|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
