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 October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman?
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex.
No it doesn't.
Nice. Back to one-liners.
As I said last time: Your inability or unwillingness to discuss the unanswered question will lead us always back to this state. Ironic, how you wrote in your last post that I overlooked replies, lol.
But just to add to the obvious reality you deny once again: When analyzing casualties, conflict zones typically show a higher proportion of male deaths due to their more frequent involvement in combat or other high-risk activities. In many conflicts, a common ratio might be around 30% female to 70% male deaths. However, in Gaza, where children make up a large percentage of the population, the death toll includes many children who are roughly split 50-50 between boys and girls. This means that in areas with a large number of children, when they are killed in significant numbers, the sex balance of casualties is affected. For instance, if in one region of conflict you have 100 deaths, and the typical split is 70 males to 30 females, this balance could change dramatically if you add a substantial number of children to the death toll. If 26 children die and are split equally between boys and girls, the additional 13 girls and 13 boys shift the overall numbers. Now, instead of 70 males and 30 females, you have 83 males (65%) and 43 females (35%). The percentage of female casualties increases simply because the presence of more children introduces more female deaths into the total, skewing the ratio. In conflict zones with fewer children, this effect would be much less pronounced, making the situation in Gaza distinct in this regard. The large population of children influences not only the overall death toll but also the sex composition of those casualties.
Or another example: 100 total deaths, 90 adults, 10 children. Of the 90 adults, 70% are male, 30% female. Meaning overall, 68% (63+5) are male, 32% (27+5) are female.
If the killed children ratio goes up to 30 children, we have 70 adults. Again, of the 70% 70% are male, 30% female. Meaning overall 64%. (49+15) are male and 36% (21+15) are female.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman?
Yes.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex.
No it doesn't.
1. Bullshit and you know it.
2.
1. How the fuck is it bullshit lol? If you say that 5000 is an unjustified number of civilian deaths and then there's 5001, then the number of civilian deaths is unjustified. If you feel 5001 is not unjustified, then you didn't really feel that 5000 would be unjustified. This is very simple.
2. Irrelevant, I wasn't talking about children. Premo is saying that the fact that there are kids in Gaza explains why Israel is killing more women than an average war, and it doesn't.
Speak for yourself. I have no difficulty whatsoever determining which side(s) is/are in the wrong for which reasons. Your troubles stem from your own inadequacy. Research more, better and deeper and you can find the truth, too. I've put in the hours and my moral compass is working just fine, so I come to the conclusion that, no, not all war is equal. War can be fought with good ethics in mind, and war can be fought with brutality in mind. Israel has chosen brutality. It's not hard to see.
I haven't said that it is impossible to philosophicly determine if a justification for war can be perceived as really just on a morale scale, but that war itself is always brutal and inhumane to those who experience it.
The attempt to sort and weight inhumanities against each other.. is futile, since there is no effective authority but violence to end the other sides doing.
Also you are kind of contradictory to your own statements.
If israel had brutality in mind, they could have flatened gaza and beirut in about a day, claiming that every person on the ground is aiding the war against israel in some way and thereby becomes a legitimate target.
Iranian proxys TRY VERY HARD to flatten israeli cities... yet fail to do so and resort to terror (like OCT 7th) and attacks on civilian ships.
Is Israel now brutal because they are more competent? Because their civilians sit in shelters..and their soldiers go to war.. while iranian proxys send "the whole family" and if they don't come willingly.. you hire people like Simwar who "ethicly" motivate non compliant people.. or kill them.
Sigh. No, Israel can't just flatten Gaza. We've been over this argument multiple times in this thread. They need US support, and that support would drop to 0 immediately if they went that far. We've been over this point several times in this thread and this argument still doesn't make sense. It's a completely nonsensical argument that ignores the obvious ramifications of an open genocide, rather than the slow burning approach that Israel has chosen.
Read the following paragraph very carefully several times until you understand what I'm saying: I've argued from the start that Israel isn't intent on minimizing casualties. They're intent on not maximizing casualties (due to the optics). There's a very wide gap between these two realities, and Israel is not aiming for the lower region, they're aiming for however much they can get away with. In other words: Israel is pushing for exactly as much brutality as the US lets it get away with. No less than that. And this is why I consider this a war of brutality, not a war with good ethics.
This is also one of the reasons why it's so important to get the information out that the true number of Palestinian casualties is far greater than the current official count, which is very severely undercounting. People are incredibly quick to handwave away an atrocity when "only" 1-3% of a population gets killed (as if that was a tolerable number. Suggesting that number is acceptable is absolutely horrible), but they start to raise their eyebrows when the reported percentage rises to roughly 10%, which is far closer to the true estimate according to various experts on this matter.
Edit: and if the percentage is closer to 10%, then that would imply that plusminus 90% of the casualties are civilians. That's because reportedly ~17 000 Hamas members have been killed, and if the total casualties are 200 000 or less, than we get a rough ballpark of 90% civilians.
Yeah honestly the only really plausible explanations for why women killed is nearly that of men killed are either 1: people are killed indiscriminatorily. For example if most deaths happen through the killing of 'family units', where the gender ratio is basically 1:1, which is likely to be the case during large scale bombing of apartment complexes, that would explain it. If theres basically a 'one male hamas member means we kill the family'-rule, a 50-50 ratio would be a logical consquence of that.
The other option is that while male hamas members are targeted and killed individually without collateral damage, they massacre some women in addition just to even out the gender disparity.
To be clear I think we are seeing option 1, here. The issue with number 1 is that it makes it very hard to believe the 17k militants of 41k total dead number - while i dunno the exact demographic makeup of gaza im assuming their families tend to have more than 2.4 people on average. However if the total dead is significantly higher, say, in the 120-185k range sometimes floated as a speculation, then the 17k hamas fighers dead with a nearly 50-50 gender split makes sense. That would even allow for some degree of targeted killing without that many civilian casualties in addition to the killings done indiscriminately through bombing of apartments or groups of people.
(Napkin math: if 17k of 41k are male hamas fighters, we'd only get a 50-50 split through 20.5k of the civilians killed being women. The notion that this would happen because a lot of children are being killed makes no sense, as children are fairly evenly split between genders. It would also be weird for this to 'randomly' happen. However if it is 17k of 120k,then the 103k could be split 60k-43k and give an equal distribution - much less lopsided. If it is 17k of 185k, then the 168k civilians could be split 92.5k - 75.5k, even less uneven. And yeah i know nearly 50-50 isnt exactly 50-50 just going with that for ease of math.)
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman?
Yes.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex.
No it doesn't.
1. Bullshit and you know it.
2.
1. How the fuck is it bullshit lol? If you say that 5000 is an unjustified number of civilian deaths and then there's 5001, then the number of civilian deaths is unjustified. If you feel 5001 is not unjustified, then you didn't really feel that 5000 would be unjustified. This is very simple.
2. Irrelevant, I wasn't talking about children. Premo is saying that the fact that there are kids in Gaza explains why Israel is killing more women than an average war, and it doesn't.
Well, it would if a high number of children are killed.
But a sufficiently high number of children being killed would *also* fly in the face of his claims of "historically low civilian casualties"...
Don't worry guys, Israel isn't killing a high proportion of women. It can be explained by them killing a high proportion of children instead has to be the biggest self-pwn I've seen in a while.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman?
Yes.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex.
No it doesn't.
1. Bullshit and you know it.
2.
1. How the fuck is it bullshit lol? If you say that 5000 is an unjustified number of civilian deaths and then there's 5001, then the number of civilian deaths is unjustified. If you feel 5001 is not unjustified, then you didn't really feel that 5000 would be unjustified. This is very simple.
2. Irrelevant, I wasn't talking about children. Premo is saying that the fact that there are kids in Gaza explains why Israel is killing more women than an average war, and it doesn't.
Well, it would if a high number of children are killed.
But a sufficiently high number of children being killed would *also* fly in the face of his claims of "historically low civilian casualties"...
Don't worry guys, Israel isn't killing a high proportion of women. It can be explained by them killing a high proportion of children instead has to be the biggest self-pwn I've seen in a while.
More children have died in Gaza this last year (as of MARCH this year) than globally in conflicts for the 4 years previously.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman?
Yes.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex.
No it doesn't.
1. Bullshit and you know it.
2.
1. How the fuck is it bullshit lol? If you say that 5000 is an unjustified number of civilian deaths and then there's 5001, then the number of civilian deaths is unjustified. If you feel 5001 is not unjustified, then you didn't really feel that 5000 would be unjustified. This is very simple.
2. Irrelevant, I wasn't talking about children. Premo is saying that the fact that there are kids in Gaza explains why Israel is killing more women than an average war, and it doesn't.
When dealing with death tolls in the tens of thousands, 1 additional loss of life does not change the larger ethical judgement of the conflict. The primary ethical issue is the large-scale loss of life itself, not whether a given conflict exceeds an arbitrary threshold. Further, practical concerns around conflicts complicate any effort to set a maximum thresholds on death tolls. Why do you think the ICJ never issued an absolute number? Because it is utterly moronic to suggest it.
You can overlook all the points I gave before, about the numbers. But the facts won't disappear. - Youthful population (minors make up nearly 50%) - One of the highest birth rates in the world (more vulnerable people) - Presence in civilian spaces that are occupied and used by Hamas - Gaza being the most densely populated area out of all the ones I mentioned and probably the most densely populated war zone one is able to find (In Manila, which still had a lower density, 100k civilians were killed in less than a month for example) - Hamas and the Gazan government don't make distinctions between combatants - Enormous uncertainty persists regarding how many combatant fatalities go uncounted in tunnels and other battlespaces - A high proportion of reported deaths (around 17k) come from an unknown methodology that probably is misrepresenting the data ( https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/7168?disposition=inline - the link also supports the point you made about the death count probably rising after the dust settled) and this new one: - women are the primary caretakers of elderly and children - in Gazan culture even more so than in the West. Hence, they are less mobile when airstrikes occur. In a population of 50% children, this adds another piece to the puzzle.
Speak for yourself. I have no difficulty whatsoever determining which side(s) is/are in the wrong for which reasons. Your troubles stem from your own inadequacy. Research more, better and deeper and you can find the truth, too. I've put in the hours and my moral compass is working just fine, so I come to the conclusion that, no, not all war is equal. War can be fought with good ethics in mind, and war can be fought with brutality in mind. Israel has chosen brutality. It's not hard to see.
I haven't said that it is impossible to philosophicly determine if a justification for war can be perceived as really just on a morale scale, but that war itself is always brutal and inhumane to those who experience it.
The attempt to sort and weight inhumanities against each other.. is futile, since there is no effective authority but violence to end the other sides doing.
Also you are kind of contradictory to your own statements.
If israel had brutality in mind, they could have flatened gaza and beirut in about a day, claiming that every person on the ground is aiding the war against israel in some way and thereby becomes a legitimate target.
Iranian proxys TRY VERY HARD to flatten israeli cities... yet fail to do so and resort to terror (like OCT 7th) and attacks on civilian ships.
Is Israel now brutal because they are more competent? Because their civilians sit in shelters..and their soldiers go to war.. while iranian proxys send "the whole family" and if they don't come willingly.. you hire people like Simwar who "ethicly" motivate non compliant people.. or kill them.
Sigh. No, Israel can't just flatten Gaza. We've been over this argument multiple times in this thread. They need US support, and that support would drop to 0 immediately if they went that far. We've been over this point several times in this thread and this argument still doesn't make sense. It's a completely nonsensical argument that ignores the obvious ramifications of an open genocide, rather than the slow burning approach that Israel has chosen.
Read the following paragraph very carefully several times until you understand what I'm saying: I've argued from the start that Israel isn't intent on minimizing casualties. They're intent on not maximizing casualties (due to the optics). There's a very wide gap between these two realities, and Israel is not aiming for the lower region, they're aiming for however much they can get away with. In other words: Israel is pushing for exactly as much brutality as the US lets it get away with. No less than that. And this is why I consider this a war of brutality, not a war with good ethics.
This is also one of the reasons why it's so important to get the information out that the true number of Palestinian casualties is far greater than the current official count, which is very severely undercounting. People are incredibly quick to handwave away an atrocity when "only" 1-3% of a population gets killed (as if that was a tolerable number. Suggesting that number is acceptable is absolutely horrible), but they start to raise their eyebrows when the reported percentage rises to roughly 10%, which is far closer to the true estimate according to various experts on this matter.
Edit: and if the percentage is closer to 10%, then that would imply that plusminus 90% of the casualties are civilians. That's because reportedly ~17 000 Hamas members have been killed, and if the total casualties are 200 000 or less, than we get a rough ballpark of 90% civilians.
Do you have the slightest idea about military command chains? I seriously have to ask, as this proposition is so utterly absurd. How should that command be even communicated? When even the higher-ups have no clue what the international community would deem too much? Nah, let's simply ignore all the contrary explanations.. it is simply Israel killing as many as they can get away with, without raising suspicion - whatever that means.
On October 18 2024 22:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah honestly the only really plausible explanations for why women killed is nearly that of men killed are either 1: people are killed indiscriminatorily. For example if most deaths happen through the killing of 'family units', where the gender ratio is basically 1:1, which is likely to be the case during large scale bombing of apartment complexes, that would explain it. If theres basically a 'one male hamas member means we kill the family'-rule, a 50-50 ratio would be a logical consquence of that.
The other option is that while male hamas members are targeted and killed individually without collateral damage, they massacre some women in addition just to even out the gender disparity.
To be clear I think we are seeing option 1, here. The issue with number 1 is that it makes it very hard to believe the 17k militants of 41k total dead number - while i dunno the exact demographic makeup of gaza im assuming their families tend to have more than 2.4 people on average. However if the total dead is significantly higher, say, in the 120-185k range sometimes floated as a speculation, then the 17k hamas fighers dead with a nearly 50-50 gender split makes sense. That would even allow for some degree of targeted killing without that many civilian casualties in addition to the killings done indiscriminately through bombing of apartments or groups of people.
(Napkin math: if 17k of 41k are male hamas fighters, we'd only get a 50-50 split through 20.5k of the civilians killed being women. The notion that this would happen because a lot of children are being killed makes no sense, as children are fairly evenly split between genders. It would also be weird for this to 'randomly' happen. However if it is 17k of 120k,then the 103k could be split 60k-43k and give an equal distribution - much less lopsided. If it is 17k of 185k, then the 168k civilians could be split 92.5k - 75.5k, even less uneven. And yeah i know nearly 50-50 isnt exactly 50-50 just going with that for ease of math.)
Underreported male victims and skewing the data towards female deaths as the link from the last page points out, also can happen. As well as all the other confounding factors that an extremely densely populated, 50%-children-society that has terrorist bases in close proximity to it brings along.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: You cannot put a civilian death number on the justification for war. Let's say the number would be 5000. And now 5001 are killed. Does that make the war suddenly unjust or inhuman?
Yes.
On October 18 2024 13:38 PremoBeats wrote: Some of these observations explain why the female count is higher: If you have a higher population of vulnerable kids - that have an equal sex ratio - that of course also affects the overall ratio of victims in relation to sex.
No it doesn't.
1. Bullshit and you know it.
2.
1. How the fuck is it bullshit lol? If you say that 5000 is an unjustified number of civilian deaths and then there's 5001, then the number of civilian deaths is unjustified. If you feel 5001 is not unjustified, then you didn't really feel that 5000 would be unjustified. This is very simple.
2. Irrelevant, I wasn't talking about children. Premo is saying that the fact that there are kids in Gaza explains why Israel is killing more women than an average war, and it doesn't.
Well, it would if a high number of children are killed.
But a sufficiently high number of children being killed would *also* fly in the face of his claims of "historically low civilian casualties"...
Don't worry guys, Israel isn't killing a high proportion of women. It can be explained by them killing a high proportion of children instead has to be the biggest self-pwn I've seen in a while.
I never made any "claims of "historically low civilian casualties"". I said several times that the IDF's efficiency in taking out terrorists is extremely commendable when comparing the numbers to similar conflicts though.
And yes, confounding factors (like a high percentage of children) can explain the context of data sets (high child deaths), as they are variables that can distort or influence the apparent relationship between metrics that are studied.
Transit projects often go over budget, an additional dollar to the overall expenditure isn't going to blow the project up, there's often change to the transit plans mid project, things change, mistakes are made. There's a level of commitment as the project proceeds, even through inefficiencies.
Yet if you tell me it's pointless to put a dollar amount as to what the cost should be, as the cost continue to balloon. But oh you're so efficient when compared to other transit projects, in terms of dollars over budget. But then Unilaterally redefine the scope of the project, accidently kill or threaten the accountants that is reviewing or auditing the costs, I'd tell you there's evidently a problem eventually.
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
So you don't actually know if they do, it's just 'obvious.'
Can't go numb over this kind of news. The massacre is still going on, the only difference is the pace. I'm wondering where the end of the Gaza campaign is that was promised a few weeks ago? Was it empty words or do we have to wait until 2025? 2026?
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
So you don't actually know if they do, it's just 'obvious.'
There are plenty of reports, but it is not like it is news. It is common knowledge, like the weather stations don't talk about clouds being in the sky.
Is this something you really need extra proof on? Like how do you think Hamas recruiting goes? Do you really believe that Hamas ID checks their members to make sure their 18? Do you they have other HR policies? Can you expand on what they are?
In 2005 Amnesty International condemned the use of children by Palestinian militant groups saying: "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks."
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are facing an increase in Israeli settler attacks and Israeli army violence at the start of the important olive harvest season, the UN has said.
The international body’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) accused Israel on Friday of using “war-like” tactics in the West Bank amid a rise in killings and settler attacks since the olive harvest got under way last week. Nine people were killed by Israeli forces between 8-14 October, OCHA said.
It also recorded 32 settler attacks since the beginning of October on Palestinians and their property related to the olive harvest. In total, about 600 slow-growing olive trees have been burned, vandalised or stolen by settlers, the agency said.
In the most high-profile incident to date, Hanan Abd Rahman Abu Salameh, a 59-year-old woman, was killed on Thursday while harvesting olives in Faqqua near Jenin by a soldier who fired about 10 shots at her.
Munir Barakat, a member of the Faqqua village council, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel Defense Forces personnel came to collect details about the shooting but he did not express hope in the army’s willingness or ability to investigate. Last year, fewer than 1% of complaints against Israeli soldiers ended in a conviction, according to the US state department’s annual human rights report.
“The family and everyone know that this doesn’t mean anyone will take responsibility for the killing of an innocent woman, a mother, and a grandmother whose only crime was going out to harvest olives,” he told Haaretz.
Terrorist tactics from Israel yet again.
The vermin who think its fine to slaughter a grandmother picking olives are the same people perpetrating the crimes against humanity in Gaza.
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
So you don't actually know if they do, it's just 'obvious.'
There are plenty of reports, but it is not like it is news. It is common knowledge, like the weather stations don't talk about clouds being in the sky.
Is this something you really need extra proof on? Like how do you think Hamas recruiting goes? Do you really believe that Hamas ID checks their members to make sure their 18? Do you they have other HR policies? Can you expand on what they are?
In 2005 Amnesty International condemned the use of children by Palestinian militant groups saying: "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks."
Yes, use of child soldiers is something I would certainly need proof on. Muslim extremist groups are usually fairly strict on use of child soldiers, actually. Not to say that they never do it, but the idea that Islamic terrorists are all evil and thus child soldiers are 'common knowledge' sort of norm for them is not grounded in reality.
By the way, if you consider Amnesty International a reliable source in general, they also say that Gaza is on the verge of genocide, that Israel is preventing access to food and medicine, that Israel is committing multiple war crimes, etc. So like, either you trust your sources, or you don't -- don't cherry pick things that you think might suit your narrative then leave out the rest.
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
So you don't actually know if they do, it's just 'obvious.'
There are plenty of reports, but it is not like it is news. It is common knowledge, like the weather stations don't talk about clouds being in the sky.
Is this something you really need extra proof on? Like how do you think Hamas recruiting goes? Do you really believe that Hamas ID checks their members to make sure their 18? Do you they have other HR policies? Can you expand on what they are?
In 2005 Amnesty International condemned the use of children by Palestinian militant groups saying: "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks."
Yes, use of child soldiers is something I would certainly need proof on. Muslim extremist groups are usually fairly strict on use of child soldiers, actually. Not to say that they never do it, but the idea that Islamic terrorists are all evil and thus child soldiers are 'common knowledge' sort of norm for them is not grounded in reality.
By the way, if you consider Amnesty International a reliable source in general, they also say that Gaza is on the verge of genocide, that Israel is preventing access to food and medicine, that Israel is committing multiple war crimes, etc. So like, either you trust your sources, or you don't -- don't cherry pick things that you think might suit your narrative then leave out the rest.
What exactly is my narrative? You just keep making one up because you know so little about the actual conflict.
There has been thousands of child soldiers killed and many more arrested. Don't worry though you don't have to change your world view on Israel being awful is they are routinely accused (with proof) of treating them like adults, and then much worse things like physical and sexual abuse. What you are going to have to change is that Hamas is not a horrible awful group. The hand waving doesn't cut it, you need to do some ACTUAL research on how awful they are and then come back. You can keep hating Israel just as much don't worry, but there is no rule that you have to ignore clear and obvious awful things about Hamas. In fact if you get the actual information your arguments will be much more compelling because people who know the basics won't immediately write you off.
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are facing an increase in Israeli settler attacks and Israeli army violence at the start of the important olive harvest season, the UN has said.
The international body’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) accused Israel on Friday of using “war-like” tactics in the West Bank amid a rise in killings and settler attacks since the olive harvest got under way last week. Nine people were killed by Israeli forces between 8-14 October, OCHA said.
It also recorded 32 settler attacks since the beginning of October on Palestinians and their property related to the olive harvest. In total, about 600 slow-growing olive trees have been burned, vandalised or stolen by settlers, the agency said.
In the most high-profile incident to date, Hanan Abd Rahman Abu Salameh, a 59-year-old woman, was killed on Thursday while harvesting olives in Faqqua near Jenin by a soldier who fired about 10 shots at her.
Munir Barakat, a member of the Faqqua village council, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel Defense Forces personnel came to collect details about the shooting but he did not express hope in the army’s willingness or ability to investigate. Last year, fewer than 1% of complaints against Israeli soldiers ended in a conviction, according to the US state department’s annual human rights report.
“The family and everyone know that this doesn’t mean anyone will take responsibility for the killing of an innocent woman, a mother, and a grandmother whose only crime was going out to harvest olives,” he told Haaretz.
Terrorist tactics from Israel yet again.
The vermin who think its fine to slaughter a grandmother picking olives are the same people perpetrating the crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Indefensible and inexcusable. If things happened the way your link describes it, there is not much to say.
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
So you don't actually know if they do, it's just 'obvious.'
There are plenty of reports, but it is not like it is news. It is common knowledge, like the weather stations don't talk about clouds being in the sky.
Is this something you really need extra proof on? Like how do you think Hamas recruiting goes? Do you really believe that Hamas ID checks their members to make sure their 18? Do you they have other HR policies? Can you expand on what they are?
In 2005 Amnesty International condemned the use of children by Palestinian militant groups saying: "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks."
Yes, use of child soldiers is something I would certainly need proof on. Muslim extremist groups are usually fairly strict on use of child soldiers, actually. Not to say that they never do it, but the idea that Islamic terrorists are all evil and thus child soldiers are 'common knowledge' sort of norm for them is not grounded in reality.
By the way, if you consider Amnesty International a reliable source in general, they also say that Gaza is on the verge of genocide, that Israel is preventing access to food and medicine, that Israel is committing multiple war crimes, etc. So like, either you trust your sources, or you don't -- don't cherry pick things that you think might suit your narrative then leave out the rest.
There was video footage and internal documents that Israel found iirc in November of last year in regards to "summer camps" for minors that Hamas is carrying out. I think the documents, the IDF found, said that at least around 150 minors fight for the Jihadists. I can't remember if that was true for a certain region or overall Gaza. Depending on that, the number could be much higher. And it seems pretty obvious how and why this is happening with the Gazan population being so child-heavy.
"Last week, Israeli soldiers discovered a bag of explosives in the possession of an 11-year old Palestinian child at the same checkpoint. The boy, who regularly carried bags for travellers from one side of the checkpoint to the other, was reported not to have been aware that one of the bags on his cart contained explosives."
Does this suffice as proof? And as a general rule for none fallacious thinking: A source can be correct about one thing and wrong about another. Reported incidents of child soldiers is different than vague statements about genocide for example. One does not believe everything a source says simply because it said right things at one point. On the other hand, we simply can't discard everything UNIFIL says from now on, even though they pretended not to know about Hezbollah digging tunnels 100m away from their outpost. One should always check the facts and form an opinion based on each incidence separately.
On October 18 2024 19:26 KT_Elwood wrote: Is Israel using underage soldiers in the conflict?
Is Palestine?
Yes Hamas does. When over half your population is under 18 and you will take anyone it is pretty obvious. There is also the past use of children as suicide bombers makes it pretty unlikely that they are not going to have them in their ranks. It would be super strange for them to not use child soldiers not the other way around.
So you don't actually know if they do, it's just 'obvious.'
There are plenty of reports, but it is not like it is news. It is common knowledge, like the weather stations don't talk about clouds being in the sky.
Is this something you really need extra proof on? Like how do you think Hamas recruiting goes? Do you really believe that Hamas ID checks their members to make sure their 18? Do you they have other HR policies? Can you expand on what they are?
In 2005 Amnesty International condemned the use of children by Palestinian militant groups saying: "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks."
Yes, use of child soldiers is something I would certainly need proof on. Muslim extremist groups are usually fairly strict on use of child soldiers, actually. Not to say that they never do it, but the idea that Islamic terrorists are all evil and thus child soldiers are 'common knowledge' sort of norm for them is not grounded in reality.
By the way, if you consider Amnesty International a reliable source in general, they also say that Gaza is on the verge of genocide, that Israel is preventing access to food and medicine, that Israel is committing multiple war crimes, etc. So like, either you trust your sources, or you don't -- don't cherry pick things that you think might suit your narrative then leave out the rest.
What exactly is my narrative? You just keep making one up because you know so little about the actual conflict.
There has been thousands of child soldiers killed and many more arrested. Don't worry though you don't have to change your world view on Israel being awful is they are routinely accused (with proof) of treating them like adults, and then much worse things like physical and sexual abuse. What you are going to have to change is that Hamas is not a horrible awful group. The hand waving doesn't cut it, you need to do some ACTUAL research on how awful they are and then come back. You can keep hating Israel just as much don't worry, but there is no rule that you have to ignore clear and obvious awful things about Hamas. In fact if you get the actual information your arguments will be much more compelling because people who know the basics won't immediately write you off.
Thousands of child soldiers killed, or thousands of children killed and then labelled as child soldiers posthumously by the IDF, like that time a kid threw a rock at an armored vehicle, was shot dead on the spot, then written off as a 'terror attack' yeah?
I don't need to change my perspective on Hamas, I'm well aware they're terrible human beings and do plenty of awful things. If you'd like to present 'actual information' on how Hamas uses child soldiers, you're welcome to do so; until then, I'm going to assume it's just another piece of Israeli propaganda, barring a number (granted, a number that's higher than it should be because it should be zero) but still a limited one, of isolated incidents.
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.mena-watch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/hamas_camps-1-1024x583.jpg.webp)
