|
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. |
|
|
On March 08 2024 06:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:32 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:18 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:08 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm certainly no expert on the topic but the only thing I've seen in the last few posts that seemed antisemitic to me was when JimmiC equated Israel and Jewish people, making the disgusting generalization that all Jewish people agree with Israel's actions and that criticism of Israel was criticism of Jews. Other than that I didn't spot anything reprehensible. As I said to salazar on the last make up, Source it or fuck off. On March 08 2024 03:17 JimmiC wrote:
But you can obviously see given the history of the Jews and Nazi's why comparing the two would be problematic no?
Have you not been on the other side of many dog whistle arguments? Well right there you said that given the history of the Jews and Nazis it is problematic to compare Israel with Nazis, which in a world where Jews and Israel are clearly separated groups, it isn't. Wow, how embarrassing for you. Wait until you find out how it got started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state#:~:text=10 External links-,Overview,for British Palestine in 1947. I've read this wiki page before, it's a good summary of how far right and unequal zionist ideology is at a fundamental level. But I'm not a zionist though, so I'm unsure why I would be embarrassed by it. BTW one of the common ways leftists who are antisemites hide it, is by jus saying things about zionists. Might have ticked all the boxes now, congrats! Seriously you should read up even ifit is just to argue me, at least you will have some basis to do so. You should be embarrassed because as per usual I didn't say what you accused me of. Israel is a Jewish state, the only one, and this shouldn't be new information. First of all I don't think you should have linked to the page "Jewish state" in order to make this point, as "Jewish state" is a page related to conservatism in Israel, talking about how Israel is a state for the Jewish people (and by extension at the exclusion of others). Second, Israel being a state where a large amount of the population is Jewish doesn't change the fact that unless you are viewing Israel and Jews as synonymous, which in my opinion would be antisemitic, it can't be problematic to make comparisons between Israel and nazis based on the history of Jews and nazis. It's not difficult to see that someone saying something like "The Jews are behaving like nazis" would very likely be moved by antisemitic sentiment. "Israel is behaving like nazis" is a very different statement, because "Israel" and "The Jews" are very different topics. It's a bit surprising that you disagree. Please explain how they are very different topics. For some reason I've been under the impression they are very much linked and the treatment of the Jews was what lead to the creation of Israel. But I look forward to being enlightened.
They're very different topics because "Israel" and "Jewish people" refer to very different groups, which surely you agree with since you just complained that I was misrepresenting you when I stated that you equated the two.
1948 is the date for the passation from the British Empire to Israel, the project was in the works long before the second world war.
|
|
|
On March 08 2024 07:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:53 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:32 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:18 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:08 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm certainly no expert on the topic but the only thing I've seen in the last few posts that seemed antisemitic to me was when JimmiC equated Israel and Jewish people, making the disgusting generalization that all Jewish people agree with Israel's actions and that criticism of Israel was criticism of Jews. Other than that I didn't spot anything reprehensible. As I said to salazar on the last make up, Source it or fuck off. On March 08 2024 03:17 JimmiC wrote:
But you can obviously see given the history of the Jews and Nazi's why comparing the two would be problematic no?
Have you not been on the other side of many dog whistle arguments? Well right there you said that given the history of the Jews and Nazis it is problematic to compare Israel with Nazis, which in a world where Jews and Israel are clearly separated groups, it isn't. Wow, how embarrassing for you. Wait until you find out how it got started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state#:~:text=10 External links-,Overview,for British Palestine in 1947. I've read this wiki page before, it's a good summary of how far right and unequal zionist ideology is at a fundamental level. But I'm not a zionist though, so I'm unsure why I would be embarrassed by it. BTW one of the common ways leftists who are antisemites hide it, is by jus saying things about zionists. Might have ticked all the boxes now, congrats! Seriously you should read up even ifit is just to argue me, at least you will have some basis to do so. You should be embarrassed because as per usual I didn't say what you accused me of. Israel is a Jewish state, the only one, and this shouldn't be new information. First of all I don't think you should have linked to the page "Jewish state" in order to make this point, as "Jewish state" is a page related to conservatism in Israel, talking about how Israel is a state for the Jewish people (and by extension at the exclusion of others). Second, Israel being a state where a large amount of the population is Jewish doesn't change the fact that unless you are viewing Israel and Jews as synonymous, which in my opinion would be antisemitic, it can't be problematic to make comparisons between Israel and nazis based on the history of Jews and nazis. It's not difficult to see that someone saying something like "The Jews are behaving like nazis" would very likely be moved by antisemitic sentiment. "Israel is behaving like nazis" is a very different statement, because "Israel" and "The Jews" are very different topics. It's a bit surprising that you disagree. Please explain how they are very different topics. For some reason I've been under the impression they are very much linked and the treatment of the Jews was what lead to the creation of Israel. But I look forward to being enlightened. They're very different topics because "Israel" and "Jewish people" refer to very different groups, which surely you agree with since you just complained that I was misrepresenting you when I stated that you equated the two. 1948 is the date for the passation from the British Empire to Israel, the project was in the works long before the second world war. How was support for it before the war? Israel is a country and Jewish people are a people so of course they are different. But Israel is very important an inexplicitly linked to the Jewish people because what it represents. A safe place from all the many billions of people who want them all killed....
You are beyond help my man. And there I was confused sometimes why you accused people here who just were unhappy with Israels actions of antisemitism.
Sorry man but you are completely lost. You live in your own reality. Useless discussing with a completely deranged humanbeing.
In case u didn't get my point: Even if there were many billions (so at least half the population) antisemites on this planet surely not everyone of these antisemites wants all jews killed.
Like what you write there is so insane and deranged I find it really hard to take you seriously at all.
|
On March 08 2024 07:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:53 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:32 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:24 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:18 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:10 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:08 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm certainly no expert on the topic but the only thing I've seen in the last few posts that seemed antisemitic to me was when JimmiC equated Israel and Jewish people, making the disgusting generalization that all Jewish people agree with Israel's actions and that criticism of Israel was criticism of Jews. Other than that I didn't spot anything reprehensible. As I said to salazar on the last make up, Source it or fuck off. On March 08 2024 03:17 JimmiC wrote:
But you can obviously see given the history of the Jews and Nazi's why comparing the two would be problematic no?
Have you not been on the other side of many dog whistle arguments? Well right there you said that given the history of the Jews and Nazis it is problematic to compare Israel with Nazis, which in a world where Jews and Israel are clearly separated groups, it isn't. Wow, how embarrassing for you. Wait until you find out how it got started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state#:~:text=10 External links-,Overview,for British Palestine in 1947. I've read this wiki page before, it's a good summary of how far right and unequal zionist ideology is at a fundamental level. But I'm not a zionist though, so I'm unsure why I would be embarrassed by it. BTW one of the common ways leftists who are antisemites hide it, is by jus saying things about zionists. Might have ticked all the boxes now, congrats! Seriously you should read up even ifit is just to argue me, at least you will have some basis to do so. You should be embarrassed because as per usual I didn't say what you accused me of. Israel is a Jewish state, the only one, and this shouldn't be new information. First of all I don't think you should have linked to the page "Jewish state" in order to make this point, as "Jewish state" is a page related to conservatism in Israel, talking about how Israel is a state for the Jewish people (and by extension at the exclusion of others). Second, Israel being a state where a large amount of the population is Jewish doesn't change the fact that unless you are viewing Israel and Jews as synonymous, which in my opinion would be antisemitic, it can't be problematic to make comparisons between Israel and nazis based on the history of Jews and nazis. It's not difficult to see that someone saying something like "The Jews are behaving like nazis" would very likely be moved by antisemitic sentiment. "Israel is behaving like nazis" is a very different statement, because "Israel" and "The Jews" are very different topics. It's a bit surprising that you disagree. Please explain how they are very different topics. For some reason I've been under the impression they are very much linked and the treatment of the Jews was what lead to the creation of Israel. But I look forward to being enlightened. They're very different topics because "Israel" and "Jewish people" refer to very different groups, which surely you agree with since you just complained that I was misrepresenting you when I stated that you equated the two. 1948 is the date for the passation from the British Empire to Israel, the project was in the works long before the second world war. Israel is a country and Jewish people are a people so of course they are different. But Israel is very important an inexplicitly linked to the Jewish people because what it represents. A safe place from all the many billions of people who want them all killed. Many who have tried.
Okay so what are you disagreeing with?
If Jewish people and Israel refer to different realities, then it logically follows that comparing the behavior of Israel to the behavior of nazis can't be problematic based on the history of the nazis with Jewish people, as Jewish people aren't synonymous with Israel.
|
On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 02:26 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. I'm sure the "context" of bullets and shrapnels ripping through men, women and children who were told to move South to flee from a war zone is very relevant to them now that they've met their maker. You're shifting the goal posts. Your claim is that it is a war crime. Obviously nobody cares whether something is legally a war crime or not when you're in an active war zone fearing for your life. Nobody disputes that.
I'm not shifting the goalpost at all. It is a warcrime. And you're also excusing the war crime.
|
|
|
On March 08 2024 08:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 07:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:53 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:32 Nebuchad wrote:I've read this wiki page before, it's a good summary of how far right and unequal zionist ideology is at a fundamental level. But I'm not a zionist though, so I'm unsure why I would be embarrassed by it. BTW one of the common ways leftists who are antisemites hide it, is by jus saying things about zionists. Might have ticked all the boxes now, congrats! Seriously you should read up even ifit is just to argue me, at least you will have some basis to do so. You should be embarrassed because as per usual I didn't say what you accused me of. Israel is a Jewish state, the only one, and this shouldn't be new information. First of all I don't think you should have linked to the page "Jewish state" in order to make this point, as "Jewish state" is a page related to conservatism in Israel, talking about how Israel is a state for the Jewish people (and by extension at the exclusion of others). Second, Israel being a state where a large amount of the population is Jewish doesn't change the fact that unless you are viewing Israel and Jews as synonymous, which in my opinion would be antisemitic, it can't be problematic to make comparisons between Israel and nazis based on the history of Jews and nazis. It's not difficult to see that someone saying something like "The Jews are behaving like nazis" would very likely be moved by antisemitic sentiment. "Israel is behaving like nazis" is a very different statement, because "Israel" and "The Jews" are very different topics. It's a bit surprising that you disagree. Please explain how they are very different topics. For some reason I've been under the impression they are very much linked and the treatment of the Jews was what lead to the creation of Israel. But I look forward to being enlightened. They're very different topics because "Israel" and "Jewish people" refer to very different groups, which surely you agree with since you just complained that I was misrepresenting you when I stated that you equated the two. 1948 is the date for the passation from the British Empire to Israel, the project was in the works long before the second world war. Israel is a country and Jewish people are a people so of course they are different. But Israel is very important an inexplicitly linked to the Jewish people because what it represents. A safe place from all the many billions of people who want them all killed. Many who have tried. Okay so what are you disagreeing with? If Jewish people and Israel refer to different realities, then it logically follows that comparing the behavior of Israel to the behavior of nazis can't be problematic based on the history of the nazis with Jewish people, as Jewish people aren't synonymous with Israel. The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel. The example in the definition is Boston.and marathon, now those two go together but I’m pretty sure the first thing that comes to mind when you say Israel is the Jews and vice versa. Thank you , I couldn’t have said it better my self. In current event news the blood thirsty Israelis are dumbly setting up a third ground entrance to Gaza to allow more aid to pass, completely going against their secret but obvious goal of killing all the Palestinians. The complicit evil Americans are setting up a port. What monsters. /s
A reminder that one page ago I said that you were equating Israel and Jewish people and you said that I was an evil bad person misrepresenting you, and now you say that "The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel".
For the rest, I'll leave it there. As already said, this, to me, is an antisemitic notion, and the closest anyone in this thread has been to being openly antisemitic.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On March 08 2024 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 07:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:53 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:32 Nebuchad wrote:I've read this wiki page before, it's a good summary of how far right and unequal zionist ideology is at a fundamental level. But I'm not a zionist though, so I'm unsure why I would be embarrassed by it. BTW one of the common ways leftists who are antisemites hide it, is by jus saying things about zionists. Might have ticked all the boxes now, congrats! Seriously you should read up even ifit is just to argue me, at least you will have some basis to do so. You should be embarrassed because as per usual I didn't say what you accused me of. Israel is a Jewish state, the only one, and this shouldn't be new information. First of all I don't think you should have linked to the page "Jewish state" in order to make this point, as "Jewish state" is a page related to conservatism in Israel, talking about how Israel is a state for the Jewish people (and by extension at the exclusion of others). Second, Israel being a state where a large amount of the population is Jewish doesn't change the fact that unless you are viewing Israel and Jews as synonymous, which in my opinion would be antisemitic, it can't be problematic to make comparisons between Israel and nazis based on the history of Jews and nazis. It's not difficult to see that someone saying something like "The Jews are behaving like nazis" would very likely be moved by antisemitic sentiment. "Israel is behaving like nazis" is a very different statement, because "Israel" and "The Jews" are very different topics. It's a bit surprising that you disagree. Please explain how they are very different topics. For some reason I've been under the impression they are very much linked and the treatment of the Jews was what lead to the creation of Israel. But I look forward to being enlightened. They're very different topics because "Israel" and "Jewish people" refer to very different groups, which surely you agree with since you just complained that I was misrepresenting you when I stated that you equated the two. 1948 is the date for the passation from the British Empire to Israel, the project was in the works long before the second world war. Israel is a country and Jewish people are a people so of course they are different. But Israel is very important an inexplicitly linked to the Jewish people because what it represents. A safe place from all the many billions of people who want them all killed. Many who have tried. Okay so what are you disagreeing with? If Jewish people and Israel refer to different realities, then it logically follows that comparing the behavior of Israel to the behavior of nazis can't be problematic based on the history of the nazis with Jewish people, as Jewish people aren't synonymous with Israel. The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel. The example in the definition is Boston.and marathon, now those two go together but I’m pretty sure the first thing that comes to mind when you say Israel is the Jews and vice versa. Thank you , I couldn’t have said it better my self. In current event news the blood thirsty Israelis are dumbly setting up a third ground entrance to Gaza to allow more aid to pass, completely going against their secret but obvious goal of killing all the Palestinians. The complicit evil Americans are setting up a port. What monsters. /s A reminder that one page ago I said that you were equating Israel and Jewish people and you said that I was an evil bad person misrepresenting you, and now you say that "The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel". For the rest, I'll leave it there. As already said, this, to me, is an antisemitic notion, and the closest anyone in this thread has been to being openly antisemitic.
I mean Cerebrate who I think posts very sensibly and cogently, but would probably personally concede a certain level of bias isn’t going around pulling the anti-semitism charge on posters in this particular thread, which I feel is somewhat telling.
Jimmy just wants to argue that Israel is a liberal democracy and thus charges one can level against it are somehow deflected by that. He equivocates constantly to justify Israeli actions in a manner he absolutely does not to other scenarios.
Oh it’s not ethnic cleansing it’s like, something bad but it isn’t that. Oh it’s not colonalism it’s merely ‘wanting land for people to live’. Then getting offended by someone drawing a parallel with ‘lebensraum’ which literally translated means ‘living space’.
Then he wants to say he’s the sole voice of unbiased reason while he’ll absolutely slam China for doing (on a much less egregious scale) the exact same thing Israel does because he doesn’t like their political system.
The guy literally said settlements might not be that bad because at some future juncture Israel might give them back, it’s preposterous argumentation.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland22955 Posts
On March 08 2024 10:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 09:59 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 07:15 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:53 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 06:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 06:37 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
BTW one of the common ways leftists who are antisemites hide it, is by jus saying things about zionists. Might have ticked all the boxes now, congrats! Seriously you should read up even ifit is just to argue me, at least you will have some basis to do so.
You should be embarrassed because as per usual I didn't say what you accused me of. Israel is a Jewish state, the only one, and this shouldn't be new information. First of all I don't think you should have linked to the page "Jewish state" in order to make this point, as "Jewish state" is a page related to conservatism in Israel, talking about how Israel is a state for the Jewish people (and by extension at the exclusion of others). Second, Israel being a state where a large amount of the population is Jewish doesn't change the fact that unless you are viewing Israel and Jews as synonymous, which in my opinion would be antisemitic, it can't be problematic to make comparisons between Israel and nazis based on the history of Jews and nazis. It's not difficult to see that someone saying something like "The Jews are behaving like nazis" would very likely be moved by antisemitic sentiment. "Israel is behaving like nazis" is a very different statement, because "Israel" and "The Jews" are very different topics. It's a bit surprising that you disagree. Please explain how they are very different topics. For some reason I've been under the impression they are very much linked and the treatment of the Jews was what lead to the creation of Israel. But I look forward to being enlightened. They're very different topics because "Israel" and "Jewish people" refer to very different groups, which surely you agree with since you just complained that I was misrepresenting you when I stated that you equated the two. 1948 is the date for the passation from the British Empire to Israel, the project was in the works long before the second world war. Israel is a country and Jewish people are a people so of course they are different. But Israel is very important an inexplicitly linked to the Jewish people because what it represents. A safe place from all the many billions of people who want them all killed. Many who have tried. Okay so what are you disagreeing with? If Jewish people and Israel refer to different realities, then it logically follows that comparing the behavior of Israel to the behavior of nazis can't be problematic based on the history of the nazis with Jewish people, as Jewish people aren't synonymous with Israel. The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel. The example in the definition is Boston.and marathon, now those two go together but I’m pretty sure the first thing that comes to mind when you say Israel is the Jews and vice versa. Thank you , I couldn’t have said it better my self. In current event news the blood thirsty Israelis are dumbly setting up a third ground entrance to Gaza to allow more aid to pass, completely going against their secret but obvious goal of killing all the Palestinians. The complicit evil Americans are setting up a port. What monsters. /s A reminder that one page ago I said that you were equating Israel and Jewish people and you said that I was an evil bad person misrepresenting you, and now you say that "The Jews are most certainly synonymous with Israel". For the rest, I'll leave it there. As already said, this, to me, is an antisemitic notion, and the closest anyone in this thread has been to being openly antisemitic. I mean Cerebrate who I think posts very sensibly and cogently, but would probably personally concede a certain level of bias isn’t going around pulling the anti-semitism charge on posters in this particular thread, which I feel is somewhat telling. Jimmy just wants to argue that Israel is a liberal democracy and thus charges one can level against it are somehow deflected by that. He equivocates constantly to justify Israeli actions in a manner he absolutely does not to other scenarios. Oh it’s not ethnic cleansing it’s like, something bad but it isn’t that. Oh it’s not colonalism it’s merely ‘wanting land for people to live’. Then getting offended by someone drawing a parallel with ‘lebensraum’ which literally translated means ‘living space’. Then he wants to say he’s the sole voice of unbiased reason while he’ll absolutely slam China for doing (on a much less egregious scale) the exact same thing Israel does because he doesn’t like their political system. The guy literally said settlements might not be that bad because at some future juncture Israel might give them back, it’s preposterous argumentation. Words matter, Annexing land is not good. But it is also not colonialism, hence the two different words. In war lots of morally repugnant things are not war crimes. that you think China is doing the same, and on less of scale shows your complete lack of understanding. And probably a lot of bias to the "right" Israel and the "left" China. If you critically thought about each situation with out the political labels you would likely have different opinions. Sadly you like most get your info from the horribly unreliable and extremely biased (on purpose) social media and don't both to look further.
By critical thought you mean rank inconsistency and the fallacy of moderation right?
|
|
|
On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law.
I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies.
If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.)
Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate.
|
On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate.
Regarding your last example, assault and battery is still a crime. In some cases even a felony.
Flattening entire neighborhoods because there might be Hamas somewhere there could be a crime. I'm not well versed enough in international law to say much about it and usually stay out of these discussions, but it's definitely abhorrent. I guess maybe to you it's categorically different to call the IDF's actions deplorable, abhorrent and vile, rather than criminal or genocidal, but I've also seen enough opinion pieces by lawyers to know that there are legal minds who think the latter also apply to plenty of IDF's actions. Whether they'll be convicted or even tried seems more of a bureaucratic/diplomatic issue at this point, just like schoolyard bullies are generally not convicted of assault, even in juvenile court, despite beating up someone.
|
On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate.
There's usually wiggle room on whether something is a 'war crime' or not. In Israel's case, lots of Western 'scholars' and institutions wiggle to the side of 'not a war crime' for all kinds of reasons but plenty more do think that there are indeed war crimes taking place; Israel themselves is always ready to come up with excuses why their latest actions are not in fact a war crime but they're also denying access to neutral observers and refusing to cooperate with investigations. You'd think someone innocent of whatever they're being accused of would cooperate with international investigations to prove their innocence..
|
On March 08 2024 05:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 05:21 Salazarz wrote:On March 08 2024 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 02:57 Salazarz wrote:On March 08 2024 01:23 JimmiC wrote:On March 07 2024 23:43 Salazarz wrote:On March 07 2024 22:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 07 2024 16:57 Mikau wrote:Isn't that convenient. Comparing Israeli policy to Nazi policy is antisemitic, even if there are obvious parallels between the two. A nice and easy way to make sure you never have to take responsibility for the fucked up shit you do. It is more so then the old not all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, but all antisemitic's criticize Israel. So take this comparison the word, that I like probably everyone had never heard of, basically originally meant expansionism for Germany, not the worst comparison. But you throw in the Nazi part, and you read how they perverted the term to also include their biopolitical and race superiority bullshit and you see that the comparison falls flat. So I'm not saying that gobbeydook is antisemitic, he probably just read it on a facebook or instagram post, didn't look into it and was like "ya they are like the Nazis". Which was likely the goal of the antisemitic guy/gal who made the original post. Obligatory reminder that Israel has openly enshrined racial supremacy of Jews in their constitution. The only way you can have all the rights in the state of Israel is by being Jewish. There is literally no way for an Arabic (or any other non-Jewish) person to have equal rights to a Jew in their country. Obviously lots wrong with your hot take. The easiest is probably that Jewish people can be of every race. There is an artificial set of qualities that determines whether a person is eligible for the full set of rights guaranteed by Israel's constitution or not; and even being a citizen of Israel does not guarantee you said full rights. You can obviously find ways how it isn't totally same as the Nazis were, but I mean, I'm pretty sure nobody saying that Israel is becoming modern day Nazis is claiming that they are literally one and the same -- just like people who claim that Hamas are same as Nazis probably aren't meaning that in the absolute sense, or people who claim that Putin's Russia is same as Nazis probably don't mean it in the absolute sense. But you can obviously see given the history of the Jews and Nazi's why comparing the two would be problematic no? Have you not been on the other side of many dog whistle arguments? Why is it problematic to compare modern Israel to Nazis, but not modern Russia? Is that a real question? Because a huge part of the Nazi ideology wasn't and isn't killing all the Russians. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
You don't know what you're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
|
On March 08 2024 15:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate. Regarding your last example, assault and battery is still a crime. In some cases even a felony. Flattening entire neighborhoods because there might be Hamas somewhere there could be a crime. I'm not well versed enough in international law to say much about it and usually stay out of these discussions, but it's definitely abhorrent. I guess maybe to you it's categorically different to call the IDF's actions deplorable, abhorrent and vile, rather than criminal or genocidal, but I've also seen enough opinion pieces by lawyers to know that there are legal minds who think the latter also apply to plenty of IDF's actions. Whether they'll be convicted or even tried seems more of a bureaucratic/diplomatic issue at this point, just like schoolyard bullies are generally not convicted of assault, even in juvenile court, despite beating up someone.
My last example was "a bully makes fun of a kid at school". The point was to find a case that was clearly immoral but also clearly not illegal.
There are people in the world who I view as evil, just as you apparently view the IDF. I don't feel the need to throw around terms that only questionably apply to make my views known though. I can point at real things that were clearly done.
If you have real solid cases, that's fine. You'll note that I don't correct people if they bring an example of an actual bad thing some Israeli did and they lable it correctly.
I don't think being particular that people use accurate terminology is some terrible sin.
|
On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate.
Oh, you'd love it if we all simply called the IDF evil. If we did, you could then simply argue that "there are evil people in every organization. It's all about finding those individuals and bringing them to justice." This would be very convenient for you beause you don't believe that the IDF is directed by a national supremacy that has existed since the conception of the State of Israel and before. You believe evil actions in the IDF are isolated cases, not a willful consequence of supremacist policies (such as the ethnic cleansing in the West bank). I know this is what you believe because you've continuously made the false claim that Israel has offered Palestinians a way out of their predicament. You believe there is no systemic evil that's rooted in the ideology of Zionism, you believe that is merely a conspiracy theory (even though it's a well documented fact).
If we started using your terminology instead of our own, you'd have a very easy time arguing we're all practically insane conspiracy theorists, anti-semites, etc.
You enjoy the fact that people such as JimmiC keep getting away with wild accusations, and you're hoping these accusations actually stick. None of the accusations against us have stuck, and that really disappoints you, because it makes it so much harder to spread your propaganda.
|
On March 08 2024 19:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 15:23 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 08 2024 01:48 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 00:45 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 00:42 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 23:25 Magic Powers wrote:On March 07 2024 23:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps are not more sacrosanct in the Geneva Conventions than hospitals. If there is military infrastructure there, it's a valid military target. Mask off. Eh. I didn't say anything about the morality of the situation in that post. You claimed that something was a war crime. I clarified that it is not necessarily a war crime based on the actual definition of war crimes. You may have "unmasked" that I have a compulsive need to correct inaccuracies, but I've mentioned that that is my MO a couple time myself. Not to be too picky, but there was a war crime, just it was Hamas putting their military assets there. The real war crime is the friends we made along the way. There’s a difference between an actual military target, and a location that military or paramilitary personnel happen to be in. Undoubtedly there have been many occasions where Hamas have used positions embedded in civilian populations and launched attacks, it’s a very well-noted tactic. Is it every single time in a conflict where tens of thousands have died? There has to be some kind of distinction here otherwise the Geneva Conventions are more toothless and functionally useless than they presently are. Can you bomb a hospital if it’s full of convalescing military personnel? I mean most people would say no and it’s against the spirit of those conventions and generally quite morally repugnant. One could make the argument that experienced military personnel who are going to recirculate into active rotation are a pretty big military asset, but I digress. I’d argue it’s basically pointless to even use the term in any non moral-intuition based sense. If proportionality is out the window, and if any area that contains Hamas members is fair game there is scarcely much point in having designated war crimes in international law. I'd argue the opposite use of the term "war crimes" makes more sense. It is a legal term defined by someone breaking certain specific international laws. Like other legal terms, it should be used where that law actually applies. If someone has moral objections, they should use moral words to describe the situation instead. It's not as if English is lacking in good words to use in that area that there is a need to use legal terms for that. (objectionable, evil, bad, unfair, wrong, immoral, etc.) Some things are immoral, but not illegal. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. If a bully makes fun of a kid at school, it doesn't have to be illegal to be called out. Meanwhile, a parent who said that that bully committed a felony would be... inaccurate. Oh, you'd love it if we all simply called the IDF evil. If we did, you could then simply argue that "there are evil people in every organization. It's all about finding those individuals and bringing them to justice." This would be very convenient for you beause you don't believe that the IDF is directed by a national supremacy that has existed since the conception of the State of Israel and before. You believe evil actions in the IDF are isolated cases, not a willful consequence of supremacist policies (such as the ethnic cleansing in the West bank). I know this is what you believe because you've continuously made the false claim that Israel has offered Palestinians a way out of their predicament. You believe there is no systemic evil that's rooted in the ideology of Zionism, you believe that is merely a conspiracy theory (even though it's a well documented fact).
If we started using your terminology instead of our own, you'd have a very easy time arguing we're all practically insane conspiracy theorists, anti-semites, etc.You enjoy the fact that people such as JimmiC keep getting away with wild accusations, and you're hoping these accusations actually stick. None of the accusations against us have stuck, and that really disappoints you, because it makes it so much harder to spread your propaganda.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your creative theories, but I think it's telling that in the context of my post chain suggesting that people use terms accurately and in the context they were designed, you call that "my terminology." With "your terminology" apparently being something besides for that.
Edit: for other posters, please note that I do not assume that MP speaks for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
