|
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 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote: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. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws.
Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes.
I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL.
On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote: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. 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.
Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks.
|
On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote: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. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws. Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes. I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL. Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote: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. 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. Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks.
I will stop replying to you if you stop misconstruing what I say.
|
On March 08 2024 23:34 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 19:53 Magic Powers wrote: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.
Why are you putting "your terminology" in quotation marks? You literally asked people to use the term "evil" rather than "war crime". This is your terminology that you asked people to use.
|
See and this is precisely one of the biggest problems I have whilst engaging in this topic. When MP states that Israel has the mightiest military in the region and doesn't hit precise numbers Jimmi is jumping on it quickly as if it would negate the main point MP was making. Which it of course does not.
Jimmi proceeds in stating that "many billions" ( so basically 4-8; so half or the entire world population) is antisemtic. And no he goes even further. He literally states that "many billions want all jews killed".
He follows that up with a useless hp about antisemtism. Especially useless regarding to the thing he typed.
Like let me get this straight: Someone posting what Jimmi posted there (+ his 4-5 times he claimed someone here was antisemtic..whilst that person was just stating sth it disliked about the IDF or Israeli government) should normally lead to disqualifying you from enganging in this topic.
And I assume if there was a /ignore function JimmiC would get a lot less engagment. Meanwhile he is probably top3 poster in this topic.
I would really love if we had some basic rules in this particular topic. One of them has to be to never negate an argument with the lose claim .. that it is antisemtic. You should simply not be allowed to do it. Unless ofc it is. But critique of Israel or IDF does not equate to Antisemtism.
And honestly whoever is doing this stupid move here several times should truly consider.. just not engaging anymore. It is annoying and also revealing. It shows .. a kind of "last resort" mentality that comes pretty close to "I have no arguments left I will use the antisemtism one".
It should simply be beneath you. It is revealing - so there is that!
|
On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:
Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes.
IDF has destroyed or damaged over 150,000 buildings in the Gaza strip. According to most estimates, there are (were?) roughly 30,000 to 40,000 Hamas militants in the strip. According to IDF, 12,000 Hamas militants has been killed since the beginning of the war. Even if we accept their numbers as true and not inflated at all, that's ~15 buildings hit for every militant killed.
|
Northern Ireland24974 Posts
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.
Well essentially but even attempting specificity in terminology there’s still disagreement on whether Israel has committed war crimes or not.
You’re effectively in agreement, perhaps from a slightly different angle, I’m unsure!
From where I’m sitting it seems many of the existing war crime statutes are either interpretative anyway, ‘disproportionate force’ would be one such concept. Or rather ill-suited for the kind of asymmetric conflict that this is, and more couched in the kinds of standing army versus standing army conflict scenarios that the statutes were mostly devised to cover.
If ‘is x a war crime?’ something that gathers a lot of variance in opinion then it’s less a specific, binary law and one dictated by moral intuition anyway, so you may as well skip discussing the law part and go straight to the moral argument as it’s so intertwined already.
|
On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote: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. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws. Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes. I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL. Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote: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. 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. Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback. Why is it a war crime to use disproportionate force in your understanding? What's the mecanism?
|
There is strong evidence that the IDF has committed war crimes. We also have plenty of reputable institutions accusing both the IDF and Hamas of war crimes.
Here's a list of institutions:
UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory
International Criminal Court (ICC)
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Doctors Without Borders (aka Médecins Sans Frontières)
Examples:
"Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza" (October 20)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
"Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza" (November 4)
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza
"ICC Given Names of 40 Israeli Commanders to Investigate for War Crimes" (December 20)
https://www.commondreams.org/news/icc-israel
Furthermore, Israel has history. Every single one of the Jewish settlements in the West bank constitutes a war crime.
Personally I find it naive to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt that some of their attacks on refugee camps, homes and hospitals in Gaza do not constitute war crimes, while in the West bank Israel literally funds and supports war crimes committed by Jewish settlers. It boggles the mind that such excuses are being made for a country that is openly supporting ongoing war crimes on a grand scale.
|
What...? This has all signs of becoming an unmitigated disaster. Again, what happens if the port comes under attack?
|
What happens when someone attacks the port? There is a US carrier group off the coast, you do the math.
|
Northern Ireland24974 Posts
On March 08 2024 13:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 10:55 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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? No I mean critical thought. The Uighurs are actually subjugated and being systematically ethnically cleansed. Here are some key differences, there is no Gaza or WB for them, they have been completely taken over. This means no government or pesky military wing. They are not allowed to teach their own children, the Chinese handle that. They are not allowed to practice their religion. Can they freely reproduce? Step out of line end up at a “reeducation center”, coming back not guaranteed. How come no journalists are going or covering it, there are none allowed. There is a clear difference. One is subjugation and one is a severely outmatched army picked a fight with a way bigger army and is using their own people as shields to protect themselves. You guys moralizing on me when you are so bloody inconsistent and only are REALLY REALLY mad, so mad you can’t be respectful or logical, when twitter tells you to and about who. None of you cared, or seem to actually care about that one though. Only time it gets brought up is as a false comparison because you don’t under stand what the words mean or apparently what is going on.
They’re able to reproduce and haven’t been systematically wiped out, so how’s it ethnic cleansing?
You’ve literally argued that Israel aren’t involved in ethnic cleansing because they haven’t just wiped the Palestinian people off the map entirely, so I’m curious how the Uighur situation is any different in terms of your willingess to use the term for one and not the other.
So how are the Uighurs being ethnically cleansed by the same metrics you’ve used to say the Palestinians aren’t?
What’s the underlining logic you’re employing here that makes you, rather than me the one employing cold hearted logic exactly?
Don’t have a Twitter account man, and I’d have you refer to it as ‘X’ while we’re at it.
See, luckily for me to what knowledge I have gleaned the Uighur situation is a very obvious instance of ethnic cleanisng of a cultural/ethnic tradition and not one I’ve ever actually claimed isn’t, nor one that I’d support for other reasons. And one you’ll never find a post for me defending.
You’re the one trying to thread a needle between x is ethnic cleansing, y isn’t despite them being incredibly similar and having to justify the gap there, which thus far you haven’t been able to via any consistent framework.
Don’t fucking come complaining when people point it out
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24974 Posts
On March 09 2024 09:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 08:50 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 13:28 JimmiC wrote:On March 08 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2024 10:55 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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? No I mean critical thought. The Uighurs are actually subjugated and being systematically ethnically cleansed. Here are some key differences, there is no Gaza or WB for them, they have been completely taken over. This means no government or pesky military wing. They are not allowed to teach their own children, the Chinese handle that. They are not allowed to practice their religion. Can they freely reproduce? Step out of line end up at a “reeducation center”, coming back not guaranteed. How come no journalists are going or covering it, there are none allowed. There is a clear difference. One is subjugation and one is a severely outmatched army picked a fight with a way bigger army and is using their own people as shields to protect themselves. You guys moralizing on me when you are so bloody inconsistent and only are REALLY REALLY mad, so mad you can’t be respectful or logical, when twitter tells you to and about who. None of you cared, or seem to actually care about that one though. Only time it gets brought up is as a false comparison because you don’t under stand what the words mean or apparently what is going on. They’re able to reproduce and haven’t been systematically wiped out, so how’s it ethnic cleansing? You’ve literally argued that Israel aren’t involved in ethnic cleansing because they haven’t just wiped the Palestinian people off the map entirely, so I’m curious how the Uighur situation is any different in terms of your willingess to use the term for one and not the other. So how are the Uighurs being ethnically cleansed by the same metrics you’ve used to say the Palestinians aren’t? What’s the underlining logic you’re employing here that makes you, rather than me the one employing cold hearted logic exactly? Don’t have a Twitter account man, and I’d have you refer to it as ‘X’ while we’re at it. See, luckily for me to what knowledge I have gleaned the Uighur situation is a very obvious instance of ethnic cleanisng of a cultural/ethnic tradition and not one I’ve ever actually claimed isn’t, nor one that I’d support for other reasons. And one you’ll never find a post for me defending. You’re the one trying to thread a needle between x is ethnic cleansing, y isn’t despite them being incredibly similar and having to justify the gap there, which thus far you haven’t been able to via any consistent framework. Don’t fucking come complaining when people point it out That’s not at all what I said and you know it, I don’t know if your trying way to hard to fit in with the “cool” kids or just have zero clue what your saying. Spectacularly disappointed with you as a person.
Can you explain the difference rather than ascribe my position as trying to ‘fit in with the cool kids?’
It’s a purely open forum after all. Why is the Chinese state’s treatment of the Uighur population so fundamentally different from the Israeli re the Palestinians? Why is one ethnic cleansing and not the others?
I’m merely posing a question as to what I consider inconsistency, you’re free to clear it up. I’ve asked it many times and you haven’t yet but hey here’s hoping.
Or you can’t/won’t can continue to act as if you’re the only person with critical thinking abilities in the thread and continue posting as such.
No real skin off my back, or indeed anyone else’s
|
|
|
Don't bother WombaT..
It is a classic JimmiC tactic. He is extremely good at evading the hard questions. He simply doesn't answer them.
Also can you imagine his dissapointment of you as a person? Immense!
I am still kinda waiting for an explanation how a sane person can utter the statement, that apprx half of the entire world population wants all jews killed.
Like the bullshit you come up with when you are not trying to be objective but are totally biased. Don't really know if I find it sad or amusing. But it is definitely very perplexing.
|
|
|
I am curious: What is actually worse in your mind. Harbouring antisemetic tendencies or actually killing humanbeings?
Or on the same level apprx.?
addendum:
Is there a difference in holding antisemetic tendencies if you lost 90% of your family/friends to "the state of the jews Israel" vs. being a random "Nazi"?
|
|
|
You answered so quickly I was in the process of editing my post. Sorry.
|
On March 09 2024 11:23 FriedrichNietzsche wrote:
You answered so quickly I was in the process of editing my post. Sorry.
JimmiC drags you down to his level, then beats you with experience. He's a professional troll who poisons every discussion until you lose your cool and say something you didn't think through.
This is the reason why I stopped responding to him altogether and I read almost none of his comments unless I want to respond to someone else and fully understand the context. For me he's effectively blocked in the absence of a block button.
I won't tell you what to do, but I can say following the discussion is much better this way for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
