|
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 September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts.
Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments.
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts.
You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from?
This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it?
Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here?
Show nested quote +Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments.
I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide.
|
On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance.
Show nested quote +Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide.
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
On September 08 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance. Show nested quote +Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide. Brother, if you have to pull quotes out of context and sustain the kind of ignorance like on "remember Amalek" or "letter to IDF soldier invoking 'the biblical concept of total destruction,'" you're just fixated on genocide and grasping at straws to make it seem legitimate. You're literally here saying a phrase written on a memorial in The Hague is in fact genocidal in intent. I think I chose my words well. Who the hell cuts off the quote right before "believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Okay so when I argued literally a few pages back that the genocide conversation is arbitrary and Israel wasn't committing genocide anyway, that's a fixation is it?
When it gets to the point that someone online is telling me what I think and its the opposite of what I think (I only posted this 3 days ago ffs https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=533#10645 ) its usually just time to completely dismiss that person as not having a single clue what they are talking about. You are now arguing a point that is obviously, demonstrably as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Good luck with that, you can carry on by yourself.
Also just as an aside:
"believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Are not the super duper magic debunking phrases you think they are, given that each was followed by Israel committing several war crimes. Adding a weak as fuck untrue denial as mitigation at the end of a speech that shows very bad intentions does not erase those intentions.
|
On September 08 2026 16:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance. Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide. Brother, if you have to pull quotes out of context and sustain the kind of ignorance like on "remember Amalek" or "letter to IDF soldier invoking 'the biblical concept of total destruction,'" you're just fixated on genocide and grasping at straws to make it seem legitimate. You're literally here saying a phrase written on a memorial in The Hague is in fact genocidal in intent. I think I chose my words well. Who the hell cuts off the quote right before "believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?" Okay so when I argued literally a few pages back that the genocide conversation is arbitrary and Israel wasn't committing genocide anyway, that's a fixation is it? When it gets to the point that someone online is telling me what I think and its the opposite of what I think (I only posted this 3 days ago ffs https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=533#10645 ) its usually just time to completely dismiss that person as not having a single clue what they are talking about. You are now arguing a point that is obviously, demonstrably as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Good luck with that, you can carry on by yourself. Also just as an aside: Show nested quote +
"believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Are not the super duper magic debunking phrases you think they are, given that each was followed by Israel committing several war crimes. Adding a weak as fuck untrue denial as mitigation at the end of a speech that shows very bad intentions does not erase those intentions. You repost some of the worst evidence free of discussion and free of thought, and have the hubris to call it reason to reject incompetence and things short of genocide. So maybe reduce your list if you’re not prepared to say The Hague has a genocidal statement written on a memorial. Or give a better reason why you cut off quotes (after being pointed out to you) when it’s unfortunate for your argument. You possess agency to change it. Do so unless something like what I describe is hindering you.
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
On September 08 2026 23:29 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 16:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance. Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide. Brother, if you have to pull quotes out of context and sustain the kind of ignorance like on "remember Amalek" or "letter to IDF soldier invoking 'the biblical concept of total destruction,'" you're just fixated on genocide and grasping at straws to make it seem legitimate. You're literally here saying a phrase written on a memorial in The Hague is in fact genocidal in intent. I think I chose my words well. Who the hell cuts off the quote right before "believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?" Okay so when I argued literally a few pages back that the genocide conversation is arbitrary and Israel wasn't committing genocide anyway, that's a fixation is it? When it gets to the point that someone online is telling me what I think and its the opposite of what I think (I only posted this 3 days ago ffs https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=533#10645 ) its usually just time to completely dismiss that person as not having a single clue what they are talking about. You are now arguing a point that is obviously, demonstrably as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Good luck with that, you can carry on by yourself. Also just as an aside:
"believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Are not the super duper magic debunking phrases you think they are, given that each was followed by Israel committing several war crimes. Adding a weak as fuck untrue denial as mitigation at the end of a speech that shows very bad intentions does not erase those intentions. You repost some of the worst evidence free of discussion and free of thought, and have the hubris to call it reason to reject incompetence and things short of genocide. So maybe reduce your list if you’re not prepared to say The Hague has a genocidal statement written on a memorial. Or give a better reason why you cut off quotes (after being pointed out to you) when it’s unfortunate for your argument. You possess agency to change it. Do so unless something like what I describe is hindering you.
Why are you so obsessed with genocide?
All I'm doing is attributing to malice what is obviously caused by malice.
You are the one making this about genocide. You need to curb this little obsession of yours.
As for cutting off quotes, I already explained it to you.
The so called 'context' you tried to add doesn't add any context at all, given that it is a lie, and one that is irrelevant to the point I am making and doesn't make the original statements that I posted less full of malice than they were without the 'context'.
|
dyhb is "obsessed" with making it a discussion around semantics of Genocide because that lets him obfuscate his support for horrific things Israel does and keeps on doing.
This is the same guy who couldn't even say that blowing up 8 and 11 old boys at the yellow line is a bad thing to do without "proper investigation" that of course never came. To him, blowing them up was A-OK because "Hamas uses child soldiers".
This is the type of person you are talking to here, there is nothing that Israel can do that will make him say enough is enough, I mean, a page back he was insisting that he would need proof of genocidal intent from IDF higher ups before he'd stop participating in war crimes.
Not a great person, not a honest or good faith participant.
|
On September 08 2026 23:29 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 16:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance. Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide. Brother, if you have to pull quotes out of context and sustain the kind of ignorance like on "remember Amalek" or "letter to IDF soldier invoking 'the biblical concept of total destruction,'" you're just fixated on genocide and grasping at straws to make it seem legitimate. You're literally here saying a phrase written on a memorial in The Hague is in fact genocidal in intent. I think I chose my words well. Who the hell cuts off the quote right before "believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?" Okay so when I argued literally a few pages back that the genocide conversation is arbitrary and Israel wasn't committing genocide anyway, that's a fixation is it? When it gets to the point that someone online is telling me what I think and its the opposite of what I think (I only posted this 3 days ago ffs https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=533#10645 ) its usually just time to completely dismiss that person as not having a single clue what they are talking about. You are now arguing a point that is obviously, demonstrably as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Good luck with that, you can carry on by yourself. Also just as an aside:
"believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Are not the super duper magic debunking phrases you think they are, given that each was followed by Israel committing several war crimes. Adding a weak as fuck untrue denial as mitigation at the end of a speech that shows very bad intentions does not erase those intentions. You repost some of the worst evidence free of discussion and free of thought, and have the hubris to call it reason to reject incompetence and things short of genocide. So maybe reduce your list if you’re not prepared to say The Hague has a genocidal statement written on a memorial. Or give a better reason why you cut off quotes (after being pointed out to you) when it’s unfortunate for your argument. You possess agency to change it. Do so unless something like what I describe is hindering you.
Just curious how you would distinguish your own view/positions on this topic generally from those of Biden/Harris?
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
On September 09 2026 00:19 Jankisa wrote:
not a honest or good faith participant.
Here's the thing. I've argued in bad faith before. It usually happens by accident and once you're in it you realise. You know when you are doing it, because to a normal person, it feels wrong and stressful.
dyhb is clearly arguing in bad faith here and has been for a while, but he seems to enjoy it. I just don't get that at all.
|
On September 09 2026 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 00:19 Jankisa wrote:
not a honest or good faith participant. Here's the thing. I've argued in bad faith before. It usually happens by accident and once you're in it you realise. You know when you are doing it, because to a normal person, it feels wrong and stressful. dyhb is clearly arguing in bad faith here and has been for a while, but he seems to enjoy it. I just don't get that at all.
Yeah, I think we have all done it at some point, I'd even say that occasionally I might have even caught myself and let it go on for far too long due to my ego not allowing me to do otherwise, I've also conceded a lot of points over the years and even did a few mea-culpas.
That is normal behavior, I agree, there is a term for the utter lack of empathy and getting off on being deliberately deceitful and bad faith, I don't like to throw it around on forums because it's kind of like pulling a Hitler, but I do think that if it applies to anyone, it's this guy, plus maybe oBlade.
|
On September 08 2026 23:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 23:29 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 16:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance. Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide. Brother, if you have to pull quotes out of context and sustain the kind of ignorance like on "remember Amalek" or "letter to IDF soldier invoking 'the biblical concept of total destruction,'" you're just fixated on genocide and grasping at straws to make it seem legitimate. You're literally here saying a phrase written on a memorial in The Hague is in fact genocidal in intent. I think I chose my words well. Who the hell cuts off the quote right before "believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?" Okay so when I argued literally a few pages back that the genocide conversation is arbitrary and Israel wasn't committing genocide anyway, that's a fixation is it? When it gets to the point that someone online is telling me what I think and its the opposite of what I think (I only posted this 3 days ago ffs https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=533#10645 ) its usually just time to completely dismiss that person as not having a single clue what they are talking about. You are now arguing a point that is obviously, demonstrably as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Good luck with that, you can carry on by yourself. Also just as an aside:
"believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Are not the super duper magic debunking phrases you think they are, given that each was followed by Israel committing several war crimes. Adding a weak as fuck untrue denial as mitigation at the end of a speech that shows very bad intentions does not erase those intentions. You repost some of the worst evidence free of discussion and free of thought, and have the hubris to call it reason to reject incompetence and things short of genocide. So maybe reduce your list if you’re not prepared to say The Hague has a genocidal statement written on a memorial. Or give a better reason why you cut off quotes (after being pointed out to you) when it’s unfortunate for your argument. You possess agency to change it. Do so unless something like what I describe is hindering you. Why are you so obsessed with genocide? All I'm doing is attributing to malice what is obviously caused by malice. You are the one making this about genocide. You need to curb this little obsession of yours. As for cutting off quotes, I already explained it to you. The so called 'context' you tried to add doesn't add any context at all, given that it is a lie, and one that is irrelevant to the point I am making and doesn't make the original statements that I posted less full of malice than they were without the 'context'. They show neither genocide nor malice to Palestinian civilians. The fault is in your neglect of theories beyond your own narrow reading. I will point this out until you do a better job differentiating between good evidence and bad evidence.
Like when Avi Dicther spoke on the first phase of the war, when civilians were asked to evacuate south during military operations in the north. All the stuff unquoted and unnoticed. (translated), "First and foremost it is an operational event. We must understand, we have many of our fighters there who need to operate in a very densely populated area. To operate in a dense area, like there, filled with population, you want to reduce the number of people at the time."
Ok, move civilians out of an area with military operations. Where's the malice?
"From an operational point of view, there is no way to wage a war – as the IDF seeks to do in Gaza – with masses between the tanks and the soldiers.”
So displacement of civilians from the war zone in a time of war, stated as an effort to remove masses between the tanks and soldiers. Malice? The Agriculture minister things that's best.
The interviewer asks about Nakba, and he repeated Nakba, so the question is (northern campaign) Will they return to Gaza City? “I don’t know how it’ll end up happening since Gaza City is one-third of the Strip – half the land’s population but a third of the strip/territory. There are two more thirds of Gaza." Yes, the worry is overcrowding in that city as part of the Gaza Strip, which has more land. "The central camps, Khan Younis and Rafah. There are six more refugee camps. In the northern part there are only two refugee camps." So the only hurdle on return is the state of overcrowding of refugees in the north, where camps are more numerous in the south. They will live in Gaza. There was some question on overcrowding from an agricultural minister at the beginning of the war. And Netanyahu rebuffed him for how he said it.
Jock, the problem of firing off all these snippets is that the collection doesn't become any better than the individual bullshit and dishonest elements that make it up. To the extent that malice exists in different arguments, it's Ben-Gvir and Smotrich public statements, and maybe they influenced the Hamas war in ways that aren't publicly known (excluded from war cabinet. Ben-Gvir certainly should be used if you wanted to change from weak half-truths about Gaza to actual malice involving policing and violence in the West Bank. But you are currently doubling down for no good reason.
On September 09 2026 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2026 23:29 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 16:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 13:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:58 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 12:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 08 2026 12:20 dyhb wrote:
We already have words for bitter wars. Genocide isn't something revealed by "Woah, these guys really hate Hamas" or "Can you believe that Hamas abused corpses, and Gallant has the gall to call them animals?"
Same recycling the old, debunked misrepresentations to pad out the bad evidence ie rememeber amalek, the nonexistence of 'total destruction' in a letter, herzog explicitly civilians bear part of the blame for Hamas while still being protected as civilians by the laws of war in the same answer etc. Talk about misrepresentations. LOL He said this to excuse war crimes being committed against the civilian population, it wasn't even about Hamas it was about Palestinians. Unless you're a clairvoyant (grats if so, get into the judicial system), I'm going to need to know why you know he was talking about Palestinians instead of the dudes desecrating corpses and the mutilation of the sexual organs ... both fitting animalistic or bestial acts. You don't need to be clairvoyant. He was excusing cutting off food, water and electricity. Now, who did Israel cut off water, food and electricity from? This is called logic, not clairvoyance. Its not even a long, difficult chain of logic, is it? Can you understand why people may not think you are arguing in good faith here? If the US was giving Japan water and electricity, it would be a genocide to discontinue it upon declaration of war? That's the logic problem here. You can't siege a military force, because it would also affect civilians? That's just ignorance. Seems like a strange thing for you want to try and twist in order to justify it.
Genuine question: Why do you want to justify that? It's really no skin off my back to remind the genocide-obsessed of the weakness in their arguments. I'm not genocide obsessed. I've argued in this thread that the conversation is arbitrary and pointless, and even if it wasn't I probably wouldn't call it a genocide. Brother, if you have to pull quotes out of context and sustain the kind of ignorance like on "remember Amalek" or "letter to IDF soldier invoking 'the biblical concept of total destruction,'" you're just fixated on genocide and grasping at straws to make it seem legitimate. You're literally here saying a phrase written on a memorial in The Hague is in fact genocidal in intent. I think I chose my words well. Who the hell cuts off the quote right before "believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?" Okay so when I argued literally a few pages back that the genocide conversation is arbitrary and Israel wasn't committing genocide anyway, that's a fixation is it? When it gets to the point that someone online is telling me what I think and its the opposite of what I think (I only posted this 3 days ago ffs https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=533#10645 ) its usually just time to completely dismiss that person as not having a single clue what they are talking about. You are now arguing a point that is obviously, demonstrably as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Good luck with that, you can carry on by yourself. Also just as an aside:
"believe me Israel will operate and always operates according to the international rules" or "We are working, operating, militarily according to rules of international law. Period, Unequivocally?"
Are not the super duper magic debunking phrases you think they are, given that each was followed by Israel committing several war crimes. Adding a weak as fuck untrue denial as mitigation at the end of a speech that shows very bad intentions does not erase those intentions. You repost some of the worst evidence free of discussion and free of thought, and have the hubris to call it reason to reject incompetence and things short of genocide. So maybe reduce your list if you’re not prepared to say The Hague has a genocidal statement written on a memorial. Or give a better reason why you cut off quotes (after being pointed out to you) when it’s unfortunate for your argument. You possess agency to change it. Do so unless something like what I describe is hindering you. Just curious how you would distinguish your own view/positions on this topic generally from those of Biden/Harris? Biden was all over the place on Israel. It evolved through the war. It's hard to say that Biden/Harris had a single position that can be generalized or disagreed with, rather than a changing set of positions that I sometimes agreed with and sometimes disagreed with. I started out the war mostly agreeing with how they approached it, and ended his term mostly disagreeing.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
No malice to civilians but how many are dead right now?
|
On September 09 2026 03:06 WombaT wrote:
No malice to civilians but how many are dead right now? Predictable and average amounts for such a very densely populated urban war. I don't think the civilians killed can reasonably imply a deliberate strategy of maximizing civilian casualties. Not much better than selectively cutting off quotes, using motivated interpretation, and reinventing what "remember Amalek" means in order to say there's clear intent from public statements.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
You do you. For me it’s a morally repugnant conflict
|
On September 09 2026 03:25 WombaT wrote:
You do you. For me it’s a morally repugnant conflict It can be morally repugnant in many ways and not be a genocide, and the conflict can have high civilian casualties without specific statements showing malice towards the civilian population. For example, a shifting approach to allowing food in (inspections, negotiating with UN, alternative solutions), light/opaque punishment on soldiers/officers for conduct outside of the rules of war, insular/dismissive approach to inquiries (especially if such behavior continues in the next two years/after conflict), retaining Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the cabinet after all their statements. That's without getting to the West Bank like settler violence and illegal detention/roadblocks or harassment and the policing of it.
|
But you'd still serve in IDF because "no explicit intent to genocide".
Amazing cognitive dissonance mixed with a distinct lack of empathy.
|
On September 09 2026 04:55 Jankisa wrote:
But you'd still serve in IDF because "no explicit intent to genocide".
Amazing cognitive dissonance mixed with a distinct lack of empathy.
I'm curious how you would distinguish dyhb's view/positions on this topic generally from those of Biden/Harris?
I think you two figuring out if you could agree on that would inadvertently help you two communicate with (rather than at) each other.
|
Norway28914 Posts
On September 09 2026 03:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:25 WombaT wrote:
You do you. For me it’s a morally repugnant conflict It can be morally repugnant in many ways and not be a genocide, and the conflict can have high civilian casualties without specific statements showing malice towards the civilian population. For example, a shifting approach to allowing food in (inspections, negotiating with UN, alternative solutions), light/opaque punishment on soldiers/officers for conduct outside of the rules of war, insular/dismissive approach to inquiries (especially if such behavior continues in the next two years/after conflict), retaining Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the cabinet after all their statements. That's without getting to the West Bank like settler violence and illegal detention/roadblocks or harassment and the policing of it.
But do you even agree that Israel's behavior has in many ways been morally repugnant?
|
On September 09 2026 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 04:55 Jankisa wrote:
But you'd still serve in IDF because "no explicit intent to genocide".
Amazing cognitive dissonance mixed with a distinct lack of empathy. I'm curious how you would distinguish dyhb's view/positions on this topic generally from those of Biden/Harris? I think you two figuring out if you could agree on that would inadvertently help you two communicate with (rather than at) each other.
I blame Biden for a lot of what happened since October 7th, but, to your disappointment, he is trailing way behind others, if I had to put it in a list:
1. Nethyanahu / rest of RW Israel - propping up Hamas / ignoring warnings / focusing IDF on protecting settlers
2. Hamas / Sinwar - horrific theocratic death cult committing one of the worse terrorist attacks ever
3. Trump / Christian fundamentalist base - killing Soleimani / going all in on his support for Israel right wingers
4. Iran / Khalameni - funding Hamas & Hezbolah
5. Biden / Democratic establishment / Harris - unconditional support for Israel even after it was obvious that Israel is going to disproportionately respond and won't stop
The part I take issue with dyhb is his, to repeat, lack of empathy specificially for the parents and the 8 and 11 year old boys that he couldn't gather any for as well as his theoretical willingness to participate in a "maybe" genocide as long as he doesn't' think that there is intent in doing a full blown genocide.
|
United Kingdom10017 Posts
Ghandour Hospital in Al-Nabatiyah Al-Fawqa in Lebanon was destroyed by Israel while dyhb and I were having that conversation.
Another war crime to add to the incredibly long list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
