| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:00 Magic Powers wrote: Do you think killing innocent civilians is acceptable under any circumstances other than it being collateral damage? No, as long as you remove the statement about collateral damage. Killing innocent civilians (knowingly and deliberately) is unacceptable under any circumstances. No need for further elaboration. | ||
KwarK
United States42539 Posts
On May 19 2021 14:30 Magic Powers wrote: That would mean every country fighting a defensive war is responsible for every civilian death they've caused during that war, no matter how impossible it is to prevent some or any of those deaths in the pursuit of defeating the aggressor. It would mean the whole concept of "collateral damage" goes out the window. It would mean there's nothing wrong with using human shields. It would mean launching attacks from within a civilian population is completely acceptable. Do you not understand the implications of that, or is it that you agree with the implications? If you shoot someone in order to save another person yourself still responsible for that decision, you still own that. You can justify your decision within an ethical framework but it doesn’t make it someone else’s responsibility. Consider the trolley problem, a trolley is heading towards ten people but you can divert it so that it only kills one person. If you divert it you are responsible for killing one person and for saving ten. You would probably believe yourself justified in diverting it but that wouldn’t change your responsibility. Yes, it would place the responsibility for Dresden on the British rather than the Germans. But I don’t see why that’s an issue, you can be responsible for something while still justifying it. If I bomb a munitions factory then I am responsible for the deaths of the non-combatant workers and also the munitions shortages that may ultimately shorten the war and save lives. If I believe the latter justifies the former then I can accept responsibility for both without issue. I don’t see how it impacts collateral damage. I don’t see how it impacts human shields. If you think killing one terrorist justifies killing many civilians then accept responsibility for the package and call it a win. If you think that killing a terrorist does not justify killing civilians then don’t drop the bomb on that particular wedding. There’s no option C where you drop the bomb on the wedding and claim responsibility for the bomb killing the terrorist while denying any responsibility for the bomb killing everyone else. The terrorist can’t make you bomb the wedding simply by being there, you have a choice and whatever decision you make is your responsibility. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:03 Jockmcplop wrote: No, as long as you remove the statement about collateral damage. Killing innocent civilians (knowingly and deliberately) is unacceptable under any circumstances. No need for further elaboration. If that is your answer then you've framed my position incorrectly. Hamas has been sending rockets towards Israel for the purpose of killing innocent civilians. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:06 Magic Powers wrote: If that is your answer then you've framed my position incorrectly. Hamas has been sending rockets towards Israel for the purpose of killing innocent civilians. Yes, and what Hamas has done is wrong. However, to paint them as the aggressors here is just wrong. Every single day Israel oppresses millions of people. Its hard to compare evil with evil, but I would say that's at least on a par with the civilian deaths that occur during the occasional periods of Hamas retaliations. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23167 Posts
On May 19 2021 14:58 Magic Powers wrote: The "out" is a peaceful resolution, i.e. an end to the bloody conflict and a start of diplomatic relations. There is no out for Israel as long as Hamas: - kill innocent Israeli civilians in retaliation to non-lethal discrimination by the Israeli government and - call for an end to the State of Israel Those two factors alone put Israel into an impossible position. They have no way of ending the conflict on their own end. They need Hamas to enable diplomatic talks first, and for that the above two things need to change. Hamas have no interest in that, for them it's all or nothing. Hence Israel has no out. How in your view can Hamas (like logistically and politically) enable diplomatic talks while Israel continues to oppress and illegally displace (let alone bomb) Palestinians unabated? EDIT: Granted the 2017 charter does not call for an end to the state of Israel and the violent displacements, discrimination, and the Gaza blockade are lethal and continue with or without rockets. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:06 KwarK wrote: If you shoot someone in order to save another person yourself still responsible for that decision, you still own that. You can justify your decision within an ethical framework but it doesn’t make it someone else’s responsibility. Legally speaking (using an American legal framework) this is not always true. If you attempt to shoot an attacker and in the process you accidentally mortally wound an innocent bystander, that doesn't automatically make you liable. Take a situation where you're sitting in a dimly lit bar full of people and suddenly an attacker barges in spraying bullets everywhere. If you pull your legally owned gun, point at the attacker and shoot him, then you're not necessarily responsible if one of your bullets that were aimed at the attacker mortally wounds another innocent person. Consider the trolley problem, a trolley is heading towards ten people but you can divert it so that it only kills one person. If you divert it you are responsible for killing one person and for saving ten. You would probably believe yourself justified in diverting it but that wouldn’t change your responsibility. The trolley problem is an abstract scenario that's specifically designed to create a moral dilemma. Real life is rarely so abstract, it has further context. The example of the dimly lit bar is one of those real life scenarios where an accidental death isn't necessarily the responsibility of the defender. In that particular scenario all of the responsibility is in the attacker's hands. Partial responsibility is also a thing. If the defender were to have partial responsibility due to a mishandling of the situation, that would not absolve the mass shooter from his or her own guilt. Yes, it would place the responsibility for Dresden on the British rather than the Germans. But I don’t see why that’s an issue, you can be responsible for something while still justifying it. If I bomb a munitions factory then I am responsible for the deaths of the non-combatant workers and also the munitions shortages that may ultimately shorten the war and save lives. If I believe the latter justifies the former then I can accept responsibility for both without issue. I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2. Germany was the aggressor and it had the capacity to end all fighting at any time by surrendering in full, at which time the British would've also ceased military actions. You would only be right if Britain wasn't offering Germany an out (in this case unconditional surrender). If Britain had promised to keep fighting (implying further civilian casualties) regardless of a German surrender, then you'd have a point. I don’t see how it impacts collateral damage. Collateral damage is what we've been talking about the whole time. Israel is causing collateral damage. Hamas could prevent all civilian deaths by no longer attacking Israeli citizens. Do you agree or disagree with that assertion? I don’t see how it impacts human shields. If you think killing one terrorist justifies killing many civilians then accept responsibility for the package and call it a win. If you think that killing a terrorist does not justify killing civilians then don’t drop the bomb on that particular wedding. There’s no option C where you drop the bomb on the wedding and claim responsibility for the bomb killing the terrorist while denying any responsibility for the bomb killing everyone else. Israel isn't "killing many civilians", that's your biased framing of the situation. Israel is targeting Hamas. In that process, civilian casualties are unavoidable. Your framing would only be correct if Israel targeted civilians for the purpose of killing them. That's not what's happening. Hamas on the other hand is doing exactly that. This is why I'm arguing that Hamas is using human shields. They're hiding behind civilians and within civilian populations, which results in blame being put on Israel whenever they retaliate against Hamas' attacks and unavoidable cause civilian casualties (collateral damage). | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote: How in your view can Hamas (like logistically and politically) enable diplomatic talks while Israel continues to oppress and illegally displace (let alone bomb) Palestinians unabated? Logistically it's easy, they have means of communicating with the Israel government. They could - if they wanted - start diplomatic talks any moment. In regards to whether Hamas should start diplomatic talks, I'd like to ask: would you say it's more likely that a solution for the displacement of Palestinians can be found if a) Hamas keeps killing innocent civilians, or b) if Hamas offer a ceasefire and start working on peace talks? | ||
|
Sapaio
Denmark2037 Posts
So a big reason US supports Israel is that it does not want Jerusalem to be controlled by Muslims, also it wants an ally in the Middle East area for strategic geo political reasons. Same goes to why Arabs want a Palestinian state, it's not like they are the same way concerned over Syria and having refugees migrating to EU. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:09 Jockmcplop wrote: Yes, and what Hamas has done is wrong. However, to paint them as the aggressors here is just wrong. Every single day Israel oppresses millions of people. Its hard to compare evil with evil, but I would say that's at least on a par with the civilian deaths that occur during the occasional periods of Hamas retaliations. Hypothetical scenario: The premise: You and I go to the same school. Every day I steal your lunch money and punch you in the gut. A) If you retaliated by stabbing me to death, would that make you the aggressor or not? B) If you retaliated by stabbing my best friend to death, would that make you the aggressor or not? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42539 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:27 Magic Powers wrote: Legally speaking (using an American legal framework) this is not always true. If you attempt to shoot an attacker and in the process you accidentally mortally wound an innocent bystander, that doesn't automatically make you liable. Take a situation where you're sitting in a dimly lit bar full of people and suddenly an attacker barges in spraying bullets everywhere. If you pull your legally owned gun, point at the attacker and shoot him, then you're not necessarily responsible if one of your bullets that were aimed at the attacker mortally wounds another innocent person. The trolley problem is an abstract scenario that's specifically designed to create a moral dilemma. Real life is rarely so abstract, it has further context. The example of the dimly lit bar is one of those real life scenarios where an accidental death isn't necessarily the responsibility of the defender. In that particular scenario all of the responsibility is in the attacker's hands. Partial responsibility is also a thing. If the defender were to have partial responsibility due to a mishandling of the situation, that would not absolve the mass shooter from his or her own guilt. I think your use of "responsibility" is a bit too loose. No, the British weren't responsible for the death of German civilians during WW2. Germany was the aggressor and it had the capacity to end all fighting at any time by surrendering in full, at which time the British would've also ceased military actions. You would only be right if Britain wasn't offering Germany an out (in this case unconditional surrender). If Britain had promised to keep fighting (implying further civilian casualties) regardless of a German surrender, then you'd have a point. Collateral damage is what we've been talking about the whole time. Israel is causing collateral damage. Hamas could prevent all civilian deaths by no longer attacking Israeli citizens. Do you agree or disagree with that assertion? Israel isn't "killing many civilians", that's your biased framing of the situation. Israel is targeting Hamas. In that process, civilian casualties are unavoidable. Your framing would only be correct if Israel targeted civilians for the purpose of killing them. That's not what's happening. Hamas on the other hand is doing exactly that. This is why I'm arguing that Hamas is using human shields. They're hiding behind civilians and within civilian populations, which results in blame being put on Israel whenever they retaliate against Hamas' attacks and unavoidable cause civilian casualties (collateral damage). Legal responsibility is for lawyers. I’m not interested in it. I’m talking about individuals taking personal responsibility for the choices they make. I disagree with the assertion that all civilian deaths would end if Hamas stopped firing rockets. Violent Israeli settlements predate Hamas and would continue with or without Hamas. Israel absolutely is killing many innocent civilians. I don’t know where you’re getting your news from but it’s not correct. Israel is knowingly and deliberately dropping bombs on civilians with the intent of killing adversaries and the knowledge that civilians will also die. They’re not tripping up and accidentally falling on a fragile building causing it to collapse, it’s a deliberate choice with trade offs. On the one hand the adversary survives and may perpetrate future attacks on Israel. On the other the adversary dies but so do civilians. Israel is deliberately weighing the options and deciding that the best option is the one in which they drop a bomb on civilians. I don’t see how you’re getting around that. I’m not saying they like killing civilians, I’m saying they do it anyway. It’s kind of weird that you think the biased framing of an Israeli jet dropping a bomb on a civilian building causing civilian casualties is “Israel is killing civilians” while your proposed non biased framing is “ Israel is targeting Hamas. In that process, civilian casualties are unavoidable.” which somehow presents the bombing as an unavoidable natural disaster. It reminds me of how US police report killings as “an officer adjacent gun discharged prior the projectile impact injury of the other party” instead of “he shot him”. You’ve still failed to address the issue with your claim of Hamas using human shields which is that there isn’t anywhere for them to launch rockets from that doesn’t have civilians nearby. How exactly would you like Hamas to launch their rockets? They’re not hiding behind civilians, they’re a militia that live among civilians and do not have access to military installations. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:51 KwarK wrote: I disagree with the assertion that all civilian deaths would end if Hamas stopped firing rockets. Violent Israeli settlements predate Hamas and would continue with or without Hamas. What are you basing that claim on? Israel absolutely is killing many innocent civilians. I don’t know where you’re getting your news from but it’s not correct. I didn't say they're not killing them, I said your framing is incorrect. They're not targeting them, they're targeting Hamas. Israel is knowingly and deliberately dropping bombs on civilians with the intent of killing adversaries and the knowledge that civilians will also die. They’re not tripping up and accidentally falling on a fragile building causing it to collapse, it’s a deliberate choice with trade offs. On the one hand the adversary survives and may perpetrate future attacks on Israel. On the other the adversary dies but so do civilians. Israel is deliberately weighing the options and deciding that the best option is the one in which they drop a bomb on civilians. I don’t see how you’re getting around that. I’m not saying they like killing civilians, I’m saying they do it anyway. Again an incorrect framing. Israel isn't dropping bombs on civilians, they're targeting Hamas and accepting collateral damage in the process. You’ve still failed to address the issue with your claim of Hamas using human shields which is that there isn’t anywhere for them to launch rockets from that doesn’t have civilians nearby. How exactly would you like Hamas to launch their rockets? They’re not hiding behind civilians, they’re a militia that live among civilians and do not have access to military installations. Hamas is sending rockets towards Israel, which they're doing with the sole purpose of killing Israeli civilians. They're doing this not for military purposes but with the intent to shed Israeli blood indiscriminately. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:41 Magic Powers wrote: Hypothetical scenario: The premise: You and I go to the same school. Every day I steal your lunch money and punch you in the gut. A) If you retaliated by stabbing me to death, would that make you the aggressor or not? B) If you retaliated by stabbing my best friend to death, would that make you the aggressor or not? The fact that you will compare the utter, absolute destruction of Palestinian lives on daily basis with stealing someone's lunch money pretty much sums up your whole argument here. You seem determined to minimize the oppression of the Palestinian people to the point where I can only assume you are completely uninformed on the actual scale of the problem. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42539 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:57 Magic Powers wrote: What are you basing that claim on? I didn't say they're not killing them, I said your framing is incorrect. They're not targeting them, they're targeting Hamas. Again an incorrect framing. Israel isn't dropping bombs on civilians, they're targeting Hamas and accepting collateral damage in the process. Hamas is sending rockets towards Israel, which they're doing with the sole purpose of killing Israeli civilians. They're doing this not for military purposes but with the intent to shed Israeli blood indiscriminately. I’m basing the claim that settlements predate Hamas on the linear nature of time and the ability to place events in sequential order within time. I’m glad you’re no longer arguing that Israel isn’t killing civilians. That’s progress. If I’m understanding you correctly you agree that the Israeli jet is above the building and carrying a bomb and you agree that the civilians were in the building and you agree that the jet dropped the bomb and you agree that the bomb landed on the building but you disagree with the statement “the Israeli jet dropped the bomb on the civilians in the building”. Am I understanding you correctly? You keep saying Hamas is firing rockets at Israel. Yes. They are. Why does that mean they’re hiding behind human shields. Which launch site for rockets should they be using to avoid this? | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1907 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On May 19 2021 15:51 KwarK wrote: You’ve still failed to address the issue with your claim of Hamas using human shields which is that there isn’t anywhere for them to launch rockets from that doesn’t have civilians nearby. How exactly would you like Hamas to launch their rockets? They’re not hiding behind civilians, they’re a militia that live among civilians and do not have access to military installations. Hamas *does* have the option of exclusively targeting military, even if I accepted your framing (I don't, previously I've see google maps of the strip, and there are unoccupied areas, just if they were used it would be a tactical disaster because drones would get them before a single rocket ever fired). They do not target military bases and other hard, legitimate wartime targets, as a general rule. By targeting civilians, they really do make it an untenable situation for Israel not to retaliate. If they targeted military bases your argument would be much stronger. Also, no one has addressed the issue that the Gaza plan of 2005 was supposed to be the model solution. Israel gave them that land to govern, and the idea was it would become the stable "State of Gaza" and then, if Sharon had his way, they'd do something similar in West Bank, and the 3 state solution would happen. Instead the Gaza plan was a failure. Its failure, caused Sharon to leave Likud, then he had a stroke, and the lack of a competent Sharon replacement, and the Gaza plan's obvious failure caused a 15 year rightward shift in Israeli politics. To say otherwise is akin to saying gas lines and stagflation had nothing to do with Reagan winning and Bill Clinton's "triangulation". This abject policy failure it the seminal moment in Israeli public opinion shifts. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42539 Posts
On May 19 2021 16:16 cLutZ wrote: Hamas *does* have the option of exclusively targeting military, even if I accepted your framing (I don't, previously I've see google maps of the strip, and there are unoccupied areas, just if they were used it would be a tactical disaster because drones would get them before a single rocket ever fired). They do not target military bases and other hard, legitimate wartime targets, as a general rule. By targeting civilians, they really do make it an untenable situation for Israel not to retaliate. If they targeted military bases your argument would be much stronger. Also, no one has addressed the issue that the Gaza plan of 2005 was supposed to be the model solution. Israel gave them that land to govern, and the idea was it would become the stable "State of Gaza" and then, if Sharon had his way, they'd do something similar in West Bank, and the 3 state solution would happen. Instead the Gaza plan was a failure. Its failure, caused Sharon to leave Likud, then he had a stroke, and the lack of a competent Sharon replacement, and the Gaza plan's obvious failure caused a 15 year rightward shift in Israeli politics. To say otherwise is akin to saying gas lines and stagflation had nothing to do with Reagan winning and Bill Clinton's "triangulation". This abject policy failure it the seminal moment in Israeli public opinion shifts. The only part of this that responds to anything I said is the suggestion that Hamas should play fair by going to an unoccupied (citation needed) part of Gaza and trying to launch rockets in clear view. This is clearly non viable so I don’t know why you bothered writing it. I also don’t know why you bothered writing any of the rest of it. The only viable launch site for Hamas is where the civilians are. They didn’t have hundreds of good options without civilians but with cover. The accusation that they’re deliberately launching from civilian areas to use human shields doesn’t work because it fails to recognize that there are no alternative launch sites. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 16:04 KwarK wrote: I’m basing the claim that settlements predate Hamas on the linear nature of time and the ability to place events in sequential order within time. The settlements don't kill people, they oppress them. That is bad, but it's not "killing". So your argument fails to address my question. What are you basing your claim on - the one that the killing wouldn't end - if Hamas stopped killing Israeli citizens? I’m glad you’re no longer arguing that Israel isn’t killing civilians. That’s progress. No, I'm not in agreement. Israel isn't killing civilians, that framing is incorrect. If I’m understanding you correctly you agree that the Israeli jet is above the building and carrying a bomb and you agree that the civilians were in the building and you agree that the jet dropped the bomb and you agree that the bomb landed on the building but you disagree with the statement “the Israeli jet dropped the bomb on the civilians in the building”. Am I understanding you correctly? I disagree with the framing. Hamas is the target. The civilians are collateral damage. Therefore it is right to say "Israel is dropping bombs on Hamas" and it would also be right to follow that up with "in the process accepting civilian casualties". It is incorrect to say "Israel is dropping bombs on civilians". You keep saying Hamas is firing rockets at Israel. Yes. They are. Why does that mean they’re hiding behind human shields. Which launch site for rockets should they be using to avoid this? They should not be firing rockets towards Israel for the purpose of killing civilians, that's the only correct path forward. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1907 Posts
On May 19 2021 16:16 cLutZ wrote: Hamas *does* have the option of exclusively targeting military, even if I accepted your framing (I don't, previously I've see google maps of the strip, and there are unoccupied areas, just if they were used it would be a tactical disaster because drones would get them before a single rocket ever fired). They do not target military bases and other hard, legitimate wartime targets, as a general rule. By targeting civilians, they really do make it an untenable situation for Israel not to retaliate. If they targeted military bases your argument would be much stronger. Also, no one has addressed the issue that the Gaza plan of 2005 was supposed to be the model solution. Israel gave them that land to govern, and the idea was it would become the stable "State of Gaza" and then, if Sharon had his way, they'd do something similar in West Bank, and the 3 state solution would happen. Instead the Gaza plan was a failure. Its failure, caused Sharon to leave Likud, then he had a stroke, and the lack of a competent Sharon replacement, and the Gaza plan's obvious failure caused a 15 year rightward shift in Israeli politics. To say otherwise is akin to saying gas lines and stagflation had nothing to do with Reagan winning and Bill Clinton's "triangulation". This abject policy failure it the seminal moment in Israeli public opinion shifts. If your stance is that giving Gaza to the Arabs was a failure, can you elaborate why? As far as i understand it, they simply changed a policed prison into a prison with no guards but tanks and machine guns on the outside, absolving themselves from any responsibility of what happens insight. Then they argued that as Hamas had now control over that zone, they didn't have to let any goods into that zone they did not want. Like cement. You know, something 2 million people definetly do not need. In what way do you believe the gaza strip could have become a success? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42539 Posts
On May 19 2021 16:28 Magic Powers wrote: The settlements don't kill people, they oppress them. That is bad, but it's not "killing". So your argument fails to address my question. What are you basing your claim on - the one that the killing wouldn't end - if Hamas stopped killing Israeli citizens? No, I'm not in agreement. Israel isn't killing civilians, that framing is incorrect. I disagree with the framing. Hamas is the target. The civilians are collateral damage. Therefore it is right to say "Israel is dropping bombs on Hamas" and it would also be right to follow that up with "in the process accepting civilian casualties". It is incorrect to say "Israel is dropping bombs on civilians". They should not be firing rockets towards Israel for the purpose of killing civilians, that's the only correct path forward. Settlements absolutely kill people. That’s why they bring guns. If you’re back to denying that Israel is killing people then you need to update your understanding of the conflict. They absolutely are. I thought we were past this. Imagine you and a friend were hugging under a bridge and that I stood on the bridge and dropped a water balloon. I wanted to get only you wet but I knew when I dropped it that it would get both of you wet and I accepted that outcome (both of you getting wet) as long as you got wet. After dropping the water balloon it landed directly on your friend’s head and burst, splashing you both. As you got wet this was a successful operation. If I’m understanding you correctly you would argue that because my purpose was to get you wet then I did not drop a water balloon on your friend. Is this correct? If not, please explain the difference between that and your insistence that an Israeli jet that drops a bomb that lands on civilians did not drop a bomb on civilians. I agree that Hamas should not be firing rockets at civilians. That’s beside the point which was whether they were using human shields. You asserted they were. Defend your assertion. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
On May 19 2021 16:13 Broetchenholer wrote: Dear Magic Powers, did you just say that that the deliberate bombing of a non military target, maximised to kill the population and destroy the civilian infrastructure with no military value except for terror, like the bombing run on Dresden and others, is the fault of the Germans? Are you sure? Not the fault of "the Germans", but the fault of "Germany", i.e. the German leadership, which is the Nazis, Hitler being the head of it. So, your position is, if Israel would start blasting Gaza with speakers saying "As long as you keep firing rockets, this will continue!" and then proceeds to drop explosive bombs followed by incendiary bombs into one sector of Gaza. And then the next sector. And the next. And the next. Until there is either no Gaza left, or there are no rockets flying into Israel anymore. There's context missing from your question. Depending on whether or not Hamas has sent rocket strikes prior to Israel "blasting Gaza" as you put it, and depending on what targets Israel would choose in retaliation to those strikes, the answer that I'd give would change depending on that information. This would be the responsibility of Hamas for firing rockets into israel and no blame would go to the IDF? And if that is not okay, why do you think Dresden was okay? Would you allow for Dresden again? Germany (not Germans, see my response to the first paragraph) had been waging an aggressive war against Britain and other countries, including the heavy bombardment of innocent and defenseless British towns that were not militarily relevant locations in order to kill and frustrate the population. Britain had no choice other than to retaliate with full force. What should else should Britain have done? Germany was committing war crime after war crime and conquering land after land, showing no regard for the lives of innocent people. Tell me what better options Britain had. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
