EPTI don't understand your post, can you please expand?
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 329
| 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. | ||
|
Billyboy
1537 Posts
I don't understand your post, can you please expand? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9782 Posts
On September 25 2024 21:13 Billyboy wrote: I don't understand your post, can you please expand? No thanks | ||
|
Billyboy
1537 Posts
Then maybe just don't reply, bitchy low content posts (which according to the site rules are not allowed) only derail conversation and lead to pointless internet fights. By all means don't respond if you don't want to, if you have nothing to add that is perfectly fine. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9782 Posts
On September 25 2024 22:18 Billyboy wrote: Then maybe just don't reply, bitchy low content posts (which according to the site rules are not allowed) only derail conversation and lead to pointless internet fights. By all means don't respond if you don't want to, if you have nothing to add that is perfectly fine. I made my point, and I'm choosing to do so without giving you more reason to either make more accounts and keep coming back or getting your friends to come here and tag in. | ||
|
Billyboy
1537 Posts
On September 25 2024 22:31 Jockmcplop wrote: I made my point, and I'm choosing to do so without giving you more reason to either make more accounts and keep coming back or getting your friends to come here and tag in. You made a point but not the one you intended. Firstly, you can't point out my "defense of Israel" because it didn't happen. By all means you have a right to determine who you want to interact with, and if it is not new posters, go for it. But secondly and most importantly there is no reason to be a jerk, so don't be one. If people stopped trying to piss each other off this would be a much better place with better discussion. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9782 Posts
On September 25 2024 23:28 Billyboy wrote: You made a point but not the one you intended. Firstly, you can't point out my "defense of Israel" because it didn't happen. By all means you have a right to determine who you want to interact with, and if it is not new posters, go for it. But secondly and most importantly there is no reason to be a jerk, so don't be one. If people stopped trying to piss each other off this would be a much better place with better discussion. You've been here for one day, bit early to judge isn't it? | ||
|
Billyboy
1537 Posts
On September 25 2024 23:35 Jockmcplop wrote: You've been here for one day, bit early to judge isn't it? I did not judge you as a person only your posts, from what I have read you are generally not a jerk, but these posts have been low content and mean for the sake of it. I also think that most people don't immediately join and start posting, they read for a bit and then something pushes them to sign up and post. Do you not want more people to join the community with different view points? I think it is very strange that the people with the most posts follow the rules the least. You would think they would know them the best and have value in them. It seems to be almost the opposite where only the people who like the fighting are left or they don't have to follow the rules any more because of the post count. Either way it just limits the discussion and makes it far less interesting. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6269 Posts
On September 25 2024 05:25 Nebuchad wrote: The purpose of a shield is not to be broken, it's to protect. Hamas doesn't want the civilians to protect them, it wants the civilians to die. As such, the term is not an accurate description of what's happening, and it is apparent (to me) that the only reason why the term is used is to protect Israel. If I recall correctly a long time ago Israel was claiming literal human shields, like they're in battle and the Hamas soldiers are hiding behind civilians. Then this was debunked and human shield took on this new meaning of "existing in the same general area as civilians" that I find annoying to read. You don't remember correctly. Hamas strategic use of human shielding in Gaza mainly started by calling on supporters to go to houses that were Israeli targets. Israel would warn ahead of time what house they'd strike and then Hamas would call on supporters to go to that house. That's a textbook case of using humans as a shield. It was never 'debunked'. The first time this happened it was widely reported. See for example www.cbsnews.com. Hamas never denied it (same source): Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas stopped by to show his support. "We are so proud of this national stand. It's the first step toward protecting our homes, the homes of our children," he said. Hamas' use of human shields never stopped. See for instance some quotes from this NATO report: Hamas (via spokespeople) 2006: “The citizens will continue defending their pride and houses and will continue to serve as human shields until the enemy will withdraw.”10 2014: “The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself. And we, Hamas, call on our people to adopt this practice.”11 2014: “Hamas despise those defeatist Palestinians that criticize the high number of civilian casualties. The resistance praises our people…we lead our people to death…I mean, to war."12 That human shields took on a different meaning is false. This is an excellent article that explains human shielding and its basis in international law. If we take the definition from AP 1 to the Geneva convention it's quite clear that some of Hamas' conduct in the war is human shielding. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. AP1 is an ammendment from 1977. Hamas did not even exist back then. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12411 Posts
On September 26 2024 02:08 RvB wrote: You don't remember correctly. Hamas strategic use of human shielding in Gaza mainly started by calling on supporters to go to houses that were Israeli targets. Israel would warn ahead of time what house they'd strike and then Hamas would call on supporters to go to that house. That's a textbook case of using humans as a shield. It was never 'debunked'. The first time this happened it was widely reported. See for example www.cbsnews.com. Hamas never denied it (same source): Ok thank you, I wasn't sure. Probably at the time I was still naive enough to think that when people said human shields they meant human shields and that's why I got confused. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On September 26 2024 03:56 Nebuchad wrote: Ok thank you, I wasn't sure. Probably at the time I was still naive enough to think that when people said human shields they meant human shields and that's why I got confused. You are aware of how these terms have been used and what people mean. This feels bad faith and spiteful. You yourself have participated in these discussions in the past. Are you asking us to use a different term? I'm sorry if I am missing your point here, but it feels like there is a larger point you are trying to make. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12411 Posts
On September 26 2024 06:39 Mohdoo wrote: You are aware of how these terms have been used and what people mean. This feels bad faith and spiteful. You yourself have participated in these discussions in the past. Are you asking us to use a different term? I'm sorry if I am missing your point here, but it feels like there is a larger point you are trying to make. I was always on the same side, you're misremembering. You can go have another look, it was probably around the period when your autism superpower allowed you to look at the conflict without emotion and declare stuff like Palestinian civilians are lunatics who endanger their children and should leave because Israel wants them ethnically cleansed. | ||
|
Billyboy
1537 Posts
Many of your posts have nothing to do with the topic and are just direct insults or sarcasm. But usually you are at least savvy enough to not be so blatant or attack unpopular or new posters. This is one is on a different level. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12411 Posts
On September 26 2024 23:15 Billyboy wrote: Wow, I knew facts that got in the way of your narrative bothered you but I did not think you would stoop so low. As a self proclaimed leftist you should know how calling someone autistic in a negative way is wholly inappropriate. It is not just an insult to him, which is bad enough and completely unnecessary but offensive to everyone neurodivergent and their friends and family. I don't think capitalism or whatever is the problem, it is you and how you treat people. Many of your posts have nothing to do with the topic and are just direct insults or sarcasm. But usually you are at least savvy enough to not be so blatant or attack unpopular or new posters. This is one is on a different level. It's a direct quote, Mohdoo has said that we are looking at the conflict too emotionally and he's able to develop this superiorly rational view of it because of his autism. It was hard for you to tell because you've only been there for about a week or two, and also because you were waiting for an opportunity to jump on me with something that has nothing to do with the topic and is just a series of direct insults and sarcasm. Edit: actually that's not a very good characterization of what he said, I apologize. He said that it allowed him to not fall into some traps related to identity that others fell into, but that it could also have some issues because he could look cold and condescending by being driven too much by facts and not enough by emotion like we are. | ||
|
Billyboy
1537 Posts
On September 26 2024 23:34 Nebuchad wrote: It's a direct quote, Mohdoo has said that we are looking at the conflict too emotionally and he's able to develop this superiorly rational view of it because of his autism. It was hard for you to tell because you've only been there for about a week or two, and also because you were waiting for an opportunity to jump on me with something that has nothing to do with the topic and is just a series of direct insults and sarcasm. I didn't know it was an exact quote, makes it marginally better, but still not great and you know this. The second part of your post is a strange fantasy, you are not that important. You are just not a nice poster. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 26 2024 23:44 Billyboy wrote: I didn't know it was an exact quote, makes it marginally better, but still not great and you know this. The second part of your post is a strange fantasy, you are not that important. You are just not a nice poster. Nebuchad is no more unkind than you are. Get off your high horse. Debate his arguments and stop attacking the person. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12411 Posts
On September 26 2024 23:44 Billyboy wrote: I didn't know it was an exact quote, makes it marginally better, but still not great and you know this. The second part of your post is a strange fantasy, you are not that important. You are just not a nice poster. That's probably true yes, I'm not a very good person in general. In terms of this thread it's just a little aggravating to navigate in the long term, I feel like everything that is worth posting has been posted before already, we're just in a cycle of repeating slightly different versions of the same stuff to people who don't really care. When I see people say "Israel doesn't need to invade Lebanon", there's a part of me who wants to quote the millions of quotes about wanting to attack that most people in Israel's chain of command have. Israel isn't driven by what it needs to do, it does what it wants to do. That's obviously true, but I'll post that, nobody will answer and in two weeks when there's another decision point for Israel there's going to be talk about what Israel has to do and needs to do again as if they were some fucking liberals reluctant to go to war. I could talk about how that comes from media framing, since they never let Israel play an active role in its own decisions, but I have done that. I could talk about how it's a consequence of dehumanization too, as Palestinians are scary savages and force the "reactions" that we see, but I've done that too. Human shields is a propaganda term, obviously, because it's used exclusively in the context of removing blame from Israel as it mauls down civilians. They have some IA that demands a strike if a small target is surrounded by 20 people? That's okay, those people were human shields, so therefore it's not my fault when I killed them with my automated process that allows me to kill them, it's the fault of the bad guy for being around people. We're never supposed to feel bad for Palestinians because they're used as human shields, we're supposed to not feel as bad about Palestinians being killed because they're used as human shields. It's particularly disgusting to use "human shields" to describe people who aren't humans, and whose presence doesn't shield anything. But "human sacrifices" isn't going to catch up as it doesn't sufficiently remove the responsibility of Israel, some people may wonder why it's playing the part of the Aztec high priest. So in two weeks when Israel kills slightly more Palestinians than usual in one go, we'll hear about human shields again. So, like, okay, I can keep showing people when their quotes or their logic don't work, but that hasn't changed anybody's mind in the history of the internet. It's not like I'm discovering this right now either, I'm used to it. Sometimes I slip. When the guy who used to openly agree that Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine is suddenly worried about how I view the Geneva conventions, it's easier to slip. Whatever. | ||
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
Hamas use Palestinians as hostages as part of a deliberate policy of putting Israel in a situation in which the Palestinian hostages die. They’re deliberately evil. People place the blame on Hamas because Hamas is to blame. And of course we feel bad for the Palestinians, nobody has suffered more from Hamas than them. But we don’t mistake the villain in this story. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12411 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:08 KwarK wrote: But it literally is the fault of Hamas for using them as human shields. The fact that it is repeated doesn’t make it false. If I take a child hostage in my truck and then start ploughing it into crowds then how many pedestrians should I be allowed to kill before someone stops the truck? And who is to blame for any harm to that child? Hamas use Palestinians as hostages as part of a deliberate policy of putting Israel in a situation in which the Palestinian hostages die. They’re deliberately evil. People place the blame on Hamas because Hamas is to blame. On May 19 2021 05:09 KwarK wrote: One thing to note is the demographics of the Gaza Strip, over 5,000 inhabitants per km2. That’s comparable to London (5,700). The median age in Gaza is 18 years. To be clear, that means that 50% of the inhabitants of Gaza are below the age of 18. There can be no attack on Gaza that does not result in killing children because Gaza is a sardine can filled with children. When people suggest the reason Israeli bombs kill so many Palestinian children is because Hamas are using them as human shields you should remember these numbers. There isn’t a designated rocket launch site in Gaza that is cleared of children and inhabited only by militants for Israel to safely bomb, there couldn’t be. It’s not that they’re deliberately launching rockets from schools, it’s that they have been compressed into a tiny space filled with children. The question is therefore “if it is impossible to bomb Gaza without bombing children is it ethical to bomb Gaza in self defence?” Different people have different answers to this. Some people argue that the violence of a rocket launch must be met with violence in return, even if that response kills far more civilians than the rocket. Others argue that as a state actor that is responsible for cramming those civilians into Gaza Israel should follow stricter rules of engagement regarding bombing children. One thing is undisputed, the Israeli attacks kill far, far more civilians than the Palestinian attacks. Edit to add: This question is also often phrased by apologists as “does Israel have a right to defend itself (by dropping bombs on children)?” to which the answer is clearly yes. I believe that the question misses the point. Can it not be true that Israel has the right to drop bombs on Palestinian children AND that it should be extremely judicious in exercising that right? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12411 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:10 KwarK wrote: Yeah but they are deliberately launching missiles from schools. October 7 also changed the scenario a lot. There was some kind of coexistence with Hamas happening before then. Hamas unilaterally ended that with their atrocity. Wouldn't you agree that a better analogy than the shit you posted in the last post would be, the guy kidnapping the kid goes into a crowd, and you're in your car trying to get him and save the kid, so you accelerate, plowing into the crowd, attempting to hit the guy with the kid? | ||
| ||
