|
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. |
Northern Ireland24410 Posts
On November 22 2023 09:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 08:14 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas. Hamas advocates for killing all Jews on the planet. IDF does not advocate for killing all Muslims on the planet. Are we working with different assumptions here, or are you saying global genocide is morally equivalent to the IDF? Like I said, this is a non-stimulating discussion so I will end it here, but I just wanted to clarify what I see as a critical distinction and verify you are under the same impression when assessing IDF ethics. I said it a while back that I believe there is no moral difference between the life of one person or the lives of a million people. The death of one person is equal to the death of a million people. This is my core ideology about the value of human life, and I hope it explains why I think the IDF can, certainly at this point and perhaps already long ago, reasonably be equated to Hamas. That’s fair and thank you for clarifying. You essentially “bin” results into groups rather than assessing relative intensity, which I honestly do see merit in. If consciously being unethical is unacceptable, it logically follows that killing 1 person is equally unacceptable when compared to 1 million. Both cases should be treated as untenable so the relative values are not a valid consideration. I agree with you when it pertains to situations where zero death is obtainable. And I of course think zero death is actually obtainable in practice so long as you can convince all the right people. May I ask how you view situations where it’s already known this level of influence or impact is not achievable? It feels like you are perhaps a bit stubborn in your assertion that death is always avoidable, but in situations with bad actors or distorted minds, or other factors, I am sure you agree there have been times in history where a person is an ethical observer and does all they can to prevent death, but it happens anyway due to factors they are literally physically unable to overcome. I actually don't think deaths are at all avoidable in the case of this conflict, neither Israeli nor Palestinian. There's no chance that Hamas will just lay down their weapons if Palestinians are no longer oppressed. I'm arguing for goodness for the sake of goodness and not for any utility reasons. Moral actions are always right unless there's a moral dilemma which must be strongly substantiated. In this conflict I believe Israel is hypocritical. They could work towards a more moral and more just world for Palestinians, but they're not doing it, and when a group like Hamas pops up they argue that they're justified in killing many innocent Palestinians despite not allowing for Hamas to inflict the same harm onto them. This is a classic point of view oppressors take. While they continue to bully the victim, the victim is never allowed to lash out in return. Therefore, in my eyes, Hamas becomes a logical consequence. It's the consequence of an impossible situation for Palestinians. They can't fight, they can't escape, they can't stay. What can they do? Absolutely nothing. And no one is helping them. It's very hard to argue that Israel isn't creating and escalating this conflict (in several ways). I think that's what they're doing. Only when they acknowledge that can the future look more promising for Palestinians. And I can tell from my own life experience that abused people who behave like monsters can turn into the greatest beings on the planet - if only they're being treated like respectable humans.
Well said sir, also largely my particular position on this.
The pathway out of this and into is likely prohibitively difficult, but it only becomes actually impossible if one doesn’t earnestly attempt it.
|
On November 22 2023 09:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 08:11 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas. Which one is following the rules of war and which one is not? It is super easy tell them apart. Why do people think it is only a body count issue? If that was the case the Allies are one of the worst organizations of all time. The Allies committed many atrocities in WW2. Many. Yes, and would the world be better off if they did nothing instead? Pretty sure WW2 would have been won without fire bombing Dresden to just name an example. True and yet no one is calling the allies evil and most people here are calling me crazy (or much worse) for suggesting that Isreal is not. I’m not suggesting no one there is, I’m not suggesting they have not done anything wrong. In fact I’ve explicitly stated the opposite over and over again. The only reason why the Allies weren't strictly evil is because we, today, have the power of hindsight. The Allies predicted that the civilian population would eventually turn against their leaders. That prediction turned out to be false. The Allies didn't have the same knowledge as we do today, so they were in a moral dilemma where they could reasonably argue that the utility of civilian bombing is overall positive, and if that were true then it could be morally justified to win the war against the Axis powers. At least until Dresden. By that point there was no moral ambiguity anymore. We, today, are armed with better knowledge and we should therefore act accordingly. And so should Israel. The utility of killing many thousands of civilians is always negative. Israel is not acting accordingly, they're not minimizing the civilian casualties. Netanjahu is falsely claiming that Israel is fighting for its existence. This is a lie. Hamas is militarily defeated and no longer poses a threat to the State of Israel - if they ever truly did to begin with. October 7 seems more like a fluke, not something that would become a regular phenomenon. So there is no threat to the state, and it's practically impossible to argue against that. Therefore the argument in favor of accepting more and more Palestinian civilian casualties loses from a utility perspective and consequently it loses morally as well. But this is not Dresden they are not just firebombing entire neighborhoods they are doing targeted bombings of military targets that were purposefully put in locations to maximize civilian casualties by Hamas, who is also governing the local area. Bibi is an awful human for all sorts of reasons.
If the IDF had to kill thousands of Jewish people in order to destroy Hamas, I think people would very quickly realize how evil the IDF is.
|
On November 22 2023 07:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 07:44 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2023 07:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2023 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 06:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:31 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 05:29 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The comparison to the Korean conflict is apt, and I'm somewhat surprised that you don't conclude that something similar would be achievable - if given a solid effort - with Israel and Palestinians. I believe it absolutely is. Seeing that South Korea manages to hold North Korea at bay, I wonder why Israel wouldn't be able to accomplish something similar with Hamas? Is that a good outcome for Palestinians or anyone ? Short term less people die but I hope we are shooting higher than complete subjugation of a population not to mention an ongoing threat of them starting a war back up at any moment. I mean, I do think it's preferable for people to be under a horrible regime that isn't bombarding them than to be bombarded by a different horrible regime. I don't know how else to put it. Wait Israel is as bad as North Korea? I do not think any of the 20% of the population of Israel who are Palestinians would take that trade. I'm not comparing Israel to North Korea. That was only my first comment (and I was comparing Israel to South Korea, because it was about their military might). South Korea is able to hold off North Korea. Likewise Israel should be able to hold off Hamas. My second comment was about Palestinians getting bombed (by Israel) vs not getting bombed (by Hamas). Despite both Israel and Hamas being horrible regimes, at least Hamas doesn't intend to bomb tens of thousands of Palestinians. The problem with Israel/Hamas is that Hamas doesn't have enough to lose. I think there's merit to the argument that if Hamas had something to lose then it wouldn't really exist, or it would exist in a form that is very different from what we see today. Hamas like cults exist in most of the world. You’re again going back to dangerously close to really it’s their own fault they were raped and murdered. Do you think Israel has the right to exist where it is now? In terms of proportion of population there are not cults like Hamas in most of the world, no. You are wrong. 20000-25000 out of 2.5 million is a lot. The question that you asked is a bit silly but I'm going to assume you mean whether I believe Israelis have a legitimacy to live in Israel, and the answer is yes. No my question is does Israel have a right to exist, not your question which is easy. I do not see huge differences between Hamas, ISIS, Taliban, al-Queda, hezbollah, and so on. I do not know all the proportionality but I'd guess the Taliban is not that different. It also feels like grasping at straws.
I think the question of "right to exist" is actually easier, and it's yes, obviously. But it brings less to the conversation than my first answer imo so that's why I thought you meant that.
The taliban in that list is probably the closest to Hamas, you are correct. I did a quick google and found that there are about 60000 talibans, for a country of 40 million. I would imagine that Talibans are more prevalent in certain regions of Afghanistan than others and if that's the case the relevant number is not 40 million, but it's hard for me to be more specific without making an effort. Either way I think I can safely say that I doubt it's a similar number to that of Hamas/Gaza in terms of proportion of population, and also "Afghanistan" isn't "most of the world", so I believe my argument stands.
|
On November 22 2023 09:40 MaGic~PhiL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
If Hamas simply laid down their arms and surrendered, not a single other Palestinian would have to die. It must be so comforting to live in Fantasy land. Show nested quote +
Unfortunately, that's not their goal. Their goal is the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and they are succeeding in that.
No it is not. It is a thing they willingly accept as collateral damage. Stop lying please. Show nested quote +
I continue to place the blame for all of this where it should be, on Hamas. I'm not even really pro-Israel or pro-IDF other than I believe they have a right to exist. I'm just anti-Hamas and believe the world should do what it takes to eliminate them.
You are so little pro Israel that the last time you interacted in this topic.. you in fact decided to equate DEFENDING with ATTACKING to fit ur narrative.. Lies or Stupidity.. which is it my friend?
My "Fantasy Land" confronts reality. I don't just say, "can't we all get along" and try to sing kumbaya.
I'm not lying about the goals of Hamas. They want to create martyrs to turn the international community against Israel. That's why they fire upon Palestinian people fleeing the fighting holding white flags. They want those people to stay and die and Hamas will kill them if they don't. You are falling for Hamas's ploy. Congrats.
On "attack" versus "defend", you know so little about the English language, yet you try to correct me. It's such a Dunning Kruger moment that it's both funny and sad at the same time. I'll break it down for you one more time:
If someone invades my house and I shoot them, I have "attacked" them. I did not "defend" them. The "attack" could be in the greater act of "self-defense", but it is still an "attack". If you grabbed a shield and blocked, that could be considered "defending". If you took that shield and smashed someone in the face, it would be an "attack". It would make no sense to say that Hamas "defended" the IDF. I am being accused of "defending" the IDF, not Hamas. When Hamas shoots at the IDF, they are "attacking" the IDF, it doesn't matter what land those actions are happening on.
That you don't understand the nuances of English is perfectly fine. English is a confusing language and I'm sure it's your 2nd or 3rd language. That you try to lecture me on it rather than check your own misunderstanding is really telling. It should make you really question if you actually know things or if you are spouting off like you know things when you actually don't.
|
On November 22 2023 09:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 08:14 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas. Hamas advocates for killing all Jews on the planet. IDF does not advocate for killing all Muslims on the planet. Are we working with different assumptions here, or are you saying global genocide is morally equivalent to the IDF? Like I said, this is a non-stimulating discussion so I will end it here, but I just wanted to clarify what I see as a critical distinction and verify you are under the same impression when assessing IDF ethics. I said it a while back that I believe there is no moral difference between the life of one person or the lives of a million people. The death of one person is equal to the death of a million people. This is my core ideology about the value of human life, and I hope it explains why I think the IDF can, certainly at this point and perhaps already long ago, reasonably be equated to Hamas. That’s fair and thank you for clarifying. You essentially “bin” results into groups rather than assessing relative intensity, which I honestly do see merit in. If consciously being unethical is unacceptable, it logically follows that killing 1 person is equally unacceptable when compared to 1 million. Both cases should be treated as untenable so the relative values are not a valid consideration. I agree with you when it pertains to situations where zero death is obtainable. And I of course think zero death is actually obtainable in practice so long as you can convince all the right people. May I ask how you view situations where it’s already known this level of influence or impact is not achievable? It feels like you are perhaps a bit stubborn in your assertion that death is always avoidable, but in situations with bad actors or distorted minds, or other factors, I am sure you agree there have been times in history where a person is an ethical observer and does all they can to prevent death, but it happens anyway due to factors they are literally physically unable to overcome. I actually don't think deaths are at all avoidable in the case of this conflict, neither Israeli nor Palestinian. There's no chance that Hamas will just lay down their weapons if Palestinians are no longer oppressed. I'm arguing for goodness for the sake of goodness and not for any utility reasons. Moral actions are always right unless there's a moral dilemma which must be strongly substantiated. In this conflict I believe Israel is hypocritical. They could work towards a more moral and more just world for Palestinians, but they're not doing it, and when a group like Hamas pops up they argue that they're justified in killing many innocent Palestinians despite not allowing for Hamas to inflict the same harm onto them. This is a classic point of view oppressors take. While they continue to bully the victim, the victim is never allowed to lash out in return. Therefore, in my eyes, Hamas becomes a logical consequence. It's the consequence of an impossible situation for Palestinians. They can't fight, they can't escape, they can't stay. What can they do? Absolutely nothing. And no one is helping them. It's very hard to argue that Israel isn't creating and escalating this conflict (in several ways). I think that's what they're doing. Only when they acknowledge that can the future look more promising for Palestinians. And I can tell from my own life experience that abused people who behave like monsters can turn into the greatest beings on the planet - if only they're being treated like respectable humans.
These are good thoughts and thank you for elaborating. I agree with the broader message but disagree on some details that aren't worth drilling into.
I view the Hamas-focused ethics of the situation as complex. One factor that increases their overall moral failing in my eyes is that they are the elected government of Gaza and there are certain core duties and moral imperatives that come with being the leader/provider/protector of a group of people.
The social contract of government/leadership is straightforward. Citizens comply with laws, pay taxes, and generally conduct themselves in pro-social ways. In return, the government provides safety, security, and whatnot. I view this dynamic as similar but not as extreme as the moral imperatives of being a parent. When a parent knowingly harms their children, it is a profound moral failing and among the highest crimes in my eyes. It is similar with a government, but of course many differences make it not quite as extreme. Regardless, I think Hamas is uniquely morally failing in profound ways when they use human shields and encourage their citizens to serve as martyrs. I agree Israel is doing tons of bad stuff as participants of a war, so I am not arguing against that. But I do also think Hamas is failing in a unique way because of the moral imperative they have to protect their citizens and generally prioritize their best interests. Because Hamas considers killing Jews to be the top priority, they make significant concessions regarding Gazan well-being, which I view as a unique and very intense moral failing because of the social contract involved with government/citizen. What do you think?
Similarly, and less intensely, I take a "depraved indifference" perspective in how I view Egypt/Iran/Yemen/etc in how they encourage Palestinians to be "martyrs" and close their borders and generally go out of their way to not help Gazans. What do you think?
|
On November 22 2023 10:03 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:40 MaGic~PhiL wrote:On November 22 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
If Hamas simply laid down their arms and surrendered, not a single other Palestinian would have to die. It must be so comforting to live in Fantasy land.
Unfortunately, that's not their goal. Their goal is the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and they are succeeding in that.
No it is not. It is a thing they willingly accept as collateral damage. Stop lying please.
I continue to place the blame for all of this where it should be, on Hamas. I'm not even really pro-Israel or pro-IDF other than I believe they have a right to exist. I'm just anti-Hamas and believe the world should do what it takes to eliminate them.
You are so little pro Israel that the last time you interacted in this topic.. you in fact decided to equate DEFENDING with ATTACKING to fit ur narrative.. Lies or Stupidity.. which is it my friend? My "Fantasy Land" confronts reality. I don't just say, "can't we all get along" and try to sing kumbaya.
It is absolutely singing kumbaya to think that Israel wouldn't kill any Palestinians if there was no Hamas.
|
On November 22 2023 09:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:27 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 09:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 08:11 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas. Which one is following the rules of war and which one is not? It is super easy tell them apart. Why do people think it is only a body count issue? If that was the case the Allies are one of the worst organizations of all time. The Allies committed many atrocities in WW2. Many. Yes, and would the world be better off if they did nothing instead? Pretty sure WW2 would have been won without fire bombing Dresden to just name an example. True and yet no one is calling the allies evil and most people here are calling me crazy (or much worse) for suggesting that Isreal is not. I’m not suggesting no one there is, I’m not suggesting they have not done anything wrong. In fact I’ve explicitly stated the opposite over and over again. The only reason why the Allies weren't strictly evil is because we, today, have the power of hindsight. The Allies predicted that the civilian population would eventually turn against their leaders. That prediction turned out to be false. The Allies didn't have the same knowledge as we do today, so they were in a moral dilemma where they could reasonably argue that the utility of civilian bombing is overall positive, and if that were true then it could be morally justified to win the war against the Axis powers. At least until Dresden. By that point there was no moral ambiguity anymore. We, today, are armed with better knowledge and we should therefore act accordingly. And so should Israel. The utility of killing many thousands of civilians is always negative. Israel is not acting accordingly, they're not minimizing the civilian casualties. Netanjahu is falsely claiming that Israel is fighting for its existence. This is a lie. Hamas is militarily defeated and no longer poses a threat to the State of Israel - if they ever truly did to begin with. October 7 seems more like a fluke, not something that would become a regular phenomenon. So there is no threat to the state, and it's practically impossible to argue against that. Therefore the argument in favor of accepting more and more Palestinian civilian casualties loses from a utility perspective and consequently it loses morally as well. But this is not Dresden they are not just firebombing entire neighborhoods they are doing targeted bombings of military targets that were purposefully put in locations to maximize civilian casualties by Hamas, who is also governing the local area. Bibi is an awful human for all sorts of reasons. If the IDF had to kill thousands of Jewish people in order to destroy Hamas, I think people would very quickly realize how evil the IDF is.
ofc they would.. it is abundantly clear by now that they think of the palastine/gazan population as an acceptable collateral damage .. which they never would think of the israeli population
it is simply twisted.. and the fact that they cant even see that.. makes it even worse..
Actually I remember an interviewer asking a high up Israeli GOV member the question "would you act in in the same way if the hostages were in Israel?"
ofc he evaded ... but eventually he admitted they would do everything they could to avoid civilian casualties ect.. they do basically not give a fuck..
you can find TONS of (brutal) footage that shows.. the statement "Israel is just boming military targets" is a goddamn unreal fucking lie.. congrats JimmiC for once again lying..
Whenever the discussion gets a bit more nuanced RenSC2 and JimmiC in particular just begin writing completely distorted stuff
ah man it is all so fucked up.. I am a bit bewildered. I honestly thought I could finally let go of this topic but then people simply act again as if Israel is barely at fault.. type lies and wrong stuff..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On November 22 2023 10:03 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:40 MaGic~PhiL wrote:On November 22 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
If Hamas simply laid down their arms and surrendered, not a single other Palestinian would have to die. It must be so comforting to live in Fantasy land.
Unfortunately, that's not their goal. Their goal is the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and they are succeeding in that.
No it is not. It is a thing they willingly accept as collateral damage. Stop lying please.
I continue to place the blame for all of this where it should be, on Hamas. I'm not even really pro-Israel or pro-IDF other than I believe they have a right to exist. I'm just anti-Hamas and believe the world should do what it takes to eliminate them.
You are so little pro Israel that the last time you interacted in this topic.. you in fact decided to equate DEFENDING with ATTACKING to fit ur narrative.. Lies or Stupidity.. which is it my friend? My "Fantasy Land" confronts reality. I don't just say, "can't we all get along" and try to sing kumbaya. I'm not lying about the goals of Hamas. They want to create martyrs to turn the international community against Israel. That's why they fire upon Palestinian people fleeing the fighting holding white flags. They want those people to stay and die and Hamas will kill them if they don't. You are falling for Hamas's ploy. Congrats. On "attack" versus "defend", you know so little about the English language, yet you try to correct me. It's such a Dunning Kruger moment that it's both funny and sad at the same time. I'll break it down for you one more time: If someone invades my house and I shoot them, I have "attacked" them. I did not "defend" them. The "attack" could be in the greater act of "self-defense", but it is still an "attack". If you grabbed a shield and blocked, that could be considered "defending". If you took that shield and smashed someone in the face, it would be an "attack". It would make no sense to say that Hamas "defended" the IDF. I am being accused of "defending" the IDF, not Hamas. When Hamas shoots at the IDF, they are "attacking" the IDF, it doesn't matter what land those actions are happening on. That you don't understand the nuances of English is perfectly fine. English is a confusing language and I'm sure it's your 2nd or 3rd language. That you try to lecture me on it rather than check your own misunderstanding is really telling. It should make you really question if you actually know things or if you are spouting off like you know things when you actually don't.
No you have DEFENDED your home. Israel is attacking Hamas currently. You are just WRONG. As you have been the last time around. Reminder:
On November 17 2023 08:34 MaGic~PhiL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2023 08:26 RenSC2 wrote:
..
For the Starcraft fans, the "A" key stands for Attack. When you A-move it's Attack-Move. The act is still telling your units to "attack" even if it's in your own base... You are just not bright Im sorry to be offensive again. I can not phrase it any other way at this point. WAR is both sides A- moving. However if Im in your BASE i am attacking and you are defending. Israel is currently IN Hamas base (which is unfortunately at the same time Gaza which is a insanely populated refugee camp). So when you are saying Hamas is the one attacking right now you are either DUMB or a LIER. u didnt even get the analogy right .. DO you see this or not?
It is funny you have the hybris to act as if it is a misunderstanding on my part or a language barrier. Listen my english is sufficient for this discussion. It is mindboggling you would try that angle now.
Read the SCBW example again. It is you who doesnt understand the english language well enough. (or if u are native speaker we are once again at you not understanding extremely simple concepts)
Once again:
in SCBW all we do is fighting/waging war.. YOU INTRODUCED the words "attacking" "defending" and.. u stated Israel is defending vs hamas in gaza right now..
that is why i came up with the anaology which u also butchered..
When Israel is attacking IN Gaza .. then Hamas is DEFENDING
USA was attacking Vietnam and the Vietnamese were defending..
you can not just use words in a wrong way..
you dont get it .. it is not about the ACT but about the LOCATION of the battle which defines who is the attacker and who is the defender..
the fact that you dont STILL get this.. but at the same time needle me about my lack of english understanding for the THIRD time now.. shows.. that you are EITHER a LIER or NOT SO BRIGHT / not understanding the english language properly (despite framing me of not being capable of understanding english rofl)
|
Hostage deal approved by Israels cabinet
Israel’s cabinet approves an agreement for the release of roughly 50 hostages who were abducted into the Gaza Strip during the Hanas terror group’s October 7 onslaught.
In exchange for the hostages’ return, Israel is agreeing to a several day ceasefire and to release some imprisoned Palestinian women and minors, along with allowing more fuel and humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Despite expressing opposition to the agreement, the far-right Religious Zionism party voted in favor, with only Otzma Yehudit ministers voting against, according to Hebrew media.
www.timesofisrael.com
|
On November 22 2023 10:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2023 07:50 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 07:44 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2023 07:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2023 07:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2023 06:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On November 22 2023 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
I mean, I do think it's preferable for people to be under a horrible regime that isn't bombarding them than to be bombarded by a different horrible regime. I don't know how else to put it. Wait Israel is as bad as North Korea? I do not think any of the 20% of the population of Israel who are Palestinians would take that trade. I'm not comparing Israel to North Korea. That was only my first comment (and I was comparing Israel to South Korea, because it was about their military might). South Korea is able to hold off North Korea. Likewise Israel should be able to hold off Hamas. My second comment was about Palestinians getting bombed (by Israel) vs not getting bombed (by Hamas). Despite both Israel and Hamas being horrible regimes, at least Hamas doesn't intend to bomb tens of thousands of Palestinians. The problem with Israel/Hamas is that Hamas doesn't have enough to lose. I think there's merit to the argument that if Hamas had something to lose then it wouldn't really exist, or it would exist in a form that is very different from what we see today. Hamas like cults exist in most of the world. You’re again going back to dangerously close to really it’s their own fault they were raped and murdered. Do you think Israel has the right to exist where it is now? In terms of proportion of population there are not cults like Hamas in most of the world, no. You are wrong. 20000-25000 out of 2.5 million is a lot. The question that you asked is a bit silly but I'm going to assume you mean whether I believe Israelis have a legitimacy to live in Israel, and the answer is yes. No my question is does Israel have a right to exist, not your question which is easy. I do not see huge differences between Hamas, ISIS, Taliban, al-Queda, hezbollah, and so on. I do not know all the proportionality but I'd guess the Taliban is not that different. It also feels like grasping at straws. I think the question of "right to exist" is actually easier, and it's yes, obviously. But it brings less to the conversation than my first answer imo so that's why I thought you meant that. The taliban in that list is probably the closest to Hamas, you are correct. I did a quick google and found that there are about 60000 talibans, for a country of 40 million. I would imagine that Talibans are more prevalent in certain regions of Afghanistan than others and if that's the case the relevant number is not 40 million, but it's hard for me to be more specific without making an effort. Either way I think I can safely say that I doubt it's a similar number to that of Hamas/Gaza in terms of proportion of population, and also "Afghanistan" isn't "most of the world", so I believe my argument stands. How can Israel exist if it does everything that you want? Like if the west stops supporting Israel militarily for example.
The chain of events would be, the West stops support, then Israel, seeing that it doesn't have the West's support, stops its ethnic cleansing campaigns both in Gaza and in the West Bank, and if they truly stop those then there's no issue with supporting Israel again if that becomes necessary. For example if Arab countries start to attack Israel after this and it looks like we're in a position where Israel is in danger of being ethnically cleansed, we should absolutely support Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you need to increase your reading ability a tiny bit. It is not at all necessery to find new sources for my history when we are just talking about the simple task of defining "war" "attack" "defend"..
(just to be sure: I am talking about the quoted stuff between me and RenSC2; I m not talking about that topic at large with that statement; ofc different sources are important in that regard; but seeing as you replied to that QUOTE I assume it was in regards to that.. you know what quotes are for do you? You reply to them. It would be a bit confusing if u quote something and just say something rather unrelated)
I dont have a very distorted view of it. In fact I partly studied this stuff during my university time. I dont rely only on youtube. Nice straw man.
You are honestly a sad trashy person. Again you are lying. Never did I say that I only use youtube rofl.
I read literal literature on this topic. So dont give me that cheap shit. I wont say the M word but u really are one.
|
On November 22 2023 10:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 09:46 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 08:14 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 08:00 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2023 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2023 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Equating Israel and Hamas is definitely lazy at best and dishonest at worst. Its easy to use the standard muddying strategies of "but they both kill people and want the other one totally removed from the same piece of land", but they are simply not the same. There is value in remembering there are enormous differences between the stated goals, methods used, and the way they each provide for and protect their citizens. Hamas's perspectives on "martyrdom" and "should an elected government provide for their citizens" are pretty notable differences.
Regardless, the comparison isn't a worthwhile use of anyone's time. It is just a long chain of people saying "yeah but" in response to each other. It doesn't need to be a fighting game tier list. So while I don't think there is value in creating some data table comparing the 2, it is for sure worth pointing out they are not morally equivalent. Why is it lazy and dishonest to compare Israel and Hamas? What the IDF has been doing in the last few weeks is an absolute atrocity, I can only call it a crime against humanity. I said equate, not compare. I see your location is listed as Austria and I have no idea how much English you know, and I am not trying to be rude here or whatever, but equate means they are identical. Compare indicates they have similarities. I agree they can of course be compared. But equated, absolutely not. That's why I said Israel kills people and is unethical and whatnot. They are morally imperfect in a range of ways, but they don't even approach the summary of the stated goals of Hamas. I'm not convinced anymore that the IDF can't be equated to Hamas. Hamas advocates for killing all Jews on the planet. IDF does not advocate for killing all Muslims on the planet. Are we working with different assumptions here, or are you saying global genocide is morally equivalent to the IDF? Like I said, this is a non-stimulating discussion so I will end it here, but I just wanted to clarify what I see as a critical distinction and verify you are under the same impression when assessing IDF ethics. I said it a while back that I believe there is no moral difference between the life of one person or the lives of a million people. The death of one person is equal to the death of a million people. This is my core ideology about the value of human life, and I hope it explains why I think the IDF can, certainly at this point and perhaps already long ago, reasonably be equated to Hamas. That’s fair and thank you for clarifying. You essentially “bin” results into groups rather than assessing relative intensity, which I honestly do see merit in. If consciously being unethical is unacceptable, it logically follows that killing 1 person is equally unacceptable when compared to 1 million. Both cases should be treated as untenable so the relative values are not a valid consideration. I agree with you when it pertains to situations where zero death is obtainable. And I of course think zero death is actually obtainable in practice so long as you can convince all the right people. May I ask how you view situations where it’s already known this level of influence or impact is not achievable? It feels like you are perhaps a bit stubborn in your assertion that death is always avoidable, but in situations with bad actors or distorted minds, or other factors, I am sure you agree there have been times in history where a person is an ethical observer and does all they can to prevent death, but it happens anyway due to factors they are literally physically unable to overcome. I actually don't think deaths are at all avoidable in the case of this conflict, neither Israeli nor Palestinian. There's no chance that Hamas will just lay down their weapons if Palestinians are no longer oppressed. I'm arguing for goodness for the sake of goodness and not for any utility reasons. Moral actions are always right unless there's a moral dilemma which must be strongly substantiated. In this conflict I believe Israel is hypocritical. They could work towards a more moral and more just world for Palestinians, but they're not doing it, and when a group like Hamas pops up they argue that they're justified in killing many innocent Palestinians despite not allowing for Hamas to inflict the same harm onto them. This is a classic point of view oppressors take. While they continue to bully the victim, the victim is never allowed to lash out in return. Therefore, in my eyes, Hamas becomes a logical consequence. It's the consequence of an impossible situation for Palestinians. They can't fight, they can't escape, they can't stay. What can they do? Absolutely nothing. And no one is helping them. It's very hard to argue that Israel isn't creating and escalating this conflict (in several ways). I think that's what they're doing. Only when they acknowledge that can the future look more promising for Palestinians. And I can tell from my own life experience that abused people who behave like monsters can turn into the greatest beings on the planet - if only they're being treated like respectable humans. These are good thoughts and thank you for elaborating. I agree with the broader message but disagree on some details that aren't worth drilling into. I view the Hamas-focused ethics of the situation as complex. One factor that increases their overall moral failing in my eyes is that they are the elected government of Gaza and there are certain core duties and moral imperatives that come with being the leader/provider/protector of a group of people. The social contract of government/leadership is straightforward. Citizens comply with laws, pay taxes, and generally conduct themselves in pro-social ways. In return, the government provides safety, security, and whatnot. I view this dynamic as similar but not as extreme as the moral imperatives of being a parent. When a parent knowingly harms their children, it is a profound moral failing and among the highest crimes in my eyes. It is similar with a government, but of course many differences make it not quite as extreme. Regardless, I think Hamas is uniquely morally failing in profound ways when they use human shields and encourage their citizens to serve as martyrs. I agree Israel is doing tons of bad stuff as participants of a war, so I am not arguing against that. But I do also think Hamas is failing in a unique way because of the moral imperative they have to protect their citizens and generally prioritize their best interests. Because Hamas considers killing Jews to be the top priority, they make significant concessions regarding Gazan well-being, which I view as a unique and very intense moral failing because of the social contract involved with government/citizen. What do you think? Similarly, and less intensely, I take a "depraved indifference" perspective in how I view Egypt/Iran/Yemen/etc in how they encourage Palestinians to be "martyrs" and close their borders and generally go out of their way to not help Gazans. What do you think?
I don't have a definitive answer, but we have no disagreements about Hamas. They're strictly completely unreasonable and evil. I see little point in debating their shortcomings because we agree on that, and it's so easy to agree.
Israel is the controversy. Hamas is a clear evil, but Israel causes controversy mainly through the actions of the administration and the IDF. And it's been never more controversial than today. Before October 7 I gave a lot of leniency to Israel because I thought they were still acting within some reason. But I no longer believe that, and that's why this is my focal point.
There's nothing to debate regarding Hamas other than "how evil exactly are they on a scale of 99 to 100?"
"Between 1-100?"
"No, just 99 or 100. Out of 100".
Where does that put Netanjahu and the IDF? I think they're firmly in the 80+ region. He lies about a threat to Israel's existence and justifies this war. The IDF does his bidding. Meanwhile the oppression continues, and there's no mention of a resolution. There's only the justification of walking over an ever growing pile of dead bodies.
|
|
|
Dude I didnt say you did. I think u mixed this up. It was a response to RenSC2. It wasnt RvB either. I was talking and quoting RenSC2.
So confusing.
|
On November 22 2023 10:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2023 10:37 MaGic~PhiL wrote:
I think you need to increase your reading ability a tiny bit. It is not at all necessery to find new sources for my history when we are just talking about the simple task of defining "war" "attack" "defend"..
I dont have a very distorted view of it. In fact I partly studied this stuff during my university time. I dont rely only on youtube. Nice straw man.
You are honestly a sad trashy person. Again you are lying. Never did I say that I only use youtube rofl.
I read literal literature on this topic. So dont give me that cheap shit. I wont say the M word but or u really are on. I never did the SC thing, Me and RVB are not the same person nor do we have the same views. The US did not attack Vietnam, it was a proxy war between the US and USSR with both picking sides. As you accuse me of doing what you are actually doing.... With just straight up insults, pretty sad. Scroll one post above yours and find the word "only".
dude that is not the point OFC it was a proxy war. but the LOCATION the war was fought in was VIETNAM and not THE motherfucking USA .. thus .. (the) Vietnam(ese) was/were DEFENDING and USA was attacking..
This wasnt about the intricacies of the Vietnam war. It was about the simple observation that in a WAR location defines who is the attacker and who is the defender.
Nothing more nothing less. Between me and RenSC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
