German Hostage Found Dead

[Dill]

(12-19-2023, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good lord, your statements just ooze with pomposity.  
Ahh, so by your own admission you're attempting to draw a equivalence between the IDF and Hamas.  Thank you for finally having the courage of your convictions and admitting it.

You always start with how I make you feel.

No "admission" here that I am "attempting" to draw equivalence, etc. You can't just manipulate your way to a valid conclusion by thanking me for what I have not "admitted" instead of addressing the reasons for my statement.  Talking "as if" I had done that is just a form of gaslighting. 

My argument is that no one can accurately describe, understand, and evaluate events on the ground while adhering to your "no-criticism-of-the-IDF-but-let-your-imagination-fly-with-Hamas" rule. The "equivalence" charge is just an attempt to block criticism and to control discussion by threat of accusation rather than rational, fact-based argument. 

(12-19-2023, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Another Dillism false equivalence.  War crimes can happen inadvertently.  Civilians can be killed, especially during urban warfare, with no direct intent to kill them.  By strict definition this is a war crime.  Is it at all comparable to Hamas deliberately and systemically targeting civilians for murder, torture, gang rape and kidnapping?  NOPE!  But for you it is, hence my castigation of your deplorable position.

Had the first report simply been of three more dead hostages found, who knows what Hamas motives would have been spun up to explain their deaths.

Yes, a tragic occurrence.  And by the IDF's own admission the soldiers in question did not follow the ROE.  I'm sure this horrible occurrence will haunt them the rest of their days.  Unlike the Hamas animals who openly celebrated their wanton slaughter and rape of civilians, going so far as to phone their parents to brag about it.  As for your "what if" scenario, it deserves zero consideration, especially from an apologist equivocator.

Actually, I do consider shooting people trying to surrender a war crime, and at the same time NOT the equivalent of planned torture and and gang rape. But since I am not making that equivalence I don't need to answer for it.  Again, your premise here is that MENTION of IDF war crimes is AUTOMATICALLY "equivalence."  

So just another attempt to enforce your "no criticism of IDF" rule--a rule which blocks accurate description and understanding of what's actually happening in this war. It's possible that you just don't get this "accuracy first" standard, and for you all is blame from the get go; so if someone mentions IDF bad behavior, you sincerely cannot see anything but "equivalence!" and rush to prove Hamas is worse; or it's possible you do know, but don't want that standard near this topic. I can't tell. 

(12-19-2023, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a stretch to suppose that many Palestinian civilians in Gaza have been killed this way, but your "no-equivalence" rule blocks basic recognition of such possibility.  Reminding people of the IDF's sordid history of indiscriminate targeting and using women and children as human shields isn't to create "equivalence" but to break what is in effect an ideological constraint on discussion and encourage a more realistic assessment of what is happening in Gaza. If you lack capacity for analysis-before-blame, then of course any such analysis will just look like another style of blame.
Oh, it's certainly possible.  I'd go so far as to say probable.  Of course, it also falls directly into the realm of accidental killing, as opposed to deliberate and celebrated killing as it is for your boys in Hamas.

Calling an apologist and a false equivocator exactly that is neither.  Your attempts to obfuscate your odious position are transparent and exposed.  As long as you engage in either, or both, activity it will be my pleasure to point it out.  But don't worry, your fellow far leftists will never dare to disagree with you, so you'll have company of a sort.

Another firm "NO" here.

Shooting civilians first and asking questions later does not, under current IHL, fall "directly into the realm of accidental killing" any more than does the death of women and children forced to act as human shields or intentionally shelling a refugee camp. 

Yeah "far leftists will blah blah blah"  Can you not, for one post, simply follow an argument and address it as argument without the partisan emotional drama? If you disagree with the priority I place on accurate description over repetitive angry condemnation, then calmly explain in rational and factual terms why that priority is misplaced--preferably without sharing your feelings with "pleasure" or substituting them for proof. Explain, in rational terms, why Hamas' "celebrated killing" should halt any fuller discussion of what is happening to civilians in the war zone. Simply claiming someone is an "apologist false equivocator" for taking in the whole picture does not "expose" anything. Even if you repeat it three times, it remains baseless accusation. God, if only political arguments were really that easy.