Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(03-02-2024, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's use Occam's Razor.  On one side we have a terrorist organization known to butcher, rape and kidnap civilians.  They also like to intentionally embed themselves in their own civilian populace to ensure maximum civilian casualties if anyone strikes at them.  On the other side we have the professional military of a democratic nation.  None of this can be disputed.  Using this principle, which scenario is more likely?

Hmmm.  Let's not use Occam's razor to slice away history.

You left out some stuff about the "professional military of a democratic nation," didn't you? 

It is an ethnic settler state, an occupying force which drove the families of the "terrorist organization" from their homes, employing 
rape and massacre, then bottled them up inside a narrow strip of land, all illegally according to international law.

Since then they have developed a reputation in the region for imposing collective punishment on the civilians they've deprived of statehood and rights;
blinding children, journalists and other civilians with rubber-coated bullets, using them as human shields in combat, etc. They also have a reputation
for doing the same in nearby Lebanon, killing 20,000 of their civilians in the 1982 war, responsible for the massacre of thousands of Palestinians there. 
None of this can be disputed--though it can be left out of evaluating IDF behavior as inconvenient. 

Now a powerful right wing of their government wants to "finish the job" begun in '47 and drive Palestinians out of their homes in
the occupied territories for good.  And their rules of engagement make them a danger even to their own hostages. 

We aren't getting the story from a "terrorist organization," but from at least two different news organizations, plus an Israeli supplied drone video.
Since the video we have shows starved civilians fleeing AFTER gunshots, I'm going to question the IDF version for sure. 

[Dill]

(03-02-2024, 06:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Step one:  Establish that the enemy hides among the civilians.  It's impossible to tell them apart even when in close combat.
Step two: Make is "acceptable" to kill civilians who are just "casualties" in the war.
Step three: Deny the events happened as reported because the "enemy" will always lie.  A good, Democratic nation would not!
Step four: "Review" the incident for however long you think it will take the world to forget about it.
Repeat as necessary until you realize you have to kill every man woman and child to "defeat" the enemy and you withdraw.
Oh, wait...that was Vietnam.  
Not sure it applies here.  

The bolded is the key here. 

It's a way of "controlling the narrative" as they say; that and the claim "they embed themselves in civilians"--so what can you do?

The Vietnam reference is apt. LOL I remember when one of John Kerry's "Swift Boaters" was on Ted Koppel claiming we could not
believe the testimony of a Vietnamese peasant corroborating Kerry because he was from a "Communist Totalitarian" country.

Another factor, historically, is the difference in race and culture. Europeans and North Americans have
often applied separate laws of war to non-Europeans, or abandoned just war limitations altogether. The U.S. had difficulty with
that long before Vietnam, and European colonists long before that. So Israel has, like the US, been divided over to whom
and whether International Humanitarian Law should apply.

[Dill]

(03-02-2024, 06:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Using that history that you so love, show me where it's been wise to attack Israel and have a good outcome?

People who love history of Israel have probably read Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall (2014) which argues the flipside of
what you seem to imply here. He thinks that since 1967 Israeli attacks on others have not had a good outcome.
Deliberately provoking Arabs has not worked out well for Israel, as might be inferred from the current war. 

But I was discussing people presently under Israeli control in occupied territories.

Are you saying that it is simply unwise for them to resist occupation and dispossession?

[Dill]

(03-02-2024, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Also interesting that you believe terrorists over an ally, but to do otherwise would be to go against your buddy, which you've literally never done.

This embrace of pre-judgment as a standard is rather MORE interesting.

I'm wondering if it fits with the odd imputation that not going "against [a] buddy" would
somehow be an important consideration for Dino, rather than his own, long-held ethical standards. 

It's like the facts of the case are of little interest and you are busy imagining/constructing
motivations/connections you cannot possible know to fill in the vacuum.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2024, 06:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmm.  Let's not use Occam's razor to slice away history.

Alternatively, you could use it to actually bolster your position.

Quote:You left out some stuff about the "professional military of a democratic nation," didn't you? 

Did, I?  Do tell.

Quote:It is an ethnic settler state, an occupying force which drove the families of the "terrorist organization" from their homes, employing 
rape and massacre, then bottled them up inside a narrow strip of land, all illegally according to international law.

Pure Hamas terrorist propaganda.  Your sympathy for terrorists is known, your repetition of their talking points should earn you the condemnation of everyone.  Of course, it won't, because you sheep all follow the same shepherd.

Quote:Since then they have developed a reputation in the region for imposing collective punishment on the civilians they've deprived of statehood and rights;
blinding children, journalists and other civilians with rubber-coated bullets, using them as human shields in combat, etc. They also have a reputation
for doing the same in nearby Lebanon, killing 20,000 of their civilians in the 1982 war, responsible for the massacre of thousands of Palestinians there. 
None of this can be disputed--though it can be left out of evaluating IDF behavior as inconvenient. 

Let's say that everything you say is 100% fact (it isn't but let's say).  How does this change a single factual thing I stated about Hamas?  How does this refute anything about their actions, activities or history?  It doesn't, and you know it doesn't.  Which is why you always try and shift the conversation away from Hamas to what big meanies the IDF is.  Refute a single thing I said about Hamas, just try.

Quote:Now a powerful right wing of their government wants to "finish the job" begun in '47 and drive Palestinians out of their homes in
the occupied territories for good.  And their rules of engagement make them a danger even to their own hostages. 

Yes, when the enemy hides behind civilians and hostages there will be casualties.  Answer this question, if Hamas did not hide among civilians, and operate out of civilian areas, would that lessen the civilian casualties in this conflict?

Quote:We aren't getting the story from a "terrorist organization," but from at least two different news organizations, plus an Israeli supplied drone video.
Since the video we have shows starved civilians fleeing AFTER gunshots, I'm going to question the IDF version for sure. 

Sure.  Hamas embeds themselves within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  Hamas fires on IDF from within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  IDF returns fire, even while attempting to target only combatants and some civilians are killed.  Terrorist sympathizers like yourself then get to blame the IDF for civilian deaths deliberately caused by Hamas.  You're not talking to "struggle of the month" college students here.  You're not talking to people who can be guilted into sympathizing with some of the most monstrous human beings on the planet.  You're talking to people with a clear understanding of the tactics of the dogs of Hamas and aren't afraid to call them out.  Save your equivocating for terrorists for your lefty friends desperate to atone for the sin of being born.

[GMDino]

(03-03-2024, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Alternatively, you could use it to actually bolster your position.




Did, I?  Do tell.



Pure Hamas terrorist propaganda.  Your sympathy for terrorists is known, your repetition of their talking points should earn you the condemnation of everyone.  Of course, it won't, because you sheep all follow the same shepherd.



Let's say that everything you say is 100% fact (it isn't but let's say).  How does this change a single factual thing I stated about Hamas?  How does this refute anything about their actions, activities or history?  It doesn't, and you know it doesn't.  Which is why you always try and shift the conversation away from Hamas to what big meanies the IDF is.  Refute a single thing I said about Hamas, just try.




Yes, when the enemy hides behind civilians and hostages there will be casualties.  Answer this question, if Hamas did not hide among civilians, and operate out of civilian areas, would that lessen the civilian casualties in this conflict?


Sure.  Hamas embeds themselves within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  Hamas fires on IDF from within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  IDF returns fire, even while attempting to target only combatants and some civilians are killed.  Terrorist sympathizers like yourself then get to blame the IDF for civilian deaths deliberately caused by Hamas.  You're not talking to "struggle of the month" college students here.  You're not talking to people who can be guilted into sympathizing with some of the most monstrous human beings on the planet.  You're talking to people with a clear understanding of the tactics of the dogs of Hamas and aren't afraid to call them out.  Save your equivocating for terrorists for your lefty friends desperate to atone for the sin of being born.

To the bold:  Was that reported anywhere?  The story said IDF fired "in the air" and then into the crowd when they felt "threatened".

You can cast aspersions all you want but at least stick with the facts.

Secondly, can we say the Hamas attack was horrible and Hamas is horrible and still admit IDF is killing civilians at an incredible rate under the guise of "defending themselves"?  I mean without be called "terrorist sympathizers"?

I know your support is solely for Israel but can you be human also?  Because you're defending the genocide of a group of people...not just the elimination of a terrorist group.

[GMDino]

(03-03-2024, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote:
This embrace of pre-judgment as a standard is rather MORE interesting.

I'm wondering if it fits with the odd imputation that not going "against [a] buddy" would
somehow be an important consideration for Dino, rather than his own, long-held ethical standards. 

It's like the facts of the case are of little interest and you are busy imagining/constructing
motivations/connections you cannot possible know to fill in the vacuum.  

I feel he is right to not trust Hamas, however he also seems, IMHO,  to disregard any reporting that my put Israel in a bad light or show the civilians on the strip as victims. 

Even when the IDF issues the report.

There is a narrative he needs to be true and anyone who challenges it, even just for specific events, are "buddies" so he can lump them together as "terrorist sympathizers".

Like I said I can believe that both the October attack and what is happening on the strip are awful things that need to stop without being a supporter of Hamas or hater of Israel.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold:  Was that reported anywhere?  The story said IDF fired "in the air" and then into the crowd when they felt "threatened".

Yes, in the article you posted.

Quote:You can cast aspersions all you want but at least stick with the facts.

You mean the story fed to you by Hamas?

Quote:Secondly, can we say the Hamas attack was horrible and Hamas is horrible and still admit IDF is killing civilians at an incredible rate under the guise of "defending themselves"?  I mean without be called "terrorist sympathizers"?

Yes, we could do that.  We could also acknowledge why civilian casualties are high instead of blindly blaming the IDF for wanton slaughter at every opportunity.  We could also, very easily, do so without continuously vomiting up Hamas propaganda and talking points.  To the last, you have not been guilty.  Your boy, though is an absolute treasure trove of this behavior.  He couldn't carry more water for Hamas if he was on their payroll.

Quote:I know your support is solely for Israel but can you be human also?  Because you're defending the genocide of a group of people...not just the elimination of a terrorist group.

No, my support is with non-terrorists.  The side that doesn't commit mass rape,  doesn't gleefully slaughter civilians while broadcasting it on their go-pro and doesn't take babies and toddlers as hostages.  I'm going to be on the opposite side of that group every day and twice on Sunday.  And this is not genocide, stop using leftist talking points.  Were the Allies committing genocide against the Germans and Japanese in WW2?  Last I looked both those countries are thriving and full of people.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2024, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, in the article you posted.



You mean the story fed to you by Hamas?



Yes, we could do that.  We could also acknowledge why civilian casualties are high instead of blindly blaming the IDF for wanton slaughter at every opportunity.  We could also, very easily, do so without continuously vomiting up Hamas propaganda and talking points.  To the last, you have not been guilty.  Your boy, though is an absolute treasure trove of this behavior.  He couldn't carry more water for Hamas if he was on their payroll.


No, my support is with non-terrorists.  The side that doesn't commit mass rape,  doesn't gleefully slaughter civilians while broadcasting it on their go-pro and doesn't take babies and toddlers as hostages.  I'm going to be on the opposite side of that group every day and twice on Sunday.  And this is not genocide, stop using leftist talking points.  Were the Allies committing genocide against the Germans and Japanese in WW2?  Last I looked both those countries are thriving and full of people.

From the article:

Quote:An IDF official said later that after the chaos, at a nearby crossing point between north and south Gaza, Israeli forces first fired warning shots and then opened fire on civilians who rushed toward aid trucks and an accompanying IDF tank. The official said IDF forces had "fired at those who posed a threat," and stressed that the incident remained under review.

That story was "fed to me" by the IDF.

Nowhere does it say the IDF were fired upon.

I mean I can't imagine hungry civilians who have been bombed int he areas they were told to go to be aggressive at getting some supplies. 

Any time civilians are targeted, as in this story, it is wrong.  Very simple.

When the US bombed civilians it was wrong.

When Israel keeps a group of people locked in a spot and kills them with the stated goal of eliminating them all?  What do you call it? 

More simply, siding with Netanyahu on any of this is wrong.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2024, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: This embrace of pre-judgment as a standard is rather MORE interesting.

I feel like not pre-judging Hamas is more more interesting.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/middleeast/hamas-attack-body-cam-videos-invs-dg/

Quote:They show the slaughter of civilians, indiscriminate shooting in Israeli communities, and the taking of hostages — clear evidence of war crimes that undermines Hamas’ claims that its fighters did not enter Israel with the intent of killing civilians.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/horror-israeli-authorities-show-footage-hamas-atrocities-reporters-notebook/story?id=104015431

Quote:At a playground, he wonders in Arabic, "Where are the kids?" The duo set fire to one house, shoot an encroaching dog, and shoot another old man through a darkened screen. They are parsimonious with their ammunition, and chillingly unhurried as they pick through the tidy vegetable gardens and open the latches of wooden fences.

Then the video gets grisly. Other militants are busy mashing a dying man's face with their boots. Another pair screams "Allahu akbar" as they use a garden hoe to try to decapitate another man.

In another house, a gunman sticks the muzzle of his rifle into a room inhabited by a family. It's a mash of colors. In one, a terrorist is standing on an Israeli man's chest and shoots him point-blank in the face.

Then, the scenes of bloodied bedrooms start to blur. The rooms and the gore are the same -- it's how the bodies are arrayed in death that's different. There are so many children. Some are jam-packed together in a slippery mass of human flesh. Huge blood stains streak the tiles.

The people who run into civilian populations with the express intent of raping and/or murdering civilians specifically, beheading and burning children and babies... pretty safe to pre-judge as untrustworthy folks.

You, uh, really seem to like defending Hamas.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 02:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: From the article:



That story was "fed to me" by the IDF.

Nowhere does it say the IDF were fired upon.

I mean I can't imagine hungry civilians who have been bombed int he areas they were told to go to be aggressive at getting some supplies. 

Any time civilians are targeted, as in this story, it is wrong.  Very simple.

Is the IDF targeting civilians?  A person who "poses a threat" is not a civilian, they are armed.  Civilians are unarmed by definition.  An armed "civilian" is a partisan, and partisan's are not covered by the rules of warfare.  You consistently ignore the fact that Hamas deliberately hides in civilian areas to make sure that any engagement with them causes civilian casualties.  If only you could must up 1/10th the outrage over that issue as you do with the IDF.

Quote:When the US bombed civilians it was wrong.

Was it genocide?

Quote:When Israel keeps a group of people locked in a spot and kills them with the stated goal of eliminating them all?  What do you call it? 

Egypt keeps them "locked in a spot" as well.  Is Egypt committing genocide?  The stated goal is eliminating Hamas, not the Palestinian people.  Why would you be deliberately deceptive about this?  To justify your hyperbolic claims?

Quote:More simply, siding with Netanyahu on any of this is wrong.

Netanyahu sucks, he's the Dick Cheney of Israel.  If they had a more level headed leader right now I think the conflict would be progressing much better for them.  That said, it's not hard to side with him when the other side engages in mass rape, gleefully broadcasts themselves slaughtering civilians and kidnaps infants and toddlers as hostages.

Can you direct me to your posts attacking Hamas and the Arab states that prop them up?  How about Iran that directly funds them?  Any responsibility for what's happening now to be born by them?  

[GMDino]

(03-04-2024, 02:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is the IDF targeting civilians?  A person who "poses a threat" is not a civilian, they are armed.  Civilians are unarmed by definition.  An armed "civilian" is a partisan, and partisan's are not covered by the rules of warfare.  You consistently ignore the fact that Hamas deliberately hides in civilian areas to make sure that any engagement with them causes civilian casualties.  If only you could must up 1/10th the outrage over that issue as you do with the IDF.



Was it genocide?



Egypt keeps them "locked in a spot" as well.  Is Egypt committing genocide?  The stated goal is eliminating Hamas, not the Palestinian people.  Why would you be deliberately deceptive about this?  To justify your hyperbolic claims?


Netanyahu sucks, he's the Dick Cheney of Israel.  If they had a more level headed leader right now I think the conflict would be progressing much better for them.  That said, it's not hard to side with him when the other side engages in mass rape, gleefully broadcasts themselves slaughtering civilians and kidnaps infants and toddlers as hostages.

Can you direct me to your posts attacking Hamas and the Arab states that prop them up?  How about Iran that directly funds them?  Any responsibility for what's happening now to be born by them?  

IDF fired in the air and then fired into the crowd.  Those are the facts according to the IDF.  If IDF had killed any Hamas or anyone who fired at them first THEY would have said that.

I'm simply sticking to facts. 

I said the US was wrong.  I didn't say it was genocide.

Egypt is contributing to the events much as the US did when it refused Jewish immigrants during WWII.

What do you call the killing of civilians in a controlled area with the stated goal of eliminating them?  What you call it if Hamas was doing it to Israel?

Can you direct me to where I have supported Hamas and not the civilians trapped between them and a country intent on leveling their homes?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 02:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: IDF fired in the air and then fired into the crowd.  Those are the facts according to the IDF.  If IDF had killed any Hamas or anyone who fired at them first THEY would have said that.

I'm simply sticking to facts.

They fired at "threats", not into the crowd.  Stick to the facts. 

Quote:I said the US was wrong.  I didn't say it was genocide.

Why was it not genocide then but it is now?  There were far more civilian casualties in WW@ then in the current conflict.  The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed 80-100k plus civilians in one day.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Bombing-of-Tokyo

Quote:Egypt is contributing to the events much as the US did when it refused Jewish immigrants during WWII.

So, genocide?

Quote:What do you call the killing of civilians in a controlled area with the stated goal of eliminating them?

Again, you'll have to find me a source of the IDF stating that eliminating civilians is their goal.  You've now made this claim twice in this thread with no proof.

 

Quote:What you call it if Hamas was doing it to Israel?

You mean like what happened on 10-7-23?

Quote:Can you direct me to where I have supported Hamas and not the civilians trapped between them and a country intent on leveling their homes?

You repeat their propaganda, frequently.  You have refused to acknowledge that they play a direct and deliberate role in the number of civilian casualties.  Sounds a hell of a lot like support to me.  You've labeled me a secret GOP Trump supporter, and I consistently criticize Trump.  All of the sudden you have actual standards in this regard?  Oh, because it's different when you do it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 02:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I feel like not pre-judging Hamas is more more interesting.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/middleeast/hamas-attack-body-cam-videos-invs-dg/


https://abcnews.go.com/International/horror-israeli-authorities-show-footage-hamas-atrocities-reporters-notebook/story?id=104015431

It's the attempt to equate them as equally bad actors that really rankles, and reveals their apparent true intentions.  I have significant issues with Israel and how it handles its business in the West bank and Gaza.  What I will absolutely not do is discuss them as being bad actors anywhere close to the level of Hamas, Hezbollah or Isis.  As we've both noticed, there's a hell of a lot of continued, and ongoing, outrage about the IDF from some of the leftists on this board.  You really don't hear them complaining much about Hamas, do you?

Quote:The people who run into civilian populations with the express intent of raping and/or murdering civilians specifically, beheading and burning children and babies... pretty safe to pre-judge as untrustworthy folks.

Extremely safe to do so.

Quote:You, uh, really seem to like defending Hamas.

Simply repeating their talking points and propaganda could be seen as support.  But we're getting far more support for them than that in this, and other threads.  I'm curious as to how they'll address this, if they even try.

[Dill]

(03-03-2024, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is an ethnic settler state, an occupying force which drove the families of the "terrorist organization" from their homes, employing 
rape and massacre, then bottled them up inside a narrow strip of land, all illegally according to international law.

Pure Hamas terrorist propaganda.  

Should be easy to refute then.  Yet it appears you cannot.

Is Israel NOT an ethnic state, not founded by European settlers who immigrated to Palestine?
Did they not ethnically cleanse large portions of Palestine in '47 and '48 to change its demographic composition?
Did they NOT drive hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into Gaza and the West Bank? 

Have they not occupied those territories against international law since 1967?  (Israelis are
divided about this, so you can find the government at least has built up a legal defense, but most of
the rest of the world agrees--illegal occupation.)

So what grand hyperbole converted these ordinary facts taught in history and political science courses 
around the world--including Israel--into "Hamas terrorist propaganda"?  

(03-03-2024, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your sympathy for terrorists is known, your repetition of their talking points should earn you the condemnation of everyone.  Of course, it won't, because you sheep all follow the same shepherd.

It is the choice to respond to rational argument with uniformed ad hominem that should "earn the condemnation of everyone." 

Those who examine many sides of the points in question are not caught flat-footed by counter-evidence.
But those following only one "shepherd" in such matters are reduced to personally attacking the messenger
when they can't refute the message.

That's what "sheep following the same shepherd" looks like--blind acceptance of the IDF version of the war and occupation.
And the demand that others accept the blind acceptance.

[Dill]

(03-03-2024, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's say that everything you say is 100% fact (it isn't but let's say).  How does this change a single factual thing I stated about Hamas?  How does this refute anything about their actions, activities or history?  It doesn't, and you know it doesn't.  Which is why you always try and shift the conversation away from Hamas to what big meanies the IDF is.  Refute a single thing I said about Hamas, just try.

So the question raised by Dino's article is whether Israel, not Hamas, committed another unwarranted massacre.  

You are asking me, and everyone, to consider the matter settled if Hamas has committed war crimes ("Refute that, just try!!"), and to NOT consider whether Israel has actually done what it appears to have done. Which is why you are trying to shift the conversation away from the IDF.

(03-03-2024, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, when the enemy hides behind civilians and hostages there will be casualties.  Answer this question, if Hamas did not hide among civilians, and operate out of civilian areas, would that lessen the civilian casualties in this conflict?
Sure.  Hamas embeds themselves within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  Hamas fires on IDF from within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  IDF returns fire, even while attempting to target only combatants and some civilians are killed.  Terrorist sympathizers like yourself then get to blame the IDF for civilian deaths deliberately caused by Hamas.  You're not talking to "struggle of the month" college students here.  You're not talking to people who can be guilted into sympathizing with some of the most monstrous human beings on the planet.  You're talking to people with a clear understanding of the tactics of the dogs of Hamas and aren't afraid to call them out.  Save your equivocating for terrorists for your lefty friends desperate to atone for the sin of being born.

This is just further defense of pre-judgment as your operating standard--i.e., know the conclusions in advance. Our difference is about that standard, whether the urge to pre-judge nullifies the obligation to consider evidence first, and to make no inferences beyond what the evidence infers. As far as being asked to "sympathize" with "some of the most monstrous human beings on earth--you're just making that up for drama, but I note your courage in "calling out" a group which virtually everyone vilifies, regardless of the risk to your person. 

And I'm not talking to someone with "a clear understanding of the tactics of the dogs of Hamas." 

You don't appear to know much about the history of how human shields have been used in Arab-Israeli conflict, or charges of such have been used in the media side of the conflict, though I have given you some insight on this before.

The usual charge against Hamas is that, in crowded Gaza, it stores rockets in schools or hospitals and fires them from nearby. Israel must therefore stop to calculate "proportion" then, giving Hams time to continue fighting, or to accuse Israel of massacring civilians. So "lawfare." I can only think of two reports outside of IDF that I'd consider confirmation, one by the EU and the other by NATO. Nevermind that Israel also sites many of its military headquarters and the like in densely populated areas, and claims civilians are attacked if Hamas rockets them etc.

Another complication in this long-going conflict is that many, including Israelis and Americans, volunteer to become human shields for Palestinian families to protect them from IDF maiming and killing of civilians. Some Palestinians have believed they can protect their homes if they stand on rooftops, hoping the Israelis won't bomb them anyway. The IDF then claims they were ordered to by Hamas.

I wouldn't be surprised if the IDF claimed, as you speculate, that Hamas fired from within a civilian "mob." But to date I'm aware of no such documented charges against Hamas. Somehow you jumped beyond what international investigations have shown to infer such "as per their usual MO."  

The primary charge against Israel, regarding the use of human shields, is that it selects individual civilians, including children and chains them to the front of vehicles or forces them to test for booby traps in buildings or holds them in front of soldiers walking into combat as they fire at whomever. 

No dearth of confirming evidence here, from Israel's own legal system to international organizations to groups of ex-Israeli soldiers like "Breaking the Silence."
A few data points:

2005 Israel-Gaza: IDF used Palestinians as human shields 1,200 occasions in last five years, say Israeli defence officials
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/israel-gaza-idf-used-palestinians-as-human-shields-1200-occasions-in-last-five-years-say-israeli-defence-officials/30483468.html

When an Israeli high court declared the use of human shields illegal, the "professional military of a democratic nation" appealed the ruling, and began the practice of "requesting" help from civilians.  https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html

2007 And the practice continued illegally.
https://www.denverpost.com/2007/04/11/israelis-use-palestinian-as-human-shield/

2009 Page 48-50 of this Amnesty International report on Operation Cast lead details how IDF soldiers commandeered
family homes as operational sites and kept the families with them.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/015/2009/en/

Israeli soldiers of the group "Breaking the Silence" expose the "neighbor procedure" and much else. Their commanders deny it.  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151611.stm

2013 Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel: U.N.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinian-israel-children-idUSBRE95J0FR20130620/

And on and on and on. When people in the region hear "human shield," they don't immediately think of Hamas--
2017 https://www.btselem.org/harrasment/20170403_night_raids_in_nablus_area
2021 https://www.btselem.org/human_shields/20220619_border_police_officers_use_members_of_jenin_family_as_human_shields
2024 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/31/west-bank-human-shield-describes-100-breathless-minutes-held-by-israel

It's like the facts of the case are of little interest to you, and instead you busy yourself imagining/constructing motivations/connections 
you cannot possibly validate to fill in the vacuum.  "Sin" lol. 

[Dill]

(03-04-2024, 02:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I feel like not pre-judging Hamas is more more interesting.
The people who run into civilian populations with the express intent of raping and/or murdering civilians specifically, beheading and burning children and babies... pretty safe to pre-judge as untrustworthy folks.
You, uh, really seem to like defending Hamas.

(03-04-2024, 10:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: I feel he is right to not trust Hamas, however he also seems, IMHO,  to disregard any reporting that my put Israel in a bad light or show the civilians on the strip as victims.  Even when the IDF issues the report.
There is a narrative he needs to be true and anyone who challenges it, even just for specific events, are "buddies" so he can lump them together as "terrorist sympathizers".

Lol, looks like SSF is susceptible to the "buddy" charge as well, should you wish to respond in kind with something pointless and diversionary.

And you are right, it's about keeping a narrative pure, black and white, and protecting one side. Like Israel could not possibly commit
a war crime if Hamas raped and killed civilians. It's not about examining evidence; it's about keeping the one-sided narrative going with pre-judgment.

In this case, we are asked to ignore Israel's long history of shooting civilians, including family groups waving the white flag
( e.g., https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/when-white-flags-turn-red-gaza ), so as to compare a now sanitized IDF 
"professional" military against Hamas "dogs" and their undocumented "known MO"; then conclude what we want to believe,
rather than looking at visual evidence and comparing accounts. 

And then accuse anyone who takes the evidence route of a double standard. Somehow.

(03-04-2024, 10:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Like I said I can believe that both the October attack and what is happening on the strip are awful things that need to stop without being a supporter of Hamas or hater of Israel.

It seems simple enough: 

if person A robs a 7/11 and murders someone, and person B just robs a 7/11, why are you "supporting A" if you say B is guilty of robbery?

But some cannot manage the "both and," and cannot abide you doing it. There is an ideological line you must toe.
In this case, someone appears to think it "equivalence" and "defense of Hamas" to recognize what Israel actually does.
And so whatever the cost or tactics needed, what Israel does cannot be recognized. So we have an ideological and conceptual block to evidence.

When the basis of rational argument (e.g. evidence and reasoned discourse) isn't serviceable,
then the ideologue must turn to personal attack via denunciation--you support "them"--
in hopes of controlling the flow of information and blocking discussion.

Psst remember this?:

(02-20-2024, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is a tendency now to view anyone who diverges from you politically, on even the smallest topic, to be an enemy.  Ideological purity is a requirement.  That's why we have two prominent posters who can't think of a single Democrat policy they disagree with.  That should be literally impossible.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 10:41 PM)Dill Wrote: So the question raised by Dino's article is whether Israel committed another unwarranted massacre, a war crime.

Indeed.  As are all articles on this conflict raised by you and Dino.  Never a single thing about terrorist Hamas, Hezbollah, or their enables in Qatar and Iran.  It makes one wonder why.

Quote:You are asking me, and everyone, to consider the matter settled if Hamas has committed war crimes ("Refute that, just try!!"), and to NOT consider whether Israel has actually done what it appears to have done. Which is why you are trying to shift the conversation away from the IDF.

Actually, no.  Hamas committing war crimes is a given, they literally lived streamed it and were quite proud of it.  The question is why, 1. you seem to never comment on the actions of Hamas or other Islamic bad actors and, 2. why you are always trying to shift the conversation towards the IDF (double edged swords are a *****, eh?)

Quote:This is just further defense of pre-judgment as your operating standard--i.e., know the conclusions in advance. Our difference is about that standard, whether the urge to pre-judge nullifies the obligation to consider evidence first, and to make no inferences beyond what the evidence infers. As far as being asked to "sympathize" with "some of the most monstrous human beings on earth--you're just making that up for drama, but I note your courage in "calling out" a group which virtually everyone vilifies, regardless of the risk to your person. 

Well, you certainly don't vilify them.  Nor does Dino.  Nor does a rather sizeable percentage of your fellow leftists, including prominent members of Congress.  That being established, I'm totally fine with discussing the IDF and ways they could handle this conflict more humanely.  What I am not fine with is your equating their actions as equally monstrous to those of Hamas (usually by refusing to acknowledge that Hamas is even doing anything wrong) and your laser focus on only the actions of the IDF as causing civilian casualties, again ignoring the rather prominent role of the dogs in Hamas.

Quote:And I'm not talking to someone with "a clear understanding of the tactics of the dogs of Hamas." 

Oh, but you are.  You most certainly are.  At the very least I can actually acknowledge them, something you appear to be incapable of doing.

Quote:You don't appear to know much about the history of how human shields have been used in Arab-Israeli conflict, or charges of such have been used in the media side of the conflict, though I have given you some insight on this before.

We'll get to your "examples" soon.  For the moment I would simply state that excusing the excesses of one group by focusing on those of the other is exactly what you're trying (and failing) to accuse me of doing here.  An interesting strategy to admit you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing.

Quote:The usual charge against Hamas is that, in crowded Gaza, it stores rockets in schools or hospitals and fires them from nearby. Israel must therefore stop to calculate "proportion" then, giving Hams time to continue fighting, or to accuse Israel of massacring civilians. So "lawfare." I can only think of two reports outside of IDF that I'd consider confirmation, one by the EU and the other by NATO.

Well, a very quick search allowed me to add the Washington Post to that list.

https://archive.is/YoJSE

Of course, your assertion completely ignores basic physics, as rocket telemetry clearly shows where Hamas rockets are fired from.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hamas-quietly-admits-it-fired-rockets-from-civilian-areas/380149/

https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-middle-east-hamas-152644963f4249a7a21154446649910a

Quote:Nevermind that Israel also sites many of its military headquarters and the like in densely populated areas, and claims civilians are attacked if Hamas rockets them etc.

Knowledge fail.  Hamas's rockets are dumb fire weapons.  They are inaccurate and unguided.  The also land among their own populace.  Saying Hamas is targeting Israeli military assets in a civilian region is like me saying I targeted a few grenades at a single guy in a running crowd.

Quote:Another complication in this long-going conflict is that many, including Israelis and Americans, volunteer to become human shields for Palestinian families to protect them from IDF maiming and killing of civilians.

Anyone doing that is a moron, regardless of nationality.  Aiding a terrorist organization is stupid at best, criminal at worst.

Quote:Some Palestinians have believed they can protect their homes if they stand on rooftops, hoping the Israelis won't bomb them anyway. The IDF then claims they were ordered to by Hamas.

Have they tried not having Hamas in their homes?  Just kidding, I know they can't because Hamas would kill them if they resisted.  These are the people you're defending here.

Quote:I wouldn't be surprised if the IDF claimed, as you speculate, that Hamas fired from within a civilian "mob." But to date I'm aware of no such documented charges against Hamas. Somehow you jumped beyond what international investigations have shown to infer such "as per their usual MO."

 
What constitutes a "threat" to an armed military?  

Quote:The primary charge against Israel, regarding the use of human shields, is that it selects individual civilians, including children and chains them to the front of vehicles or forces them to test for booby traps in buildings or holds them in front of soldiers walking into combat as they fire at whomever. 

No dearth of confirming evidence here, from Israel's own legal system to international organizations to groups of ex-Israeli soldiers like "Breaking the Silence."
A few data points:

2005 Israel-Gaza: IDF used Palestinians as human shields 1,200 occasions in last five years, say Israeli defence officials
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/israel-gaza-idf-used-palestinians-as-human-shields-1200-occasions-in-last-five-years-say-israeli-defence-officials/30483468.html

When an Israeli high court declared the use of human shields illegal, the "professional military of a democratic nation" appealed the ruling, and began the practice of "requesting" help from civilians.  https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html

If this continues then it is wrong and must stop.  I must, however, ask what this has to do with the ongoing use of this tactic by Hamas to this very day.  This, once again, reeks of you trying to shift attention from Hamas to the IDF, an attempt to equate their actions as equally bad.  Yet, I've never seen such you put even a fraction of this type of effort into a post condemning the actions of Hamas.  Why is that?

Quote:2007 And the practice continued illegally.
https://www.denverpost.com/2007/04/11/israelis-use-palestinian-as-human-shield/

Anecdotal accounts with no evidence to back them.

Quote:2009 Page 48-50 of this Amnesty International report on Operation Cast lead details how IDF soldiers commandeered
family homes as operational sites and kept the families with them.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/015/2009/en/

Israeli soldiers of the group "Breaking the Silence" expose the "neighbor procedure" and much else. Their commanders deny it.  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151611.stm

More anecdotal evidence.  Also fifteen years old.

Quote:2013 Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel: U.N.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinian-israel-children-idUSBRE95J0FR20130620/

First off, nowhere in this article is the word torture used, or torture described.  Also, more anecdotal evidence.

Quote:And on and on and on. When people in the region hear "human shield," they don't immediately think of Hamas--
2017 https://www.btselem.org/harrasment/20170403_night_raids_in_nablus_area
2021 https://www.btselem.org/human_shields/20220619_border_police_officers_use_members_of_jenin_family_as_human_shields
2024 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/31/west-bank-human-shield-describes-100-breathless-minutes-held-by-israel

Well, we certainly do here in the US.

Quote:It's like the facts of the case are of little interest to you, and instead you busy yourself imagining/constructing motivations/connections 
you cannot possibly validate to fill in the vacuum.  "Sin" lol. 

What facts?  You provided anecdotal evidence with close to zero facts.  The only links you provided with any verifiable facts were from the 00's.

So, I've read your response in detail.  I would like to now challenge you to do a similar post on the war crimes of Hamas.  I await the fifty alerts before finally receiving a reply you don't delete.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 10:58 PM)Dill Wrote: But some cannot manage the "both and," and cannot abide you doing it. There is an ideological line you must toe.
In this case, someone appears to think it "equivalence" and "defense of Hamas" to recognize what Israel actually does.
And so whatever the cost or tactics needed, what Israel does cannot be recognized. So we have an ideological and conceptual block to evidence.

Your long, silly screed aside I will reiterate this.  I have zero issue recognizing the wrongs of the IDF, when they can be verified.  I will, and always shall, take issue with using their provable wrongdoings to exonerate or mitigate the actions of Hamas, as you routinely do, or attempts to paint them as equally bad actors, as you and Dino routinely do.

Quote:When the basis of rational argument (e.g. evidence and reasoned discourse) isn't serviceable,
then the ideologue must turn to personal attack via denunciation--you support "them"--
in hopes of controlling the flow of information and blocking discussion.

You labeling anyone an ideologue is side splitting.  Also, you're not trying to "discuss" anything.  You're attempting to push a narrative that I'm going to call out every time.  You're not going to be Bagdad Bob for Hamas and receive zero pushback.  Sorry, not sorry.

Quote:Psst remember this?:

Mitigating the actions of terrorist rapists, mass murderers and kidnappers of infants is not a small disagreement.  It's excusing and mitigating pure evil.  If you're going to attempt to use my own words against me then you should at least try and comprehend what's being said first.

Lastly, please continue to reply.  You're quite literally reinforcing my position with every post.

[Dill]

(03-04-2024, 11:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: So the question raised by Dino's article is whether Israel committed another unwarranted massacre, a war crime.
Indeed.  As are all articles on this conflict raised by you and Dino.  Never a single thing about terrorist Hamas, Hezbollah, or their enables in Qatar and Iran.  It makes one wonder why.

Quote:You are asking me, and everyone, to consider the matter settled if Hamas has committed war crimes ("Refute that, just try!!"), and to NOT consider whether Israel has actually done what it appears to have done. Which is why you are trying to shift the conversation away from the IDF.
Actually, no.  Hamas committing war crimes is a given, they literally lived streamed it and were quite proud of it.  The question is why, 1. you seem to never comment on the actions of Hamas or other Islamic bad actors and, 2. why you are always trying to shift the conversation towards the IDF (double edged swords are a *****, eh?)

Quote:This is just further defense of pre-judgment as your operating standard--i.e., know the conclusions in advance. Our difference is about that standard, whether the urge to pre-judge nullifies the obligation to consider evidence first, and to make no inferences beyond what the evidence infers. As far as being asked to "sympathize" with "some of the most monstrous human beings on earth--you're just making that up for drama, but I note your courage in "calling out" a group which virtually everyone vilifies, regardless of the risk to your person.
Well, you certainly don't vilify them.  Nor does Dino.  Nor does a rather sizeable percentage of your fellow leftists, including prominent members of Congress.  That being established, I'm totally fine with discussing the IDF and ways they could handle this conflict more humanely.  What I am not fine with is your equating their actions as equally monstrous to those of Hamas (usually by refusing to acknowledge that Hamas is even doing anything wrong) and your laser focus on only the actions of the IDF as causing civilian casualties, again ignoring the rather prominent role of the dogs in Hamas.

As soon as the flour massacre occurred, journalists and intel analysts in the ME and North America gathered in rooms to look at evidence of what happened to evaluate it. That meant

1. Examining, video, news reports, statements by IDF, hospital officials, and eyewitnesses to create a set of agreed upon facts, and another set of evidence still in need of corroboration (e.g., number of dead, how killed), and a final set which could be dismissed as not factual.  Some rooms will have better access than others; e.g., the Israelis have more video footage than NYT reporters.

2. Using this agreed upon set to create a time line.

3. Comparing the results of 1 and 2 to statements by officials.

4. Then on the basis of 1-3, inferring causes--like who fired first, or at all, and whether with sufficient cause, and how many people died from what. At this level, there is a concerted effort NOT to make inferences beyond what the facts will support.

If some or most of the people in those rooms decide that Israel fired into a crowd of helpless hungry people without sufficient provocation, the remainder will not accuse them of being "terrorist sympathizers" or refuse to "equate Israel with Hamas and Iran" or make other wildly subjective and inappropriate responses to what has been a factual determination. At least, not in the room.

After that, outside the room, at the next level, a different story might evolve. Israeli officials might decide to withhold some video footage and alter the story given by their intel analysts and shape it to minimize responsibility. Some news editors may insist on reporting the facts without embellishment, others may hype and exaggerate, or Fox-style, refuse to publish anything that their audience would dislike--i.e., "equate Israel with Hamas"--for fear of harming profits.

To reiterate my thesis, your "principle" is the converse of professional reporters/intel analysts: it makes pre-judgment an operating standard.

(03-02-2024, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's use Occam's Razor.  On one side we have a terrorist organization known to butcher, rape and kidnap civilians.  They also like to intentionally embed themselves in their own civilian populace to ensure maximum civilian casualties if anyone strikes at them.  On the other side we have the professional military of a democratic nation.  None of this can be disputed.  Using this principle, which scenario is more likely?

This denies IDF history, to block beforehand any finding that Israel shot into unarmed civilians who posed no threat, while seeding a distorting and exculpatory counter-narrative about terrorists embedded in civilians--always the "real" culprit, not need to investigate. Ignore the facts, or "Hamas talking points" as you now call them.  Occam's razor, by the way, is only deployed where the question is between alternate explanations of the same facts. It's not applicable to options over-simplified by pre-judgment in one case and over-complicated by it in the other. 

(03-02-2024, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also interesting that you believe terrorists over an ally, but to do otherwise would be to go against your buddy, which you've literally never done.

As your responses to Dino in #125, 128 show, the result is a process so loose, that you can neither follow straightforward attribution of statements, nor recognize what facts have been established, nor acknowledge a historical consensus about Israeli/IDF behavior. You dispute more of that historical record than even the IDF. Unable to contest the Israeli Foreign Ministry's version of the conflict at any point, you accuse Dino of being "sheep" with only one source, Hamas, even when his article quotes the IDF. 

Into the resulting factual vacuum you pour speculation based on what you "know" about Hamas' MO.

(03-03-2024, 08:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:We aren't getting the story from a "terrorist organization," but from at least two different news organizations, plus an Israeli supplied drone video.
Since the video we have shows starved civilians fleeing AFTER gunshots, I'm going to question the IDF version for sure.

Sure.  Hamas embeds themselves within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  Hamas fires on IDF from within civilian mob, as per their usual MO.  IDF returns fire, even while attempting to target only combatants and some civilians are killed.  Terrorist sympathizers like yourself then get to blame the IDF for civilian deaths deliberately caused by Hamas.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the charge that Hamas embeds with civilians is related to storing weapons in schools and claims they have tunnels under hospitals and the like. Not to "firing from within civilian mob." But you call that their "usual MO" with what corroboration?

Your MO is not to determine what is factual with available and relevant EVIDENCE, but of aligning the flour massacre narrative with your
pre-conceptions of both the IDF and Hamas. Not "will you believe reporters and eyewitness?" but "will you believe an ally or an enemy?" 

Then factual determinations, per your comment to Dino above, simply become "Hamas talking points" for "terrorist sympathizers."

More in my next post about the "looseness" of your vetting process.