|
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 24 2025 16:27 pmp10 wrote:
So we are in now the 'everybody won' phase.
It's hard to imagine any workable agreement with Iran after this.
I'd say next round is just a question of time.
Doubt it. Iran already lost the sites, and will take years to rebuild. Nothing to gain here on out other than a quick restart when everything quiet down. All show from here on out
|
On June 24 2025 16:48 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 16:27 pmp10 wrote:
So we are in now the 'everybody won' phase.
It's hard to imagine any workable agreement with Iran after this.
I'd say next round is just a question of time. Doubt it. Iran already lost the sites, and will take years to rebuild. Nothing to gain here on out other than a quick restart when everything quiet down. All show from here on out
Depends. What we know is likely only half there is. Iran could well have more hidden stash.
|
|
|
On June 24 2025 14:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 13:47 PremoBeats wrote:On June 24 2025 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 05:32 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 03:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 22 2025 03:18 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 02:09 Magic Powers wrote:
We have Netanyahu explicitly denying a potential future for a Palestinian state during an active war in Gaza that has resulted in what can only be described as a beta test to a full-blown famine and a genocide.
Totally not intentional though.
Bruh. International law, unlike forum culture, does not operate on exaggerations and cynicism though. All of these are literal quotes from people much better qualified than you. I never gave appeals to authority much credit. Logic and evidence work best for me. On June 22 2025 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 22 2025 03:52 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 03:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 22 2025 03:18 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 02:09 Magic Powers wrote:
We have Netanyahu explicitly denying a potential future for a Palestinian state during an active war in Gaza that has resulted in what can only be described as a beta test to a full-blown famine and a genocide.
Totally not intentional though.
Bruh. International law, unlike forum culture, does not operate on exaggerations and cynicism though. All of these are literal quotes from people much better qualified than you. ... who are completely unbiased, I presume. Or the same people you read about for knowledge on fascism? Again: we need official documents, executive orders, military protocols. Talking about the future as in statehood is not the same as talking about killing off Gazans. Something like a United Nations investigation? The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the
policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the
characteristics of genocide. SourceThat's from September last year. No wonder your not seeing genocide when your burden of proof is nothing short of a hand written note from Netanyahu saying "yes I am committing genocide" My burden of proof is in line with international law. The UN's special committee and Amnesty International's interpretation appears to prioritize humanitarian outcome over legal thresholds, particularly with respect to intent. If you disagree with me, can you explain the difference between a war crime and genocide? Can you further explain why your report or the genocide report of Amnesty did not once write about the facts that significantly weaken the case for INTENTIONAL mass extermination - genocide - as opposed to collateral harm within complex military context? - The CTS rate - The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc. - That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well - Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour Or are you able to come up with an explanation how genocide is concluded without any proof of intent to kill the Gazans in whole or in part? How that is the most important thing to define the world's most extreme crime and how it was present in all genocide-classified situations in the past? Do you accept that the Gazan Ministry of Health, which your article and the AI one, used numbers by the Gazan MoH which were inflated by 3.5k deaths ( https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministry-quietly-removes-thousands-from-gaza-death-toll-researchers-find )? That many of the deaths that are still listed, have been documented via the same procedure? The article claims that "over 90 per cent of the Gaza population was estimated to face high levels of acute food insecurity by the end of 2023, with 40 per cent at emergency levels and over 15 per cent at catastrophe levels". At level 4, the mortality risk begins to rise, yet even though the article says that "no further crossings were opened until March" no widespread deaths of starvation occured, even until now. Meaning that despite level 4-5 famine risk classifications by IPC, actual deaths from starvation did not materialize at the expected scale, which raises legitimate questions about the calibration and credibility of the assessments. Now how could all of these things come togehter? Do you know which countries composed the special committee that produced the article? How these countries voted in the past on Israel-related resolutions? How - if any - diplomatic relations of these countries tend to be in the middle eastern conflict? As I said in my longer response: None of this is simple. Genocide is not people getting killed at pretty good CTS-rates for such a complicated war zone, only because a couple of politiians said bad things. We need die-hard proof: Leaked military memos, tape recordings of direct orders or executions (kill all male Gazans), military logistics, internal governmental protocols ("Final solution for the Jewish question"), executive orders, industrial complexes for extermination, mass testimonies to eliminate, forced sterilisation, enforced birth controls... we have none of that for the Gazan conflict, but several facts that weaken the genocide claim, as mentioned above. Genocide is a uniquely heinous crime that demands burden of proof we reserve for only the most extreme, systematically documented cases. In Gaza this standard has not been met. Not in evidence, not in planning and - as far as I'm concerned up until now - not in intent. So if you're making a legal claim, you need to prove genocidal intent through concrete evidence, not inferred outcomes. If it is a moral claim, then say so. But don't conflate this tragedy with genocide unless you can show - like it has been the case in any other recognized genocide unter international law - deliberate intent to exterminate. Bruh. The UN isn't "authority". They're strictly more knowledgeable than you on the matter of genocide. I simply refer to my answer addressed at Gorsameth, bruh (and yes, you are making an appeal to authority, instead of addressing my arguments) TLDR: The committee isn't neutral, it didn't analyze facts speaking against genocode and most importantly made no legal case for genocide in the sense of proving intent, which is the defining characteristic. The UN is not the only institution that has determined either full-blown genocide or a quasi genocide. You're in the wrong here. You can reasonably argue we "only" reached 80% genocide, but you can absolutely not reasonably argue against that 80% Your defiance is entirely based on your pro-Israel bias, not based on facts.
I also adressed other institutions who refer to the same numbers. But no matter if all institutions say it is genocide... if their logic, reasoning and numbers are wrong or none of them use intent, this appeal to authority has no ground. It is like saying to Galilei "All institutions say that the earth is flat, bruh". If you use wrong metrics, ignore data or facts you surprisingly arrive at the wrong conclusion, even if you are the UN or Amnesty International.
Can you point to a source that is taking into account...
- The CTS rate
- The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc.
- That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well
- Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour
Simply saying I am wrong without actually addressing my arguments does not help.
EDIT: Didn't see that you put your response into three different posts... will look at the sources when I got time
|
On June 24 2025 17:58 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 14:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 13:47 PremoBeats wrote:On June 24 2025 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 05:32 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 03:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 22 2025 03:18 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 02:09 Magic Powers wrote:
We have Netanyahu explicitly denying a potential future for a Palestinian state during an active war in Gaza that has resulted in what can only be described as a beta test to a full-blown famine and a genocide.
Totally not intentional though.
Bruh. International law, unlike forum culture, does not operate on exaggerations and cynicism though. All of these are literal quotes from people much better qualified than you. I never gave appeals to authority much credit. Logic and evidence work best for me. On June 22 2025 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 22 2025 03:52 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 03:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 22 2025 03:18 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 02:09 Magic Powers wrote:
We have Netanyahu explicitly denying a potential future for a Palestinian state during an active war in Gaza that has resulted in what can only be described as a beta test to a full-blown famine and a genocide.
Totally not intentional though.
Bruh. International law, unlike forum culture, does not operate on exaggerations and cynicism though. All of these are literal quotes from people much better qualified than you. ... who are completely unbiased, I presume. Or the same people you read about for knowledge on fascism? Again: we need official documents, executive orders, military protocols. Talking about the future as in statehood is not the same as talking about killing off Gazans. Something like a United Nations investigation? The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the
policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the
characteristics of genocide. SourceThat's from September last year. No wonder your not seeing genocide when your burden of proof is nothing short of a hand written note from Netanyahu saying "yes I am committing genocide" My burden of proof is in line with international law. The UN's special committee and Amnesty International's interpretation appears to prioritize humanitarian outcome over legal thresholds, particularly with respect to intent. If you disagree with me, can you explain the difference between a war crime and genocide? Can you further explain why your report or the genocide report of Amnesty did not once write about the facts that significantly weaken the case for INTENTIONAL mass extermination - genocide - as opposed to collateral harm within complex military context? - The CTS rate - The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc. - That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well - Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour Or are you able to come up with an explanation how genocide is concluded without any proof of intent to kill the Gazans in whole or in part? How that is the most important thing to define the world's most extreme crime and how it was present in all genocide-classified situations in the past? Do you accept that the Gazan Ministry of Health, which your article and the AI one, used numbers by the Gazan MoH which were inflated by 3.5k deaths ( https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministry-quietly-removes-thousands-from-gaza-death-toll-researchers-find )? That many of the deaths that are still listed, have been documented via the same procedure? The article claims that "over 90 per cent of the Gaza population was estimated to face high levels of acute food insecurity by the end of 2023, with 40 per cent at emergency levels and over 15 per cent at catastrophe levels". At level 4, the mortality risk begins to rise, yet even though the article says that "no further crossings were opened until March" no widespread deaths of starvation occured, even until now. Meaning that despite level 4-5 famine risk classifications by IPC, actual deaths from starvation did not materialize at the expected scale, which raises legitimate questions about the calibration and credibility of the assessments. Now how could all of these things come togehter? Do you know which countries composed the special committee that produced the article? How these countries voted in the past on Israel-related resolutions? How - if any - diplomatic relations of these countries tend to be in the middle eastern conflict? As I said in my longer response: None of this is simple. Genocide is not people getting killed at pretty good CTS-rates for such a complicated war zone, only because a couple of politiians said bad things. We need die-hard proof: Leaked military memos, tape recordings of direct orders or executions (kill all male Gazans), military logistics, internal governmental protocols ("Final solution for the Jewish question"), executive orders, industrial complexes for extermination, mass testimonies to eliminate, forced sterilisation, enforced birth controls... we have none of that for the Gazan conflict, but several facts that weaken the genocide claim, as mentioned above. Genocide is a uniquely heinous crime that demands burden of proof we reserve for only the most extreme, systematically documented cases. In Gaza this standard has not been met. Not in evidence, not in planning and - as far as I'm concerned up until now - not in intent. So if you're making a legal claim, you need to prove genocidal intent through concrete evidence, not inferred outcomes. If it is a moral claim, then say so. But don't conflate this tragedy with genocide unless you can show - like it has been the case in any other recognized genocide unter international law - deliberate intent to exterminate. Bruh. The UN isn't "authority". They're strictly more knowledgeable than you on the matter of genocide. I simply refer to my answer addressed at Gorsameth, bruh (and yes, you are making an appeal to authority, instead of addressing my arguments) TLDR: The committee isn't neutral, it didn't analyze facts speaking against genocode and most importantly made no legal case for genocide in the sense of proving intent, which is the defining characteristic. The UN is not the only institution that has determined either full-blown genocide or a quasi genocide. You're in the wrong here. You can reasonably argue we "only" reached 80% genocide, but you can absolutely not reasonably argue against that 80% Your defiance is entirely based on your pro-Israel bias, not based on facts. I also adressed other institutions who refer to the same numbers. But no matter if all institutions say it is genocide... if their logic, reasoning and numbers are wrong or none of them use intent, this appeal to authority has no ground. It is like saying to Galilei "All institutions say that the earth is flat, bruh". If you use wrong metrics, ignore data or facts you surprisingly arrive at the wrong conclusion, even if you are the UN or Amnesty International. Can you point to a source that is taking into account... - The CTS rate - The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc. - That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well - Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour Simply saying I am wrong without actually addressing my arguments does not help. EDIT: Didn't see that you put your response into three different posts... will look at the sources when I got time
You can't convince me or anyone else anyway. More and more people are convinced that it's a genocide, and you're fighting a losing battle. Keep trying all you like, you're on the losing side of history.
More and more Americans are also against US military action in the ME. The trend is very clear, you're losing on all fronts. The narrative is ours.
History will look at you just like people do today at Nazis. Though there will also be plenty of denial, no worries. You'll always have people having your back. But don't expect the history books to do you any favors.
|
On June 24 2025 18:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 17:58 PremoBeats wrote:On June 24 2025 14:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 13:47 PremoBeats wrote:On June 24 2025 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 05:32 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 03:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 22 2025 03:18 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 02:09 Magic Powers wrote:
We have Netanyahu explicitly denying a potential future for a Palestinian state during an active war in Gaza that has resulted in what can only be described as a beta test to a full-blown famine and a genocide.
Totally not intentional though.
Bruh. International law, unlike forum culture, does not operate on exaggerations and cynicism though. All of these are literal quotes from people much better qualified than you. I never gave appeals to authority much credit. Logic and evidence work best for me. On June 22 2025 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 22 2025 03:52 PremoBeats wrote:On June 22 2025 03:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 22 2025 03:18 PremoBeats wrote:
[quote]
International law, unlike forum culture, does not operate on exaggerations and cynicism though. All of these are literal quotes from people much better qualified than you. ... who are completely unbiased, I presume. Or the same people you read about for knowledge on fascism? Again: we need official documents, executive orders, military protocols. Talking about the future as in statehood is not the same as talking about killing off Gazans. Something like a United Nations investigation? The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the
policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the
characteristics of genocide. SourceThat's from September last year. No wonder your not seeing genocide when your burden of proof is nothing short of a hand written note from Netanyahu saying "yes I am committing genocide" My burden of proof is in line with international law. The UN's special committee and Amnesty International's interpretation appears to prioritize humanitarian outcome over legal thresholds, particularly with respect to intent. If you disagree with me, can you explain the difference between a war crime and genocide? Can you further explain why your report or the genocide report of Amnesty did not once write about the facts that significantly weaken the case for INTENTIONAL mass extermination - genocide - as opposed to collateral harm within complex military context? - The CTS rate - The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc. - That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well - Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour Or are you able to come up with an explanation how genocide is concluded without any proof of intent to kill the Gazans in whole or in part? How that is the most important thing to define the world's most extreme crime and how it was present in all genocide-classified situations in the past? Do you accept that the Gazan Ministry of Health, which your article and the AI one, used numbers by the Gazan MoH which were inflated by 3.5k deaths ( https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministry-quietly-removes-thousands-from-gaza-death-toll-researchers-find )? That many of the deaths that are still listed, have been documented via the same procedure? The article claims that "over 90 per cent of the Gaza population was estimated to face high levels of acute food insecurity by the end of 2023, with 40 per cent at emergency levels and over 15 per cent at catastrophe levels". At level 4, the mortality risk begins to rise, yet even though the article says that "no further crossings were opened until March" no widespread deaths of starvation occured, even until now. Meaning that despite level 4-5 famine risk classifications by IPC, actual deaths from starvation did not materialize at the expected scale, which raises legitimate questions about the calibration and credibility of the assessments. Now how could all of these things come togehter? Do you know which countries composed the special committee that produced the article? How these countries voted in the past on Israel-related resolutions? How - if any - diplomatic relations of these countries tend to be in the middle eastern conflict? As I said in my longer response: None of this is simple. Genocide is not people getting killed at pretty good CTS-rates for such a complicated war zone, only because a couple of politiians said bad things. We need die-hard proof: Leaked military memos, tape recordings of direct orders or executions (kill all male Gazans), military logistics, internal governmental protocols ("Final solution for the Jewish question"), executive orders, industrial complexes for extermination, mass testimonies to eliminate, forced sterilisation, enforced birth controls... we have none of that for the Gazan conflict, but several facts that weaken the genocide claim, as mentioned above. Genocide is a uniquely heinous crime that demands burden of proof we reserve for only the most extreme, systematically documented cases. In Gaza this standard has not been met. Not in evidence, not in planning and - as far as I'm concerned up until now - not in intent. So if you're making a legal claim, you need to prove genocidal intent through concrete evidence, not inferred outcomes. If it is a moral claim, then say so. But don't conflate this tragedy with genocide unless you can show - like it has been the case in any other recognized genocide unter international law - deliberate intent to exterminate. Bruh. The UN isn't "authority". They're strictly more knowledgeable than you on the matter of genocide. I simply refer to my answer addressed at Gorsameth, bruh (and yes, you are making an appeal to authority, instead of addressing my arguments) TLDR: The committee isn't neutral, it didn't analyze facts speaking against genocode and most importantly made no legal case for genocide in the sense of proving intent, which is the defining characteristic. The UN is not the only institution that has determined either full-blown genocide or a quasi genocide. You're in the wrong here. You can reasonably argue we "only" reached 80% genocide, but you can absolutely not reasonably argue against that 80% Your defiance is entirely based on your pro-Israel bias, not based on facts. I also adressed other institutions who refer to the same numbers. But no matter if all institutions say it is genocide... if their logic, reasoning and numbers are wrong or none of them use intent, this appeal to authority has no ground. It is like saying to Galilei "All institutions say that the earth is flat, bruh". If you use wrong metrics, ignore data or facts you surprisingly arrive at the wrong conclusion, even if you are the UN or Amnesty International. Can you point to a source that is taking into account... - The CTS rate - The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc. - That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well - Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour Simply saying I am wrong without actually addressing my arguments does not help. EDIT: Didn't see that you put your response into three different posts... will look at the sources when I got time You can't convince me or anyone else anyway. More and more people are convinced that it's a genocide, and you're fighting a losing battle. Keep trying all you like, you're on the losing side of history. More and more Americans are also against US military action in the ME. The trend is very clear, you're losing on all fronts. The narrative is ours. History will look at you just like people do today at Nazis. Though there will also be plenty of denial, no worries. You'll always have people having your back. But don't expect the history books to do you any favors.
What do you mean with "ours"?
FYI: I wrote an Email to the professors and doctors that were mentioned in your article. Depending on their answer, I might change my position.
__
Dear Dr. Vukušić,
I hope this E-Mail finds you well.
As someone with a deep interest in international law and the Gazan conflict, I came across this article:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-finds
The verdict in the article piqued my interest, particularly in light of how central specific intent is in differentiating genocide from war crimes under international law.
From my understanding, intent is what legally distinguishes war crimes - however grave - from genocide. For example, starvation of civilians may be unlawful depending on proportionality and context, but to classify it as genocide, evidence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group must be present.
In previous cases where genocide has been legally established, such intent was often evidenced through:
- Leaked official communications or military directives
- Explicit extermination orders or state policies
- Coordinated logistics for mass killing or sterilization
- Institutional frameworks such as extermination camps
- Systematic testimonies of planned elimination
As of now, I have not seen comparable forms of evidence in the Gaza conflict. Moreover, several aspects seem to challenge the claim of genocidal intent:
- The widespread and unprecedented civilian warning measures (leaflets, SMS, broadcast alerts, etc.)
- Israel’s decision to delay its ground offensive, which arguably increased its own military risk to allow for civilian evacuation
- The civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio, which is in line with or even lower than that observed in other intense urban conflicts (e.g., Grozny, Aleppo, Fallujah)
- The continued provision of electricity and water to Gaza, despite the hostilities
My interest here is purely analytical, and I am genuinly curious how you interpret these elements. If you have the time or are willing to share your reasoning or key considerations, I would be very grateful.
Thank you for your time, and I fully understand if you're unable to respond due to the sensitivity or volume of inquiries.
With kind regards
|
You've not read anything. They clearly state that intent is not a factor. Determination of genocide requires no proof of intent.
Furthermore, intent has been proven plenty. You've just chosen to ignore it. As I said, multiple people in this thread have posted - on numerous occasions - evidence of intent.
|
On June 24 2025 19:24 Magic Powers wrote:
You've not read anything. They clearly state that intent is not a factor. Determination of genocide requires no proof of intent.
Furthermore, intent has been proven plenty. You've just chosen to ignore it. As I said, multiple people in this thread have posted - on numerous occasions - evidence of intent.
Intent is very much a factor in genocide claims, but as you point out it's very obvious what Israel's intent is.
|
On June 24 2025 19:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 19:24 Magic Powers wrote:
You've not read anything. They clearly state that intent is not a factor. Determination of genocide requires no proof of intent.
Furthermore, intent has been proven plenty. You've just chosen to ignore it. As I said, multiple people in this thread have posted - on numerous occasions - evidence of intent. Intent is very much a factor in genocide claims, but as you point out it's very obvious what Israel's intent is.
Intent is the standard for an ICJ ruling. It is not the standard for determining genocide.
If you can only call something genocide after intent has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can't call almost anything a genocide, including that of the Uyghurs in China. That would make it very hard to prevent any genocide that is going on until it has grown to monstrous proportions - i.e. when it's far too late to stop the final solution.
The situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling it a genocide, and the reason why the US and Germany keep being militarily involved without repercussions from the international community is that reputable people are required to tippy-toe around the legal terminology of genocide, or else they'd have to face consequences such as sanctions and ousting. They know the forbidden word is in fact the forbidden word, but they'd get into hot waters if they spoke the forbidden word. Hence Israel can continue doing the forbidden word.
The idea of scholars is to stop a full-blown genocide, not to convict people of genocidal action. Thus they point to the characteristics of genocide so that further genocidal action can be prevented. Otherwise nothing can be done about it.
Let me elaborate on this by giving the clearest possible historic example of genocide - and the legal limits of labeling it a genocide.
The Holocaust, literally the biggest and most horrific of all genocides ever committed, could ONLY legally be called a genocide in 1945 on the 7th of April. That was the first time definitive proof was discovered. Years after the Holocaust had begun.
If that is the standard, then genocide can never be called genocide until a legal ruling. And that would be unacceptable from my perspective. If the law is that incompetent at stopping genocide, then fuck the law.
|
United States43219 Posts
Hold on, if the idea of the scholars is to prevent a genocide and so they call it a genocide and that works and so they successfully prevent the genocide then was it or was it not a genocide?
Also the idea that the situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling is absurd. Gaza is unfixable. How would a label address the demographic issues? The intergenerational trauma? The dependency on aid to exist?
|
On June 24 2025 19:49 KwarK wrote:
Hold on, if the idea of the scholars is to prevent a genocide and so they call it a genocide and that works and so they successfully prevent the genocide then was it or was it not a genocide?
Also the idea that the situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling is absurd. Gaza is unfixable. How would a label address the demographic issues? The intergenerational trauma? The dependency on aid to exist?
Hold on, if the idea of doctors is to prevent cancer and so they call it cancer and that works and so they successfully prevent the cancer then was it or was it not cancer?
Also the idea that the situation in the intestines can be stopped by labeling is absurd. The intestines are unfixable. How would a label address the underlying cause? The inflammation? The dependency on medication?
KwarK, sometimes you're smart. Sometimes you're the opposite of smart. This time you're not on the smart side of things.
|
On June 24 2025 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 19:28 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2025 19:24 Magic Powers wrote:
You've not read anything. They clearly state that intent is not a factor. Determination of genocide requires no proof of intent.
Furthermore, intent has been proven plenty. You've just chosen to ignore it. As I said, multiple people in this thread have posted - on numerous occasions - evidence of intent. Intent is very much a factor in genocide claims, but as you point out it's very obvious what Israel's intent is. Intent is the standard for an ICJ ruling. It is not the standard for determining genocide. If you can only call something genocide after intent has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can't call almost anything a genocide, including that of the Uyghurs in China. That would make it very hard to prevent any genocide that is going on until it has grown to monstrous proportions - i.e. when it's far too late to stop the final solution. The situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling it a genocide, and the reason why the US and Germany keep being militarily involved without repercussions from the international community is that reputable people are required to tippy-toe around the legal terminology of genocide, or else they'd have to face consequences such as sanctions and ousting. They know the forbidden word is in fact the forbidden word, but they'd get into hot waters if they spoke the forbidden word. Hence Israel can continue doing the forbidden word. The idea of scholars is to stop a full-blown genocide, not to convict people of genocidal action. Thus they point to the characteristics of genocide so that further genocidal action can be prevented. Otherwise nothing can be done about it.
You can just look at the data that you have on intent and see whether it is enough to convince you, you don't have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. That's how I tend to deal with these kinds of things, keep the general notion intact but give myself more leeway because I'm just some guy and it doesn't matter as much.
Besides, court proceedings generally revolve around "reasonable" doubt, and usually if something obvious is obviously happening and some people are denying it, it's not because they're being very reasonable.
|
On June 24 2025 19:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 19:28 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2025 19:24 Magic Powers wrote:
You've not read anything. They clearly state that intent is not a factor. Determination of genocide requires no proof of intent.
Furthermore, intent has been proven plenty. You've just chosen to ignore it. As I said, multiple people in this thread have posted - on numerous occasions - evidence of intent. Intent is very much a factor in genocide claims, but as you point out it's very obvious what Israel's intent is. Intent is the standard for an ICJ ruling. It is not the standard for determining genocide. If you can only call something genocide after intent has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can't call almost anything a genocide, including that of the Uyghurs in China. That would make it very hard to prevent any genocide that is going on until it has grown to monstrous proportions - i.e. when it's far too late to stop the final solution. The situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling it a genocide, and the reason why the US and Germany keep being militarily involved without repercussions from the international community is that reputable people are required to tippy-toe around the legal terminology of genocide, or else they'd have to face consequences such as sanctions and ousting. They know the forbidden word is in fact the forbidden word, but they'd get into hot waters if they spoke the forbidden word. Hence Israel can continue doing the forbidden word. The idea of scholars is to stop a full-blown genocide, not to convict people of genocidal action. Thus they point to the characteristics of genocide so that further genocidal action can be prevented. Otherwise nothing can be done about it. You can just look at the data that you have on intent and see whether it is enough to convince you, you don't have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. That's how I tend to deal with these kinds of things, keep the general notion intact but give myself more leeway because I'm just some guy and it doesn't matter as much. Besides, court proceedings generally revolve around "reasonable" doubt, and usually if something obvious is obviously happening and some people are denying it, it's not because they're being very reasonable.
That's what I'm saying. Premo accepts only proof beyond doubt, nothing less. He's unwilling to accept anything other than a direct admission of intent. Plenty of people here (including yourself) have posted plenty of evidence of intent, completely sufficient to convince most people (hence why we're winning the narrative). Premo cannot be convinced, because his bias prevents it. We've had this discussion at length many times before, long ago. And I'm not willing to go through all of it again, and then again, and then again, because my understanding of Premo as a person here is that he will never admit that he was wrong. Evidence is irrelevant. He says it's relevant, but it really isn't. What he wants is to obstruct the discourse.
|
United States43219 Posts
On June 24 2025 19:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 19:49 KwarK wrote:
Hold on, if the idea of the scholars is to prevent a genocide and so they call it a genocide and that works and so they successfully prevent the genocide then was it or was it not a genocide?
Also the idea that the situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling is absurd. Gaza is unfixable. How would a label address the demographic issues? The intergenerational trauma? The dependency on aid to exist? Hold on, if the idea of doctors is to prevent cancer and so they call it cancer and that works and so they successfully prevent the cancer then was it or was it not cancer? Also the idea that the situation in the intestines can be stopped by labeling is absurd. The intestines are unfixable. How would a label address the underlying cause? The inflammation? The dependency on medication? KwarK, sometimes you're smart. Sometimes you're the opposite of smart. This time you're not on the smart side of things.
What the fuck are you talking about? If you have cancer and it is surgically removed then you had cancer. If you didn't have cancer because it was prevented then you never had cancer. Is there something literally wrong with your brain? Gaza isn't intestines, labeling Gaza as intestines won't help genocide.
|
On June 24 2025 20:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 19:55 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 19:49 KwarK wrote:
Hold on, if the idea of the scholars is to prevent a genocide and so they call it a genocide and that works and so they successfully prevent the genocide then was it or was it not a genocide?
Also the idea that the situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling is absurd. Gaza is unfixable. How would a label address the demographic issues? The intergenerational trauma? The dependency on aid to exist? Hold on, if the idea of doctors is to prevent cancer and so they call it cancer and that works and so they successfully prevent the cancer then was it or was it not cancer? Also the idea that the situation in the intestines can be stopped by labeling is absurd. The intestines are unfixable. How would a label address the underlying cause? The inflammation? The dependency on medication? KwarK, sometimes you're smart. Sometimes you're the opposite of smart. This time you're not on the smart side of things. What the fuck are you talking about?
Oh my bad, I thought I was responding to the other version of KwarK, the one that hasn't existed in over ten years. The reasonable, self-reflecting version.
|
On June 24 2025 20:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 19:55 Magic Powers wrote:On June 24 2025 19:49 KwarK wrote:
Hold on, if the idea of the scholars is to prevent a genocide and so they call it a genocide and that works and so they successfully prevent the genocide then was it or was it not a genocide?
Also the idea that the situation in Gaza can be stopped by labeling is absurd. Gaza is unfixable. How would a label address the demographic issues? The intergenerational trauma? The dependency on aid to exist? Hold on, if the idea of doctors is to prevent cancer and so they call it cancer and that works and so they successfully prevent the cancer then was it or was it not cancer? Also the idea that the situation in the intestines can be stopped by labeling is absurd. The intestines are unfixable. How would a label address the underlying cause? The inflammation? The dependency on medication? KwarK, sometimes you're smart. Sometimes you're the opposite of smart. This time you're not on the smart side of things. What the fuck are you talking about? If you have cancer and it is surgically removed then you had cancer. If you didn't have cancer because it was prevented then you never had cancer. Is there something literally wrong with your brain? Gaza isn't intestines, labeling Gaza as intestines won't help genocide.
If there is genocide going on and you stop the genocide then there was genocide going on. If there was no genocide going on because it was prevented before it could even begin, then there was never genocide going on.
Is there something literally wrong with your brain?
Also, very poor attempt at a stealth edit. You should make sure to write your edit faster before people have time to respond (unless it doesn't matter).
|
United States43219 Posts
I don't think you know what the word prevent means and that's okay.
|
On June 24 2025 20:45 KwarK wrote:
I don't think you know what the word prevent means and that's okay.
Yeah nah, it's pretty clear you don't know.
You can prevent the continuation of something just as much as you can prevent the initiation of the thing. Sorry, but this is a huge L on your part.
|
United States43219 Posts
|
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevent
1. to keep from happening or existing
Example: "steps to prevent war"
2. to hold or keep back : hinder, stop
—often used with from
3. to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
The genocide in Gaza is not something that can really be denied any more unless you are willfully ignorant. The scholars labeling it as such are doing it because they are scholars, in a just world that + the ICJ and others calling for it to stop would mean something.
Even if it's stopped right now, it's was still a genocide. If it was stopped after the first few bombings of safe zones and the people who ordered those were arrested and tried for war crimes then it would not be a genocide but a war crime.
If the massacre in Srebrenica is a genocide so is Gaza. Full stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
