|
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. |
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On July 03 2025 09:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2025 09:32 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2025 22:49 Sent. wrote:You're not helping yourself by requesting to ban a group larger than yours from the debate. Maybe it's different on this forum or my perception is somehow distorted but Kwark's views are way closer to what most of the normie population believes than your or Nebuchad's views. I think the way your group acts is counterproductive and helps in making it look like your group is the unreasonable one. And yet everything I've said in this thread for over a year has been vindicated, against people who were consistently wrong, all the time. Off the top of my head I was told that Israel was only after Hamas and didn't want ethnic cleaning, that was wrong. I was told that they were using precise military strikes to hit only terrorists and maybe a few unfortunate civilians around as collateral damage, that was wrong. I was told that they were doing this for the hostages, that was wrong. That they wouldn't hit a hospital, that was wrong. That they were only destroying buildings that had a connexion to Hamas, that was wrong. That they weren't using starvation as a tool of war, that was wrong. That the death count was overstated, that was wrong. So the question becomes, as none of these people edit their positions in any way to reflect the fact that I am consistently right and they are consistently wrong, what's the appeal of talking about being reasonable? Clearly, like, to the point that it couldn't be clearer, nobody cares, at all, about who is right. I think you'll struggle to get people to admit that their support for Israel in the beginning of this phase of conflict was only based on moral argument because of convenience, rather than there being an actual moral case to support Israel. Those moral arguments, you'll notice, have completely gone away at this point as Israel has rolled around in the deepest mud they could find for the last couple of years. It tells us that there's something deeper in the reasons that people will support Israel. Its not to do with them being on the right side, but just being on our side of some perceived 'us vs the muslims' battle for cultural dominance that touches on local issues around the world. Hanging on to whatever vestiges remain of the 'Israel has a right to defend itself' bullshit just looks completely deluded at this point, hence the rise of 'well what would you do in their situation?' rhetoric that outright defends ethnic cleansing and slaughter of innocent muslims on the basis that 'they have to something'. BTW, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/02/israeli-military-bomb-fragments-gaza-al-baqa-cafeThis is what Israel is up to in Gaza. Massive bombs dropped in civilian areas that spread as much damage over a large area as possible, a weapon specifically designed to indiscriminately maim, mutilate and kill a random selection of people over a large geographical area. Defend it, I dare you.
But what about Hamas? /s
|
Guys, the incident is under review by the IDF, which never targets civilians and is the most moral and restrained army in the world. I am sure the bomb used in this incident will be stripped of its rank and be discharged from the army.
|
On July 03 2025 09:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2025 09:32 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2025 22:49 Sent. wrote:You're not helping yourself by requesting to ban a group larger than yours from the debate. Maybe it's different on this forum or my perception is somehow distorted but Kwark's views are way closer to what most of the normie population believes than your or Nebuchad's views. I think the way your group acts is counterproductive and helps in making it look like your group is the unreasonable one. And yet everything I've said in this thread for over a year has been vindicated, against people who were consistently wrong, all the time. Off the top of my head I was told that Israel was only after Hamas and didn't want ethnic cleaning, that was wrong. I was told that they were using precise military strikes to hit only terrorists and maybe a few unfortunate civilians around as collateral damage, that was wrong. I was told that they were doing this for the hostages, that was wrong. That they wouldn't hit a hospital, that was wrong. That they were only destroying buildings that had a connexion to Hamas, that was wrong. That they weren't using starvation as a tool of war, that was wrong. That the death count was overstated, that was wrong. So the question becomes, as none of these people edit their positions in any way to reflect the fact that I am consistently right and they are consistently wrong, what's the appeal of talking about being reasonable? Clearly, like, to the point that it couldn't be clearer, nobody cares, at all, about who is right. I think you'll struggle to get people to admit that their support for Israel in the beginning of this phase of conflict was only based on moral argument because of convenience, rather than there being an actual moral case to support Israel. Those moral arguments, you'll notice, have completely gone away at this point as Israel has rolled around in the deepest mud they could find for the last couple of years. It tells us that there's something deeper in the reasons that people will support Israel. Its not to do with them being on the right side, but just being on our side of some perceived 'us vs the muslims' battle for cultural dominance that touches on local issues around the world. Hanging on to whatever vestiges remain of the 'Israel has a right to defend itself' bullshit just looks completely deluded at this point, hence the rise of 'well what would you do in their situation?' rhetoric that outright defends ethnic cleansing and slaughter of innocent muslims on the basis that 'they have to do something'. BTW, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/02/israeli-military-bomb-fragments-gaza-al-baqa-cafeThis is what Israel is up to in Gaza. Massive bombs dropped in civilian areas that spread as much damage over a large area as possible, a weapon specifically designed to indiscriminately maim, mutilate and kill a random selection of people over a large geographical area. Defend it, I dare you.
Denial of Israel's genocide is essentially the same as Holocaust denial. It is manufactured by those who are currently participating in and supporting the genocide.
Denial as a means of genocide
Lawrence Douglas argues that denial was invented by the perpetrators and employed as a means of genocide. For example, trucks of Zyklon B were labeled with Red Cross symbols and victims were told that they would be "resettled". Douglas also cites the Posen speeches as an example of denial while genocide was ongoing, with Himmler referring to the Holocaust as "an unnamed and never to be named page of glory". According to Douglas, the denial of mass murder using gas chambers recalls the Nazi efforts to persuade the victims that they were actually harmless showers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Genocide denial is a tool of genocide. Those who propagate the denial are cogs in the propaganda machine - some knowingly (Netanyahu) and others unknowingly (PremoBeats). In this thread it's overwhelmingly the unknowing sort.
Why people deny it to begin with is unclear, but the mechanism of denial is fairly well understood: there's a predetermined conclusion that Israel is not committing genocide, followed by willful ignorance of all evidence to the contrary. The willful ignorance is caused by a pro-Israel bias that was instilled in people, often already during early childhood.
I've also defended some of Israel's brutal actions up until before October 7. I didn't realize how wrong my perception of the conflict was. But I don't think I can be blamed for that perception, because the pro-Israel propaganda machine was a thousand times stronger than the opposing propaganda for Palestinians.
This is also why Israel supporters don't understand why October 7 has changed people's minds, such as mine. They think it implies support for Hamas, and therefore support for Palestinians must be linked to anti-semitism.
The anti-semitism cane works really really well. Nothing better than making people feel ashamed for having opposing views - makes their views less likely to spread.
But fortunately in this thread the anti-semitism cane has failed. People see right through it and come out in support of each other. There is no shame in calling Israel's actions a genocide. Israel's supporters are now resorting to mockery, but that's far too weak to have an effect and it has the side effect of making them look barbaric.
I hope this will allow the tides to change.
|
The depressing thing here is that the people who lament how there is no way that Trump supporters will ever admit they were wrong for supporting him and his policies even at the point where it's painfully obvious that he was full of shit and is hurting them and people they care for can't see that their support for Israel after October 7th is very much the same.
Nothing that Israel does in Gaza will ever be enough to reach a point to say "well, obviously this has nothing to do with Hamas or October 7th or Israel's right to defend itself" because they spent the last 2 years digging themselves further into an ideological hole by justifying everything Israel's doing, no matter how fucked up, to admit they were wrong would be too big of a blow to their ego, so they are team "fuck Gazans" all the way, no matter how obvious it is that this is no longer a war but a very obvious ethnic cleansing that also fits all the modern definitions of genocide.
Again, compare this to Srebrenica genocide, a well equipped army that has total control of the area clears it of international organizations and then takes it's time shooting the fish in the barrel.
Regarding the "Democrats same" part of the last thread I think it's laughable and completely irrelevant to what is happening, so there's that.
|
United States43460 Posts
I don’t think Israel or the IDF are following a policy of extermination the way we see in Myanmar or Sudan. We’re not seeing anything like that. Even taking the highest estimates of deaths and projecting that rate forwards, despite the nature of the conflict changing substantially from the peak, it would take a century to depopulate Gaza. I don’t see any reasonable interpretation of the atrocities as an attempt to exterminate Gazans in a systematic and organized way. The condemnation can exist without hyperbole.
My view is that the IDF are completely ill equipped to act as a peacekeeping force in Gaza and are routinely using excessive force, breaking rules of engagement, killing innocents etc. This is the reality of a conscript army of an aggrieved nation occupying an enemy city and forced into a peacekeeping role. No army has ever been good at this, the IDF isn’t uniquely awful here, their crimes are in line with the historical norms. Better than Soviets in Poland, worse than Americans in Iraq.
They are not governing Gaza because they want to, they are governing Gaza because someone has to exercise a monopoly of force for Gaza to not descend into a total bloodbath in which Hamas inevitably kill their way back to the top. They would prefer literally anyone else to step in with a peacekeeping force but have received zero responses to their requests.
We should absolutely demand that the IDF do better. But the problem remains the questions nobody has answers to. If the IDF withdraw who will govern Gaza? If Hamas retain power in Gaza how will there be peace? Awfulness remains the default in Palestine.
|
I think the truth lies in the middle. There are absolutely intentional acts of ethnic cleansing ordered by then Israeli government and followed through/enabled by the IDF. Partly just by through the policy of "we kill their human shields because we have to" and partly because "oh no a group of civilians came to get food in the places we told them there would be food but outside of business hours, guess we just have to assume they are combatants ". If the Israeli government had shown any unwillingness to act in the way they are doing now, we might believe them that these are just tragic consequences if the war ob terror. It does not have to be a genocide to be abhorrent, it is racist mass murdering ordered by fascists hoping they get away with real genocide, but the human suffering is still just unbelievably tragic and needs to be stopped. Yelling genocide is sadly not the right move, it's like my sister yelling genocide because I am still eating meat. You alienate your biggest allies in the argument because you tell them they are literally genocide enablers because they are not exactly following your argument.
|
On July 03 2025 19:56 Broetchenholer wrote:
I think the truth lies in the middle. There are absolutely intentional acts of ethnic cleansing ordered by then Israeli government and followed through/enabled by the IDF. Partly just by through the policy of "we kill their human shields because we have to" and partly because "oh no a group of civilians came to get food in the places we told them there would be food but outside of business hours, guess we just have to assume they are combatants ". If the Israeli government had shown any unwillingness to act in the way they are doing now, we might believe them that these are just tragic consequences if the war ob terror. It does not have to be a genocide to be abhorrent, it is racist mass murdering ordered by fascists hoping they get away with real genocide, but the human suffering is still just unbelievably tragic and needs to be stopped. Yelling genocide is sadly not the right move, it's like my sister yelling genocide because I am still eating meat. You alienate your biggest allies in the argument because you tell them they are literally genocide enablers because they are not exactly following your argument.
If the only objection to your sister's argument is that she misuses the term "genocide", then on a non-semantic level she's right. Her point isn't so much that human-to-animal cruelty should be labeled genocide per se, her point is that it is on par with genocide. Arguing the specifics is a deflection of the completely valid core of her argument.
Same as with Israel's genocide. We're at least 80% into a full-blown genocide, so all arguments against the genocide label is grammar Nazi level of deflection.
|
On July 03 2025 19:28 KwarK wrote:
I don’t think Israel or the IDF are following a policy of extermination the way we see in Myanmar or Sudan. We’re not seeing anything like that. Even taking the highest estimates of deaths and projecting that rate forwards, despite the nature of the conflict changing substantially from the peak, it would take a century to depopulate Gaza. I don’t see any reasonable interpretation of the atrocities as an attempt to exterminate Gazans in a systematic and organized way. The condemnation can exist without hyperbole.
My view is that the IDF are completely ill equipped to act as a peacekeeping force in Gaza and are routinely using excessive force, breaking rules of engagement, killing innocents etc. This is the reality of a conscript army of an aggrieved nation occupying an enemy city and forced into a peacekeeping role. No army has ever been good at this, the IDF isn’t uniquely awful here, their crimes are in line with the historical norms. Better than Soviets in Poland, worse than Americans in Iraq.
They are not governing Gaza because they want to, they are governing Gaza because someone has to exercise a monopoly of force for Gaza to not descend into a total bloodbath in which Hamas inevitably kill their way back to the top. They would prefer literally anyone else to step in with a peacekeeping force but have received zero responses to their requests.
We should absolutely demand that the IDF do better. But the problem remains the questions nobody has answers to. If the IDF withdraw who will govern Gaza? If Hamas retain power in Gaza how will there be peace? Awfulness remains the default in Palestine.
They are the ones that are in the position to do this in many different ways, however, since they value "keeping Hamas down and punishing what remains of it by any means necessary" much higher then "well being of general Gaza population" they choose to, just in the most recent example distribute aid themselves in a way that results in horrific casualty events, they could have let other organizations who are well equipped and experienced in distributing aid to do it, let much more aid in, but they decided that all of those organizations are Hamas and now we are here.
They have options, the options were there before Oct 7th, after as well, but they choose not to go with these options because they don't want to, because they are trying to appease the worse parts of their government and population, the ones that want the maximal suffering with the end (stated) goal of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
This however is all fine with you because you are, again, extremely entrenched in your view that anything goes and is justified by what happened on October 7th.
When it happened I was very firmly in the pro Israel camp, then I started reading how the responses to previous incursions and terrorist attacks Hamas perpetrated went, how it basically went 1:10 in casualty ratio for these "mowing the lawn" operations done by IDF, we are now at approximately 1:50 ratio, how can anyone still be in the camp "Israel is justified in not stopping because Hamas might come back" is honestly insane to me. (the ratio I'm talking about is Israeli deaths to Palestinian ones, not civilian to combatant)
|
On July 03 2025 22:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2025 19:56 Broetchenholer wrote:
I think the truth lies in the middle. There are absolutely intentional acts of ethnic cleansing ordered by then Israeli government and followed through/enabled by the IDF. Partly just by through the policy of "we kill their human shields because we have to" and partly because "oh no a group of civilians came to get food in the places we told them there would be food but outside of business hours, guess we just have to assume they are combatants ". If the Israeli government had shown any unwillingness to act in the way they are doing now, we might believe them that these are just tragic consequences if the war ob terror. It does not have to be a genocide to be abhorrent, it is racist mass murdering ordered by fascists hoping they get away with real genocide, but the human suffering is still just unbelievably tragic and needs to be stopped. Yelling genocide is sadly not the right move, it's like my sister yelling genocide because I am still eating meat. You alienate your biggest allies in the argument because you tell them they are literally genocide enablers because they are not exactly following your argument. If the only objection to your sister's argument is that she misuses the term "genocide", then on a non-semantic level she's right. Her point isn't so much that human-to-animal cruelty should be labeled genocide per se, her point is that it is on par with genocide. Arguing the specifics is a deflection of the completely valid core of her argument. Same as with Israel's genocide. We're at least 80% into a full-blown genocide, so all arguments against the genocide label is grammar Nazi level of deflection.
Yeah but the argument is not about grammar, the argument is eating animals is not genocide because cows are not humans. Same as with this. Israels government consists of fascist scum that use every chance they can to talk about their intention to do genocide. But in the end they have not. And if your argument is "wehret den anfängen", then yeah, you have a point. Israel is willingly committing heavy war crimes they should be brought to justice for. However, arguing with kwark whether or not it is genocide is stupid and you will lose it. Argue with him why he believes Iran is committing genocide or why Israel had no choice but to commit war crimes. That is actually helpful.
|
On July 04 2025 00:51 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2025 22:14 Magic Powers wrote:On July 03 2025 19:56 Broetchenholer wrote:
I think the truth lies in the middle. There are absolutely intentional acts of ethnic cleansing ordered by then Israeli government and followed through/enabled by the IDF. Partly just by through the policy of "we kill their human shields because we have to" and partly because "oh no a group of civilians came to get food in the places we told them there would be food but outside of business hours, guess we just have to assume they are combatants ". If the Israeli government had shown any unwillingness to act in the way they are doing now, we might believe them that these are just tragic consequences if the war ob terror. It does not have to be a genocide to be abhorrent, it is racist mass murdering ordered by fascists hoping they get away with real genocide, but the human suffering is still just unbelievably tragic and needs to be stopped. Yelling genocide is sadly not the right move, it's like my sister yelling genocide because I am still eating meat. You alienate your biggest allies in the argument because you tell them they are literally genocide enablers because they are not exactly following your argument. If the only objection to your sister's argument is that she misuses the term "genocide", then on a non-semantic level she's right. Her point isn't so much that human-to-animal cruelty should be labeled genocide per se, her point is that it is on par with genocide. Arguing the specifics is a deflection of the completely valid core of her argument. Same as with Israel's genocide. We're at least 80% into a full-blown genocide, so all arguments against the genocide label is grammar Nazi level of deflection. Yeah but the argument is not about grammar, the argument is eating animals is not genocide because cows are not humans. Same as with this. Israels government consists of fascist scum that use every chance they can to talk about their intention to do genocide. But in the end they have not. And if your argument is "wehret den anfängen", then yeah, you have a point. Israel is willingly committing heavy war crimes they should be brought to justice for. However, arguing with kwark whether or not it is genocide is stupid and you will lose it. Argue with him why he believes Iran is committing genocide or why Israel had no choice but to commit war crimes. That is actually helpful.
The more they deny that it is genocide, the more insane they look. The effort that they put into their denial is what proves the insanity of their argumentation. The argument itself would barely be worth having it if it were to end after one conversation and all parties agreed that what Israel is doing is so close to genocide that it has to be treated as if it were a genocide. We're long past the point where such a technicality matters. The side choosing continuously to shove this technicality into people's faces is looking insane. Their motivation, their drive, makes them appear so.
They don't just deny it's genocide, they deny that it's even in the ballpark of a genocide. Why else would they even argue with people? It would never be a hill worth dying on. Their akchually-ism is very revealing.
|
There are recognized genocides out there, that no one would criticize you for calling genocides, where fewer people have died both in total and in proportion, for exemple the Rohyngia or Srebrenica. This is very very not the same thing as calling eating meat genocide.
|
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan.
|
On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan.
Some people did actually call the Vietnam war a genocide. Bertrand Russel and the International War Crimes Tribunal among them. Their ruling was unanimous, unfortunately they didn't have the means to enforce it.
Tribunal members unanimously found the United States “guilty on all charges, including genocide, the use of forbidden weapons, maltreatment and killing of prisoners, violence and forceful movement of prisoners” in Vietnam and its neighbors Laos and Cambodia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/did-america-commit-war-crimes-in-vietnam.html
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan.
No, war is awful and awful things happen in war.
But all of those were intended to swing the tides of a war. The atomic bombs certainly did.
Israel has already crushed the miltary capacity of those who oppose it. Including Iran at this point.Now they’re just shooting fish in a barrel. And the longer it goes the less justification for it there is
In the initial phases of the war yeah sure, it’s not pretty but Israel did have a pretty good justification for going after Hamas.
Now? Why are people dying in at times scores a day at fucking aid sites? Why are civilians being pummelled with munitions?
Whether wants to sit debating the particulars of it being genocide or ethnic clashing or something else, maybe it doesn’t pass that threshold they’re still massacring civilians. They’re still territorially expanding. They’ve got prominent members of government sabre rattling.
The upper estimate of deaths in the post October-7th period is equivalent to 20% of the entire population of my city Belfast, the Northern Irish capital.
If I consider it in those terms, I mean it’s beyond heinous. 1 in 5 people I meet in my day to day simply wouldn’t exist at the current attrition rate.
If I consider 1 in every 5 people I meet being dead, yeah that’s not fucking great.
I mean that’s the reality, call it genocide, ethnic cleansing or not or whatever one fancies.
It’s beyond repugnant.
|
On July 04 2025 07:25 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan. Some people did actually call the Vietnam war a genocide. Bertrand Russel and the International War Crimes Tribunal among them. Their ruling was unanimous, unfortunately they didn't have the means to enforce it. Show nested quote +Tribunal members unanimously found the United States “guilty on all charges, including genocide, the use of forbidden weapons, maltreatment and killing of prisoners, violence and forceful movement of prisoners” in Vietnam and its neighbors Laos and Cambodia. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/did-america-commit-war-crimes-in-vietnam.html
Interesting, I was talking about people here. Would you consider all the ones I listed genocide, none or which ones?
|
On July 04 2025 07:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan. No, war is awful and awful things happen in war. But all of those were intended to swing the tides of a war. The atomic bombs certainly did. Israel has already crushed the miltary capacity of those who oppose it. Including Iran at this point.Now they’re just shooting fish in a barrel. And the longer it goes the less justification for it there is In the initial phases of the war yeah sure, it’s not pretty but Israel did have a pretty good justification for going after Hamas. Now? Why are people dying in at times scores a day at fucking aid sites? Why are civilians being pummelled with munitions? Whether wants to sit debating the particulars of it being genocide or ethnic clashing or something else, maybe it doesn’t pass that threshold they’re still massacring civilians. They’re still territorially expanding. They’ve got prominent members of government sabre rattling. The upper estimate of deaths in the post October-7th period is equivalent to 20% of the entire population of my city Belfast, the Northern Irish capital. If I consider it in those terms, I mean it’s beyond heinous. 1 in 5 people I meet in my day to day simply wouldn’t exist at the current attrition rate. If I consider 1 in every 5 people I meet being dead, yeah that’s not fucking great. I mean that’s the reality, call it genocide, ethnic cleansing or not or whatever one fancies. It’s beyond repugnant.
Hamas is crushed but continuing to fight and continuing to control Gaza, not unlike the Nazi's and Japan. The bombing was meant to kill the spirit of the country supporting them. The siege stuff has been a part of war since people started having walls.
I do not think anyone, maybe premo I have not read all his posts, is arguing, or has argued that is not horrible. I do not think anyone has even argued that it is even a good strategy militarily.
I do think it is stupid of the world, and I'm super disappointed in the UN and Europe for basically turning a blind eye in action but constantly putting it all on Israel. They are OBVIOUSLY for 100's of reasons not the people to enforce peace in GAZA until the people are strong enough to do it themselves. Hell the UN did not even enforce their own treaty in Southern Lebanon. They were the ones that did maybe the worst case of NIMBYism to create Israel with seemingly the idea of lets stick all the people we don't like in the Middle east and let them kill each other off. Or just as long as its not here we don't care.
That does not let Israel off the hook, it is too bad that the UN is feckless when it comes to war crimes for seems like everyone at this point. But it is strange that the whole world thinks Israel is the right country to deal with the mess that is Gaza and the west bank.
|
On July 04 2025 07:53 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 07:25 Magic Powers wrote:On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan. Some people did actually call the Vietnam war a genocide. Bertrand Russel and the International War Crimes Tribunal among them. Their ruling was unanimous, unfortunately they didn't have the means to enforce it. Tribunal members unanimously found the United States “guilty on all charges, including genocide, the use of forbidden weapons, maltreatment and killing of prisoners, violence and forceful movement of prisoners” in Vietnam and its neighbors Laos and Cambodia. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/did-america-commit-war-crimes-in-vietnam.html Interesting, I was talking about people here. Would you consider all the ones I listed genocide, none or which ones?
I don't know tbh. I'm not as well read on the Vietnam war and the Korean war and the other examples. But I do think if a group of high repute rules that genocide did occur, that accusation should be taken very seriously. It should certainly not be dismissed until other equally reputable groups or scholars have made their own call. So there may well have been instances of genocide in one or some of the examples.
What I'm seeing is that more and more scholars are coming to the conclusion that the Israel-Gaza war constitutes genocide. I'm not seeing any opposing trends.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On July 04 2025 08:06 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 07:49 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan. No, war is awful and awful things happen in war. But all of those were intended to swing the tides of a war. The atomic bombs certainly did. Israel has already crushed the miltary capacity of those who oppose it. Including Iran at this point.Now they’re just shooting fish in a barrel. And the longer it goes the less justification for it there is In the initial phases of the war yeah sure, it’s not pretty but Israel did have a pretty good justification for going after Hamas. Now? Why are people dying in at times scores a day at fucking aid sites? Why are civilians being pummelled with munitions? Whether wants to sit debating the particulars of it being genocide or ethnic clashing or something else, maybe it doesn’t pass that threshold they’re still massacring civilians. They’re still territorially expanding. They’ve got prominent members of government sabre rattling. The upper estimate of deaths in the post October-7th period is equivalent to 20% of the entire population of my city Belfast, the Northern Irish capital. If I consider it in those terms, I mean it’s beyond heinous. 1 in 5 people I meet in my day to day simply wouldn’t exist at the current attrition rate. If I consider 1 in every 5 people I meet being dead, yeah that’s not fucking great. I mean that’s the reality, call it genocide, ethnic cleansing or not or whatever one fancies. It’s beyond repugnant. Hamas is crushed but continuing to fight and continuing to control Gaza, not unlike the Nazi's and Japan. The bombing was meant to kill the spirit of the country supporting them. The siege stuff has been a part of war since people started having walls. I do not think anyone, maybe premo I have not read all his posts, is arguing, or has argued that is not horrible. I do not think anyone has even argued that it is even a good strategy militarily. I do think it is stupid of the world, and I'm super disappointed in the UN and Europe for basically turning a blind eye in action but constantly putting it all on Israel. They are OBVIOUSLY for 100's of reasons not the people to enforce peace in GAZA until the people are strong enough to do it themselves. Hell the UN did not even enforce their own treaty in Southern Lebanon. They were the ones that did maybe the worst case of NIMBYism to create Israel with seemingly the idea of lets stick all the people we don't like in the Middle east and let them kill each other off. Or just as long as its not here we don't care. That does not let Israel off the hook, it is too bad that the UN is feckless when it comes to war crimes for seems like everyone at this point. But it is strange that the whole world thinks Israel is the right country to deal with the mess that is Gaza and the west bank.
Why wouldn’t they put it all on Israel. It’s all Israel?
|
On July 04 2025 08:20 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 08:06 Billyboy wrote:On July 04 2025 07:49 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan. No, war is awful and awful things happen in war. But all of those were intended to swing the tides of a war. The atomic bombs certainly did. Israel has already crushed the miltary capacity of those who oppose it. Including Iran at this point.Now they’re just shooting fish in a barrel. And the longer it goes the less justification for it there is In the initial phases of the war yeah sure, it’s not pretty but Israel did have a pretty good justification for going after Hamas. Now? Why are people dying in at times scores a day at fucking aid sites? Why are civilians being pummelled with munitions? Whether wants to sit debating the particulars of it being genocide or ethnic clashing or something else, maybe it doesn’t pass that threshold they’re still massacring civilians. They’re still territorially expanding. They’ve got prominent members of government sabre rattling. The upper estimate of deaths in the post October-7th period is equivalent to 20% of the entire population of my city Belfast, the Northern Irish capital. If I consider it in those terms, I mean it’s beyond heinous. 1 in 5 people I meet in my day to day simply wouldn’t exist at the current attrition rate. If I consider 1 in every 5 people I meet being dead, yeah that’s not fucking great. I mean that’s the reality, call it genocide, ethnic cleansing or not or whatever one fancies. It’s beyond repugnant. Hamas is crushed but continuing to fight and continuing to control Gaza, not unlike the Nazi's and Japan. The bombing was meant to kill the spirit of the country supporting them. The siege stuff has been a part of war since people started having walls. I do not think anyone, maybe premo I have not read all his posts, is arguing, or has argued that is not horrible. I do not think anyone has even argued that it is even a good strategy militarily. I do think it is stupid of the world, and I'm super disappointed in the UN and Europe for basically turning a blind eye in action but constantly putting it all on Israel. They are OBVIOUSLY for 100's of reasons not the people to enforce peace in GAZA until the people are strong enough to do it themselves. Hell the UN did not even enforce their own treaty in Southern Lebanon. They were the ones that did maybe the worst case of NIMBYism to create Israel with seemingly the idea of lets stick all the people we don't like in the Middle east and let them kill each other off. Or just as long as its not here we don't care. That does not let Israel off the hook, it is too bad that the UN is feckless when it comes to war crimes for seems like everyone at this point. But it is strange that the whole world thinks Israel is the right country to deal with the mess that is Gaza and the west bank. Why wouldn’t they put it all on Israel. It’s all Israel?
I'm not talking about the blame, I'm talking about the responsibility to the humans stuck there.
|
On July 04 2025 08:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 07:53 Billyboy wrote:On July 04 2025 07:25 Magic Powers wrote:On July 04 2025 04:38 Billyboy wrote:
I think it was the US pol thread, or somewhere, but it was discussed long before this about whether some of the big bombing campaigns were genocide or not. I believe most people agreed they were atrocious but not genocide. Have peoples minds changed on that? I'm thinking Korean war, German Blitz of UK, Dresden, Vietnam, atomic bombs, firebombing of Japan. Some people did actually call the Vietnam war a genocide. Bertrand Russel and the International War Crimes Tribunal among them. Their ruling was unanimous, unfortunately they didn't have the means to enforce it. Tribunal members unanimously found the United States “guilty on all charges, including genocide, the use of forbidden weapons, maltreatment and killing of prisoners, violence and forceful movement of prisoners” in Vietnam and its neighbors Laos and Cambodia. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/did-america-commit-war-crimes-in-vietnam.html Interesting, I was talking about people here. Would you consider all the ones I listed genocide, none or which ones? I don't know tbh. I'm not as well read on the Vietnam war and the Korean war and the other examples. But I do think if a group of high repute rules that genocide did occur, that accusation should be taken very seriously. It should certainly not be dismissed until other equally reputable groups or scholars have made their own call. So there may well have been instances of genocide in one or some of the examples. What I'm seeing is that more and more scholars are coming to the conclusion that the Israel-Gaza war constitutes genocide. I'm not seeing any opposing trends.
It sounds fair to listen to the scholars. Is it safe to say that amount of civilians killed or even % is not really a factor, or at least no a major one. Obviously there is some floor number, but that it is more about trying to erase a group of people than raw numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
