, you think.

What makes you think your thoughts are better founded in reality than the organizations listed? What makes you think you don't have a political agenda?

Because it's absurd to hold Israel responsible for something Hamas is doing.

Its ridiculous to expect a country not to retaliate such an attack, if they’re at all possible. That puts 100% of all the casualties on Hamas.

Given this scenario, when people grasp at straws to accuse Israel, it's got nothing to do with justice or fairness.

And it's not a new thing. Western leftists have been absurdly critical of Israel very soon after the state was founded. In this latest conflict the antisemitic leftist rot came to the surface in full force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're moving goalposts with condition #2.

I said "Hamas propaganda", not "Hamas statement". The propaganda does not appear to come from Hamas.

Your pedantic evasion failed to deflect you didn’t bother to address criteria 1 and 3. Fucking pathetic.

There was no reason to address them as your conditions were clearly false.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

To do your job in Gaza you must do what Hamas wants of you.

So what? Using your criterion, everyone in Gaza is a legitimate target.

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?

And we have no way of evaluating any given military strike. We can see that overall Israel does better than anyone else. Thus the reasonable assumption is that it was worth it.

Why is it a reasonable assumption?

Quit pretending you don't understand.