Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[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.