|
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 June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving?
I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith.
According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home
|
On June 10 2024 17:37 Acrofales wrote:Ok, where should Hamas have kept their hostages (which we, once again, do all agree they shouldn't have in the first place).
Prisoner of war camps that are open to neutral observers as required by the Geneva convention.
|
On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home
The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion.
My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered.
That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it.
|
On June 11 2024 00:00 Velr wrote:
That you don't succumb to demands or bargain with terrorists/kidnappers and instead try to free hostages (and neutralize enemies/stuff in the way while doing it) isn't exactly some new IDF only doctrine?
Putting your hostages with civilians is blatantly endangering "your" civilians. Stuff like this is done willingly and knowingly of the dangers.
Hey Velr just a quick question why didn't the hostages die in the bombings? Could it be that the place they were in wasn't bombed?
|
On June 11 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion. My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered. That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it.
Ok, here's me thinking with my own mind:
On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:
This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel
I wish you would have engaged with what I actually wrote the first time around.
|
On June 11 2024 00:57 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion. My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered. That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it. Ok, here's me thinking with my own mind: Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:
This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I wish you would have engaged with what I actually wrote the first time around.
The IDF has never minimized civilian casualties. They've only made an effort to not maximize them. I've said this many times. There are plenty of examples of Palestinian civilians getting killed for no good reason, and even Netanyahu himself had to acknowledge one of those cases when it went public.
You're very misinformed.
|
On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel
I'll just tell you how I see it, I don't believe that this person, the person that you're presenting as, exists anymore. I don't think there's anybody out there who thinks there's a major difference between using an AI that is allowed to kill up to 20 civilians if it thinks that maybe there's a chance that a minor target is in the vicinity, and targeting civilians. When I read stuff like this I just think that people are fine with those deaths and are using legalese to cover their actual feeling, because if this was being done to humans instead of Palestinians there is no shot that you would play this semantic game.
|
On June 11 2024 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:57 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion. My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered. That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it. Ok, here's me thinking with my own mind: On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:
This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I wish you would have engaged with what I actually wrote the first time around. The IDF has never minimized civilian casualties. They've only made an effort to not maximize them. I've said this many times. There are plenty of examples of Palestinian civilians getting killed for no good reason, and even Netanyahu himself had to acknowledge one of those cases when it went public. You're very misinformed.
This is an impressive attempt at splitting hairs for the sake of supporting a predetermined point of view.
And, again, I've already acknowledged your "smoking gun". [B]There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza
I'm not going to keep going around in circles repeating myself. In favour of saving my last few braincells from committing seppuku, I'm going to leave it there.
edit: And I'm especially not touching Nebuchad's latest brainmelt above. Wtf even is this thread right now?
|
On June 11 2024 01:13 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:57 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion. My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered. That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it. Ok, here's me thinking with my own mind: On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:
This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I wish you would have engaged with what I actually wrote the first time around. The IDF has never minimized civilian casualties. They've only made an effort to not maximize them. I've said this many times. There are plenty of examples of Palestinian civilians getting killed for no good reason, and even Netanyahu himself had to acknowledge one of those cases when it went public. You're very misinformed. This is an impressive attempt at splitting hairs for the sake of supporting a predetermined point of view. And, again, I've already acknowledged your "smoking gun". Show nested quote +[B]There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza I'm not going to keep going around in circles repeating myself. In favour of saving my last few braincells from committing seppuku, I'm going to leave it there. edit: And I'm especially not touching Nebuchad's latest brainmelt above. Wtf even is this thread right now?
Nebuchad is presenting a perfectly valid argument. There's no major difference between "it's ok to kill 20 civilians if this also kills 1 terrorist" and just straight up targeting civilians. It's a very minor difference. It's the same thing as police shooting up an entire family on the chance of also hitting a home invader.
No, we don't get to kill innocent people in order to kill guilty ones. That's not how the world works, and it's not how it should work. There's no excuse for Israel's war. This is, by the way, the overwhelming consensus in this thread. The fact that you think your position is the default position shows how little attention you've been paying to the discussion.
|
United States43529 Posts
There’s no good answer because Gaza is a failed state. In a traditional war you shoot the men in uniform, take the capital, occupy it, and take over direct administration of the place. You can’t do that with Gaza because it doesn’t have a real state. Failing that you’d simply blockade it and let it collapse on its own but you can’t do that with Gaza because the death cult zealots in charge of it want you to blockade it because they’re desperate to weaponize their own dead children. So failing that you just don’t engage at all, just try to minimize how much they can hurt you while recognizing that there’s nothing you can do to change them. Just make as much rocket defence as possible, build walls, arm the border, and accept that they will try to murder you from time to time. But that’s going to piss off the death cult who will demand to know why you’re not killing their children today, they need your attention to justify their existence. And so they take hostages and bring them home because then you kinda have to come in and even though they can’t win militarily they can at least get some of their own children killed.
I have no answers. Everything is fucked. It gets more fucked every year. Put birth control in the water supply and wait a century. It’s abhorrent and also somehow better than this. The children of Gaza never had a chance.
|
On June 11 2024 01:13 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:57 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion. My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered. That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it. Ok, here's me thinking with my own mind: On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:
This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I wish you would have engaged with what I actually wrote the first time around. The IDF has never minimized civilian casualties. They've only made an effort to not maximize them. I've said this many times. There are plenty of examples of Palestinian civilians getting killed for no good reason, and even Netanyahu himself had to acknowledge one of those cases when it went public. You're very misinformed. This is an impressive attempt at splitting hairs for the sake of supporting a predetermined point of view. And, again, I've already acknowledged your "smoking gun". Show nested quote +[B]There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza I'm not going to keep going around in circles repeating myself. In favour of saving my last few braincells from committing seppuku, I'm going to leave it there. edit: And I'm especially not touching Nebuchad's latest brainmelt above. Wtf even is this thread right now?
Damn, my brainmelt feels especially not touched by this edit.
|
On June 11 2024 01:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 01:13 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 01:02 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:57 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 00:32 Excludos wrote:On June 11 2024 00:25 Magic Powers wrote:On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote:
The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks.
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? I sincerely doubt you somehow haven't heard of the Geneva convention, and is more likely just confirming that you're arguing in bad faith. According to "my rules", which coincidentally aligns with international rules, you don't get to use civilians are human shields and then pretend to be the good guys. Thankfully, "your rules" don't apply outside of the borders of your own home The war itself is a crime against humanity and you're talking about the Geneva Convention as if that was a counter-argument. Who cares what they say? You can use your own mind to come to a conclusion. My conclusion since late October has been that Israel has gone many times too far and was on the wrong side of the war (together with Hamas, i.e. both sides are wrong). Israel should've stopped fighting mid to late October, and that would've been the only right thing to do. The fact that they're still fighting and killing thousands and thousands of civilians is enough for me to determine that Israel is not "in the right". The Geneva Convention is an arbitrary limit on how far war can be allowed to go. In my book the limit has long been reached, long before any conventions can even be considered. That is what it means to think with your own mind. Try it. Ok, here's me thinking with my own mind: On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote:
This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I wish you would have engaged with what I actually wrote the first time around. The IDF has never minimized civilian casualties. They've only made an effort to not maximize them. I've said this many times. There are plenty of examples of Palestinian civilians getting killed for no good reason, and even Netanyahu himself had to acknowledge one of those cases when it went public. You're very misinformed. This is an impressive attempt at splitting hairs for the sake of supporting a predetermined point of view. And, again, I've already acknowledged your "smoking gun". [B]There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza I'm not going to keep going around in circles repeating myself. In favour of saving my last few braincells from committing seppuku, I'm going to leave it there. edit: And I'm especially not touching Nebuchad's latest brainmelt above. Wtf even is this thread right now? Nebuchad is presenting a perfectly valid argument. There's no major difference between "it's ok to kill 20 civilians if this also kills 1 terrorist" and just straight up targeting civilians. It's a very minor difference. It's the same thing as police shooting up an entire family on the chance of also hitting a home invader. No, we don't get to kill innocent people in order to kill guilty ones. That's not how the world works, and it's not how it should work. There's no excuse for Israel's war. This is, by the way, the overwhelming consensus in this thread. The fact that you think your position is the default position shows how little attention you've been paying to the discussion.
Small nitpick, for a terrorist the AI can kill 100s of civilians, 20 is for people with a vague association to Hamas
|
On June 11 2024 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:00 Velr wrote:
That you don't succumb to demands or bargain with terrorists/kidnappers and instead try to free hostages (and neutralize enemies/stuff in the way while doing it) isn't exactly some new IDF only doctrine?
Putting your hostages with civilians is blatantly endangering "your" civilians. Stuff like this is done willingly and knowingly of the dangers. Hey Velr just a quick question why didn't the hostages die in the bombings? Could it be that the place they were in wasn't bombed? there are a hundredsomething hostages still missing. How many of those do you think are buried under rubble? I'm thinking 80+%, but realistically more like 90+
|
On June 11 2024 01:20 KwarK wrote:
There’s no good answer because Gaza is a failed state. In a traditional war you shoot the men in uniform, take the capital, occupy it, and take over direct administration of the place. You can’t do that with Gaza because it doesn’t have a real state. Failing that you’d simply blockade it and let it collapse on its own but you can’t do that with Gaza because the death cult zealots in charge of it want you to blockade it because they’re desperate to weaponize their own dead children. So failing that you just don’t engage at all, just try to minimize how much they can hurt you while recognizing that there’s nothing you can do to change them. Just make as much rocket defence as possible, build walls, arm the border, and accept that they will try to murder you from time to time. But that’s going to piss off the death cult who will demand to know why you’re not killing their children today, they need your attention to justify their existence. And so they take hostages and bring them home because then you kinda have to come in and even though they can’t win militarily they can at least get some of their own children killed.
I have no answers. Everything is fucked. It gets more fucked every year. Put birth control in the water supply and wait a century. It’s abhorrent and also somehow better than this. The children of Gaza never had a chance.
I love it when the thread mod casually advocates for genocide.
Good shit there.
|
On June 11 2024 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 11 2024 00:00 Velr wrote:
That you don't succumb to demands or bargain with terrorists/kidnappers and instead try to free hostages (and neutralize enemies/stuff in the way while doing it) isn't exactly some new IDF only doctrine?
Putting your hostages with civilians is blatantly endangering "your" civilians. Stuff like this is done willingly and knowingly of the dangers. Hey Velr just a quick question why didn't the hostages die in the bombings? Could it be that the place they were in wasn't bombed? there are a hundredsomething hostages still missing. How many of those do you think are buried under rubble? I'm thinking 80+%, but realistically more like 90+
That is likely yeah. But in this specific case the IDF knew where the specific hostages were, and bombed a bunch of other people in the vicinity. But likely not the place where the hostages were, cause we didn't want to kill those people, we wanted them rescued. That's how human shields actually work: you don't want to kill them, so you don't bomb the place.
|
United States43529 Posts
On June 11 2024 01:28 Ciaus237 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 01:20 KwarK wrote:
There’s no good answer because Gaza is a failed state. In a traditional war you shoot the men in uniform, take the capital, occupy it, and take over direct administration of the place. You can’t do that with Gaza because it doesn’t have a real state. Failing that you’d simply blockade it and let it collapse on its own but you can’t do that with Gaza because the death cult zealots in charge of it want you to blockade it because they’re desperate to weaponize their own dead children. So failing that you just don’t engage at all, just try to minimize how much they can hurt you while recognizing that there’s nothing you can do to change them. Just make as much rocket defence as possible, build walls, arm the border, and accept that they will try to murder you from time to time. But that’s going to piss off the death cult who will demand to know why you’re not killing their children today, they need your attention to justify their existence. And so they take hostages and bring them home because then you kinda have to come in and even though they can’t win militarily they can at least get some of their own children killed.
I have no answers. Everything is fucked. It gets more fucked every year. Put birth control in the water supply and wait a century. It’s abhorrent and also somehow better than this. The children of Gaza never had a chance. I love it when the thread mod casually advocates for genocide. Good shit there.
I’m the thread mod? I don’t recall moderating this discussion. I’m also not putting together any actual plans to do it on the grounds that I’m not in charge of Gaza or Israel. I also said it would be abhorrent. Gaza is also not all of Palestine, it would not wipe out the Palestinians as a people.
Letting the people of Gaza live out the rest of their lives in as much peace as we can give them and not bringing more children into Gaza is likely kinder than what we’re likely to see happen in the next few decades as the population continues to explode. The population of Gaza is mostly children who were born into a failed state with no jobs or economy propped up by food aid and fuck each other making yet more children.
They never had a chance.
I’m obviously not going to genocide the people of Gaza with sterilization. I, like the rest of us, will watch as their children and grandchildren suffer.
|
United States43529 Posts
On June 11 2024 01:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2024 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 11 2024 00:00 Velr wrote:
That you don't succumb to demands or bargain with terrorists/kidnappers and instead try to free hostages (and neutralize enemies/stuff in the way while doing it) isn't exactly some new IDF only doctrine?
Putting your hostages with civilians is blatantly endangering "your" civilians. Stuff like this is done willingly and knowingly of the dangers. Hey Velr just a quick question why didn't the hostages die in the bombings? Could it be that the place they were in wasn't bombed? there are a hundredsomething hostages still missing. How many of those do you think are buried under rubble? I'm thinking 80+%, but realistically more like 90+ That is likely yeah. But in this specific case the IDF knew where the specific hostages were, and bombed a bunch of other people in the vicinity. But likely not the place where the hostages were, cause we didn't want to kill those people, we wanted them rescued. That's how human shields actually work: you don't want to kill them, so you don't bomb the place.
Wouldn’t that only work if the IDF knows about the human shields?
|
On June 10 2024 08:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2024 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:On June 09 2024 17:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 09 2024 13:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Imagine that, more hostages kept in a family home. And not just 1, moved around to various family apartments. I guess all family homes are legitimate targets then... Of course not all. But this is not the first confirmed case of hostages being held in family households. If you read about the operation to rescue these hostages, even if you ignore all info from the IDF, it is clear Hamas tried to make sure the hostages were extremely well guarded while also being deeply embedded in civilian centers and directly in civilian homes. Seeing as Israel shouldn't want to bomb family homes, isn't putting hostages with families just plain sensible? I mean, in a perfect world, there would be no civilian casualties, whether because they're hostages or because everything is getting bombed, but in the current situation, where *should* Hamas keep hostages according to you, in order to safeguard their survival and minimize the chance of them unintentionally dying to sudden Israeli bombing?
The hostages should be returned to their homes. If they are not being returned to their homes, the Geneva convention specifies how prisoners of war should be held.
If we assume a situation without the Geneva convention, everyone ought to assume nations will try to retrieve their hostages by force. I just want to be very clear that there is no situation where a nation should be expected to simply allow hostages to be taken and remain with their captors. Its not a real thing. Everyone is always going to try to get hostages back.
Hamas had a few options where to keep them:
1: Try to hide them deep down in some bunker/tunnel underground similar to how Sinwar is being protected. They have done this successfully.
2: Create some sort of fortress to protect them within. This is totally impossible because Israel is significantly more powerful and there's really no situation where Hamas could defend a fortress against Israel.
3: Hide them among civilians. In the Geneva convention, the decision to use any civilian area for anything military-related immediately makes that area labeled a military area. If you hide hostages in a house with families living in it, that is a war crime as defined by the Geneva convention. The Geneva convention also specifies once a nation commits a war crime of trying to use a civilian structure for military purposes, it loses the title of "civilian structure" and is now a "military structure", which means it is now a valid military target. The reason the Geneva convention specifies it is now a valid military target is that nations should never benefit from using their own civilians as human shields.
It is not some kinda gigabrain lifehack to use civilian structures for holding hostages. Its an understood idea that they planned for when deciding what is a war crime in the Geneva convention.
The 4 hostages recently rescued by Israel were all being kept in family homes located deep within a densely populated area. If you look at a map of where they were being held, it paints an extremely clear picture that Hamas wanted to make sure the only way to actually succeed in getting these hostages out is to carve through a bunch of civilians and combatants along the way. Hamas had stationed their special forces to guard these hostages. So the intention was for them to be deeply embedded in civilian areas, located inside apartments where families live, and also surround the area with combatants.
With all that being said, I will now specify the logical errors you made:
1: You are assuming Hamas is entitled to some air-tight method of taking and retaining hostages. This is not true.
2: You are assuming the ethical burden lies on the rescuers rather than the kidnappers to protect the area surrounding the hostages. This is not true. And the Geneva convention was written with protocols for prisoners of war to prevent hostages or prisoners of war from being kept in family houses.
The lives lost during Israel's rescuing of the 4 hostages were a moral and legal failing of Hamas. These ethics have been well understood and documented for long enough to be included in detail in the Geneva convention.
|
On June 11 2024 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 08:13 Acrofales wrote:On June 09 2024 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:On June 09 2024 17:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 09 2024 13:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Imagine that, more hostages kept in a family home. And not just 1, moved around to various family apartments. I guess all family homes are legitimate targets then... Of course not all. But this is not the first confirmed case of hostages being held in family households. If you read about the operation to rescue these hostages, even if you ignore all info from the IDF, it is clear Hamas tried to make sure the hostages were extremely well guarded while also being deeply embedded in civilian centers and directly in civilian homes. Seeing as Israel shouldn't want to bomb family homes, isn't putting hostages with families just plain sensible? I mean, in a perfect world, there would be no civilian casualties, whether because they're hostages or because everything is getting bombed, but in the current situation, where *should* Hamas keep hostages according to you, in order to safeguard their survival and minimize the chance of them unintentionally dying to sudden Israeli bombing? The hostages should be returned to their homes. If they are not being returned to their homes, the Geneva convention specifies how prisoners of war should be held. If we assume a situation without the Geneva convention, everyone ought to assume nations will try to retrieve their hostages by force. I just want to be very clear that there is no situation where a nation should be expected to simply allow hostages to be taken and remain with their captors. Its not a real thing. Everyone is always going to try to get hostages back. Hamas had a few options where to keep them: 1: Try to hide them deep down in some bunker/tunnel underground similar to how Sinwar is being protected. They have done this successfully. 2: Create some sort of fortress to protect them within. This is totally impossible because Israel is significantly more powerful and there's really no situation where Hamas could defend a fortress against Israel. 3: Hide them among civilians. In the Geneva convention, the decision to use any civilian area for anything military-related immediately makes that area labeled a military area. If you hide hostages in a house with families living in it, that is a war crime as defined by the Geneva convention. The Geneva convention also specifies once a nation commits a war crime of trying to use a civilian structure for military purposes, it loses the title of "civilian structure" and is now a "military structure", which means it is now a valid military target. The reason the Geneva convention specifies it is now a valid military target is that nations should never benefit from using their own civilians as human shields. It is not some kinda gigabrain lifehack to use civilian structures for holding hostages. Its an understood idea that they planned for when deciding what is a war crime in the Geneva convention. The 4 hostages recently rescued by Israel were all being kept in family homes located deep within a densely populated area. If you look at a map of where they were being held, it paints an extremely clear picture that Hamas wanted to make sure the only way to actually succeed in getting these hostages out is to carve through a bunch of civilians and combatants along the way. Hamas had stationed their special forces to guard these hostages. So the intention was for them to be deeply embedded in civilian areas, located inside apartments where families live, and also surround the area with combatants. With all that being said, I will now specify the logical errors you made: 1: You are assuming Hamas is entitled to some air-tight method of taking and retaining hostages. This is not true. 2: You are assuming the ethical burden lies on the rescuers rather than the kidnappers to protect the area surrounding the hostages. This is not true. And the Geneva convention was written with protocols for prisoners of war to prevent hostages or prisoners of war from being kept in family houses. The lives lost during Israel's rescuing of the 4 hostages were a moral and legal failing of Hamas. These ethics have been well understood and documented for long enough to be included in detail in the Geneva convention.
There's a major error in the argumentation. Hostages are not prisoners of war, they're non-combatants who have been captured for the purpose of leverage. Hamas are terrorists who are using hostages to extort Israel. The Geneva Convention has no rules on hostages because hostage-taking is an entirely unlawful concept. Non-combatants are never supposed to be held in captivity, period.
From this assumption the question where Hamas should shelter the hostages has a completely different angle. We have to look at it from the point of view of the terrorists, not from a lawful point of view. The only consideration for Hamas is a strategic one: how can they fully utilize their hostages?
This automatically leads to an answer to the question of where to shelter the hostages: whichever place benefits Hamas the most. This can come at any cost to Israel or perhaps even to the hostages (if that is to the benefit of Hamas).
Hamas are not operating within a legal framework. This needs to be understood before such questions can be answered.
|
On June 11 2024 02:15 Magic Powers wrote:
There's a major error in the argumentation. Hostages are not prisoners of war, they're non-combatants who have been captured for the purpose of leverage. Hamas are terrorists who are using hostages to extort Israel. The Geneva Convention has no rules on hostages because hostage-taking is an entirely unlawful concept. Non-combatants are never supposed to be held in captivity, period.
You are right. I was being charitable by allowing hostages to be some kind of military object. But for the sake of discussion, I wanted to highlight why even if we assume hostages are a military object, that object existing in a family home is considered a moral/legal failure of Hamas rather than the people rescuing the hostages. And that any civilian lives lost by rescuing the hostages from civilian areas is legally considered the fault of the ones holding hostages rather than the rescuers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
