NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
That's a peculiar way to read/react to that sentence, but no, it doesn't.
It's not hard guys, the sentence means what it says.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
In the sentence "disagree with them", "them" is not Palestinians, it's the people who answered "yes" to the poll. He's saying that Israel disagrees with you on the notion that Palestinians have a right to self-defense. I can only assume that you're (collectively) having trouble with the sentence because otherwise your reactions don't make any sense at all.
On November 16 2023 14:23 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I don't think they cared about the hostages or gave them much thought at all.
I guess their death wasn't really such a large "price to pay" as you portrayed one post ago then, since they're not even thinking about them.
Think little, yes. Think none, no. Israel has made some efforts to avoid killing the Palestinian people, but I understand that those efforts are not sufficient for you.
@MaGic-PhiL Just because something is "main stream media" does not make it wrong. In fact, it's more likely to be right because Mainstream media usually follows the consensus rather than try to push fringe narratives. Even then, those "mainstream media" outlets are all independent. They love to get scoops before their competitors. They just don't get into the fringes. You consider yourself more knowledgeable because you listen to fringe opinions. You're not more knowledgeable, you're just further down the rabbit hole. Mainstream media pushes the idea that the Earth is approximately spherical. Are you now a flat Earther?
Also, who's accusing anyone in here of antisemitism? I mocked as antisemitism one of your statements where you demanded all Jews apologize for Israel, but I don't accuse other people that I vehemently disagree with of antisemitism. I haven't seen any other accusations in here in quite awhile either. I know it happens in other places, but I lump it in with the people who say Israel is committing Genocide. They're not, even now and never have. It's just clueless people who throw out the most impactful word they can think of. It seems like you're dragging your baggage from other places into here or else you're trying to set up straw men. Either way, stop that. We're a bunch of guys who enjoy video games, but the conversation in here is still much higher quality than most online shouting matches.
@Magic Powers If a serial killer hasn't killed in over a month, should the police stop pursuing him? That would be silly. Even if Hamas laid down their arms completely, they should still be pursued for what they did on Oct 7th.
However, that's not what has happened. The war has changed venue, but it's still being fought. Hamas is still attacking. It's just that they're only able to attack the IDF and it's now happening in Hamas's territory.
@GreenHorizons Yes, Palestinians have the right to self-defense. They absolutely should take up arms and drive Hamas out. Hamas's war crimes have now left over 11,000 Palestinians dead.
If you mean against Israel, their best defense would be non-violent resistance and at the negotiating table. However, if they want to set up military bases and keep a defense force, I think they have that right. I just don't think it'd work out too well for them.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
This justifies collective punishment by making Hamas and Palestinians the same thing. Hamas and Palestinians are not one and the same the same way all americans are not republicans or George bush launching an invasion of Iraq.
That's a peculiar way to read/react to that sentence, but no, it doesn't.
It's not hard guys, the sentence means what it says.
You are saying "Israel believes Palestinians do not have a right to self defense"
That would mean Israel believes if they unleashed their entire military on all Palestinian land, they would believe any form of retribution would be an injustice. It would mean all Palestinians living in Israel should not have any form of access to the justice system and any crime committed against them would be considered equivalent to cutting a piece of paper.
You also only wrote "Israel". Did you mean Israeli government? All Israeli citizens? Who is included in "Israel"?
Are you worried we will use your words against you in some way? We are not politicians. Well, for all I know you actually are one, but I have no idea who you are and I don't think any of us do. You could describe an enthusiasm for ketchup on steak and none of us would have a means of holding you accountable for it. A lot of people totally hate a bunch of stuff I say, but I don't think it really harms my relationship with folks here and it isn't something that harms by daily life. Because we're just some people talking in an internet community semi-anonymously. I think you should feel more comfortable describing your views in more detail and participating with more earnest. You clearly want to engage, but something appears to make you hesitate. I don't know what it is, but I hope it is destroyed through some means.
On November 16 2023 14:23 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad I don't think they cared about the hostages or gave them much thought at all.
I guess their death wasn't really such a large "price to pay" as you portrayed one post ago then, since they're not even thinking about them.
Think little, yes. Think none, no. Israel has made some efforts to avoid killing the Palestinian people, but I understand that those efforts are not sufficient for you.
The sentence I'm being attacked for is "We intentionally killed bystanders". It is irrelevant to this sentence whether you made efforts to not kill bystanders or not. You're launching bombs on a place where there are civilians, you have object permanence, you understand how bombs work, you know that civilians are going to die. It's not an accident. It's not an oversight. The army launching the bomb is saying "The goal that we have is more important than the life of the civilians that are here". We can't say "We are intentionally *targeting* bystanders", for example, as that would require evidence that they did that.
Every time we enter into a discussion where perhaps the death of the civilians is justified because the target would have caused more deaths in the future, and so they are the "price to pay" for hitting the target, or every time we enter into a discussion on whether the target used the civilians as human shields and is therefore responsible, there's a requirement for this justification to make sense that the bystanders were intentionally killed. This has been a huge waste of time because you're defending the morality of this intentional targeting of civilians when all I did and all I required for my argument was to state its existence.
[it is mainly about the policy / politics of Israel in the last years and ofc current events] 34-37minutes in particular is my main stance in a nutshell..
On November 17 2023 07:06 RenSC2 wrote: @Magic Powers If a serial killer hasn't killed in over a month, should the police stop pursuing him? That would be silly. Even if Hamas laid down their arms completely, they should still be pursued for what they did on Oct 7th.
If pursuing the killer comes with the expectation of significantly more innocent lives lost than from not pursuing him, then yes the police should stop pursing. Especially so if the killer is expected to not be able to kill anyone ever again due to being exposed as the threat that he is, and thus the police being able to protect people properly moving forward. I don't know why this isn't clear yet? We've been having this discussion for many pages.
@MaGic-PhiL Just because something is "main stream media" does not make it wrong. In fact, it's more likely to be right because Mainstream media usually follows the consensus rather than try to push fringe narratives.
First sentence is obviously true. I never said everything mainstream media said is wrong. The 2nd sentence is simply wrong. If you think consensus = fact you are unfortunately out of your mind. (e.g. if the Nazis during WW2 would have won.. the crimes that happened during that time would never have come to light.. would that then mean that the holocaust did not take place? NO IT WOULD NOT)
Even then, those "mainstream media" outlets are all independent.
are you kidding? I advise you read "manifacturing consent" by chomsky
They just don't get into the fringes..
which is presicely what you need to do
You consider yourself more knowledgeable because you listen to fringe opinions. You're not more knowledgeable, you're just further down the rabbit hole
No. Fringe Opinions arent what I base my view on. I base them on serious sources (Amnesty & human rights watch and individuals who studied and wrote about the conflict for decades).
Mainstream media pushes the idea that the Earth is approximately spherical. Are you now a flat Earther?
Nope. Because I have a education and know literal experiments I can conduct to prove the eart is not flat.
However it is pretty hard to run an experiment on say "What really happened in the JFK assasination". However I think people who believe the official narrative have either never looked at it closely or are just accepting EVERYTHING the mainstream media ever said as true.
I am not saying the mainstream media doesnt produce mostly truth / facts. But Im saying it 100% does not exculsively. And it I like to look at things very closely and when things do not make sense or seem not true & not logical I doubt the mainstream narrative.
Also, who's accusing anyone in here of antisemitism?
JimmiC did 4-5 pages ago..
... I lump it in with the people who say Israel is committing Genocide. They're not, even now and never have. It's just clueless people who throw out the most impactful word they can think of..
Well and if you look at credible sources it simply is not as clear as u make it out to be. I am sorry but it is simply wrong. It is 100% up to debate whether it is in fact genocide. It is almost not up to debate whether it is Annexation. It is almost not up to debate whether it is some form of ethnic cleansing.
@Magic Powers
...
The war has changed venue, but it's still being fought. Hamas is still attacking. It's just that they're only able to attack the IDF and it's now happening in Hamas's territory.
Imagine the derangement and unfaithfulness one has to have to write this. On a gaming site.. makes it almost funny. Whenever Im Hydra busting a Protoss opponent (AT HIS BASE) it is not me attacking. No .. the protoss is attacking me. Are you kidding me.
On November 17 2023 07:06 RenSC2 wrote: @Magic Powers If a serial killer hasn't killed in over a month, should the police stop pursuing him? That would be silly. Even if Hamas laid down their arms completely, they should still be pursued for what they did on Oct 7th.
If pursuing the killer comes with the expectation of significantly more innocent lives lost than from not pursuing him, then yes the police should stop pursing. Especially so if the killer is expected to not be able to kill anyone ever again due to being exposed as the threat that he is, and thus the police being able to protect people properly moving forward. I don't know why this isn't clear yet? We've been having this discussion for many pages.
Are you under the impression that Hamas will never kill again?
It is not that you are not clear, or he is not being clear it is that you disagree.
I've made this argument so many times now, it should be well understood by now. Hamas are not a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. Their absolute best effort resulted in not much more than 1200 deaths, and it took the IDF not very long to drive them all out and secure the borders. The next attack by Hamas is going to cost far fewer lives because the IDF can prepare for absolutely every conceivable angle of attack and they will not make the same mistake again of underestimating Hamas' will and capability. Furthermore, Hamas has already been militarily crippled in the past few weeks.
There is no realistic expectation that Hamas can kill another 1200 people in Israel. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume they can repeat that, because that assumption would require the IDF to drop their guard for a second time just as they did before October 7. It makes no sense. Hamas can't be considered so dangerous anymore at this point that it'd justify the killing of so many innocent civilians in the pursuit of destroying Hamas. It doesn't check out.
@Nebuchad It seems we've come to a semantic disagreement over the word "Intention".
(Oxford) intention - a thing intended; an aim or plan. (Merriam Webster) intention - what one intends (intend - to have in mind as a purpose or goal) to do or bring about
Intention implies that it was the "aim" or "purpose". The aim is at terrorists, not innocent civilians. The purpose was to kill Hamas, not innocent civilians. Yes, they knew that innocents would die in the process, but it wasn't the intention.
@Magic Powers As JimmiC says, we disagree greatly about Hamas's ability to kill again in the future. Given time, they absolutely will kill again.
We also disagree about what means are acceptable to bring someone to justice. I do not accept that we should just let killers go because they make the immediate pursuit too costly. It sets a terrible precedence that encourages further bad behavior such that the immediate math can be superseded by the long term effects.
I voted yes because Palestinians are at war with Israel and the cycle of offense and defense is a fundamental component of that. Hamas is the Palestinian government of Gaza and they are at war with Israel.
I am praying this isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation into “they started it!!!”, since that’s a tired, repetitive discussion no one needs to repeat. But I’ve been hurt before, so I’m worried.
One of the first things anyone saying yes has to reconcile with their perspective is that Israel fundamentally disagrees with them.
Are you trying to say that Hamas is defending the Palestinians?
If you go back in time far enough to its founding? basically yes. From my limited understand, which may well be wrong, Hamas formed around the first intifada which was a response to the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West bank. As far as they are concerned they are fighting for the freedom of Palestinians being oppressed by Israel.
Remember, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Some how a couple pages back 100% of the people disagreed with you. But now multiple people are circling the freedom fighter drain again.
It seems like a lot of people have conflicting views with themselves.
Maybe this is why they keep making up views I have to argue against that are simpler. My views are not hidden, I do not think Hamas is run by people who care about Palestinians in the slightest. I do not believe their branding any more than I believe North Korea's.
Committing heinous acts, holding heinous views and caring about one’s people aren’t mutually exclusive things.
We are all thankfully insulated from the kinds of conditions that exist in Gaza, and what that will do to a populace over time. We all (I assume) recognise deprivation’s negative effects in all sorts of metrics in our various locales, but these still pale into comparison to Gaza, most places do.
One can acknowledge this without in any way approving of their methods or rationales.
No, once you start treating your own people the way Hamas does you do not. Hamas profits from Palestinian suffering more than anyone. There are other more conflicted groups like the Fatah where you could make the argument you are making.
There should be no apologizing or partially justifying or whatever else people are doing for Hamas. You do not need to, to still believe that Israel is in the wrong in going about uprooting Hamas the way they are.
It is very strange to me that many people are calling me pro Israel because clearly I’m not. Feel free to prove me wrong by going back and finding my posts that support their actions or even that think they will be successful defeating Hamas in this way.
How do Hamas particularly profit from Palestinian suffering? It’s hardly like they live a life of luxury in somewhere like Gaza, above the mere peons. Hell if they did the IDF would have a hell of an easier time targeting them
People will rightly take Hamas on face value when they utter genocidal missives about Israel. It strikes me as not unreasonable to also extend them as believing in their other goals and values either.
I think I get it now somewhat. One side is looking at this conflict from a outside / meta view and tries to look at it objectively and from a policy / military stance.
The others JimmiC, Rens and RvB seem like they have a a certain view they want to or need to hold upfront. And they simply wont refrain from it.
Going as far as simly misusing words (fighting on your own land gets called attacking).. I mean come on.. at some point it gets a bit blatant doesn it.
I have no one close there. I have no personal qualms or biases. All I have is extreme pity for everyone there suffering. Israels and Palestines alike. However if Id have to choose numbers Id say on a scale from 1-100 .. the Israeli poulation is sowmehere at 3-4 on the suffering scal whilst most of gazans are at 79+..
And that is precisely what irks me the most.. RvB Rens and JimmiC in particular are writing here in a manner that makes you think the "level of suffering is pretty equal"..
Maybe you really think that? JimmiC, RvB, Rens, do you? Maybe you in fact think Israel on average suffers more than Palestine?
Like the way you talk about the imminent dangers of hamas to israel is so absurd. Tel Aviv is one of the safest cities.. Israel is extremely safe.
You paint a picture that is just simply not in line with reality. I am sorry.
On November 17 2023 08:02 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad It seems we've come to a semantic disagreement over the word "Intention".
(Oxford) intention - a thing intended; an aim or plan. (Merriam Webster) intention - what one intends (intend - to have in mind as a purpose or goal) to do or bring about
Intention implies that it was the "aim" or "purpose". The aim is at terrorists, not innocent civilians. The purpose was to kill Hamas, not innocent civilians. Yes, they knew that innocents would die in the process, but it wasn't the intention.
The word I used was intentionally, which you can check in that same dictionary means "in an intentional manner: with awareness of what one is doing: purposely". You should have checked the adjective "intentional", which the adverb derives from and which means "done by intention or design: intended", as opposed to the noun "intention", which the adverb doesn't derive from.
On November 17 2023 08:02 RenSC2 wrote: @Nebuchad It seems we've come to a semantic disagreement over the word "Intention".
(Oxford) intention - a thing intended; an aim or plan. (Merriam Webster) intention - what one intends (intend - to have in mind as a purpose or goal) to do or bring about
Intention implies that it was the "aim" or "purpose". The aim is at terrorists, not innocent civilians. The purpose was to kill Hamas, not innocent civilians. Yes, they knew that innocents would die in the process, but it wasn't the intention.
By this logic you’d be fine if a wasp settled on your crotch and I said ‘hold still I’ll get this little bugger’ and punched you right in the balls.
I mean my stated intent was that I’d get the buzzy boy, you can’t get mad of the collateral damage I did your testicles right?
another case.. just what I said. the arguments are not there to make sense but to come to the conclusion (in this case RenSc2) the person wants to be true to fit his biased opinion/world view.
It makes no sense. Is not logical and not true. As shown by wombat in this case.
On November 17 2023 07:06 RenSC2 wrote: @Magic Powers
...
The war has changed venue, but it's still being fought. Hamas is still attacking. It's just that they're only able to attack the IDF and it's now happening in Hamas's territory.
Imagine the derangement and unfaithfulness one has to have to write this. On a gaming site.. makes it almost funny. Whenever Im Hydra busting a Protoss opponent (AT HIS BASE) it is not me attacking. No .. the protoss is attacking me. Are you kidding me.
Nice MISS usage of words. Absolutely insane.
I believe Ren edited that in later. It's apparently a common line of reasoning in this thread. People reason that a war of aggression is justified even after all the defensive efforts have been concluded. Basically if a country gets invaded and successfully drives out the invader, stabilizes its borders and can no longer detect a credible threat, somehow they have the right to invade in return.
The Israeli administration is still painting Hamas as a credible threat to the State of Israel. There's no evidence that this would still be true today, but that doesn't seem to stop the warmongers from making the claim. The hostages are the only people who are still facing a serious threat from Hamas, and yet the negotiations have stalled for several weeks. Netanjahu has demonstrated so far that he cares more about destroying Gaza than about saving the hostages. So the people who Hamas can provably harm right now are being left by the wayside, and the IDF continues to lay waste to Gaza and kills many more innocent people.
EPT
