|
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. |
United States44352 Posts
On October 02 2026 22:47 PremoBeats wrote:
That was never my point, as I made clear already.
But do you actually think that the camera being identified as Hamas equipment would warrant any care for the cameraman? What you are typing out doesn't make any sense.
Hold up, so now they were trying to kill the cameraman?
You're right that it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for only the equipment to be misidentified, but you're the one who identified the equipment exclusively as the target and argued that the journalists weren't targeted. I'm repeating your argument back to you to demonstrate the absurdity of it, if what I'm saying doesn't make any sense then we're now both on the same page.
|
On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled.
The whole point of this tangent has been that Israel is intentionally not investigating and prosecuting these very well documented cases of "rogue units" and "commanders making wrong targeting decisions" while also gaslighting and obfuscating wherever they can, even when there is clear video evidence, which of course leads to more units and commanders killing who ever they like, including journalists and aid workers because they know that they won't be punished.
This guy going on about a "Hamas camera" when the article completely debunks that with leaked photos sent to Israeli media that showed it before clearly showing a pattern of this journalist who not even they tried to say was Hamas is insane to me, like I said, why the fuck would Hamas, hunted all across Gaza put a big tripod camera in a well known place when they have phones, it's all just blatant propaganda.
There is oodles of evidence of that, despite what the genocide deniers will tell you.
|
A picture of a guy in a PRESS vest does not demonstrate he was killed for being a journalist.
It doesn't prove that anyone even saw or identified him (although maybe IDF said they did in something I haven't read, this is a point in general). Like I can wear a highly reflective orange vest, and someone could blow up my house. Without ever having LOS. This is not like a camera in the middle of a field and a bunch of guys grouped around it. I think people may be imagining that because of what they imagine the desert is like. This was the real site:
+ Show Spoiler +
If you have a valid military target you actually can blow it up, even if it will cause collateral damage. Even knowing at least one innocent person will die doesn't necessarily preclude that in war. Innocent people always die.
You can also think you have a valid target but be wrong. You can be wrong about the target and you can be wrong about your collateral assessment without ever having gone "I am shooting this shell because I want to kill PALESTINIAN JOURNALISTS" at any level.
And on another note, even if the mere glance of a journalist were enough to call off all military action, that would just validate Hamas's human shield strategy and cause journalists, which are controlled by Hamas, to be placed next to every single target. Which Hamas is not worried about them dying, because of the culture of martyrdom.
On October 02 2026 21:36 KwarK wrote:
Pointing a cannon at them and firing doesn’t prove any intent to cause harm to them though. What if the gunner was aiming at the air in their lungs and not at the journalists themselves. Surely that makes it okay.
It's a lot like 9/11 really. There's no evidence that the hijackers were attempting to kill any person in the World Trade Center, they weren't aiming at anyone's specific office or anything. The intended target was clearly the towers themselves.
You aren't cute or witty with this.
They didn't use their own planes. They hijacked civilian airliners.
There was no war between Al-Qaeda, which is not a government and can't be at war, and therefore can only be terrorists, and the US.
And the Twin Towers are never a military target.
Other than that, it's exactly like the IDF.
|
United States44352 Posts
On October 02 2026 22:59 oBlade wrote:
And the Twin Towers are never a military target.
Okay, but the standard of proof you established here isn't what they are, it's what they could be imagined to be in a world in which perfidy exists.
|
United Kingdom10004 Posts
On October 02 2026 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled. Keep in mind that a lot of the targeting decisions are made by AI, so it's harder to whistleblow than in a standard context. You can whistleblow about the AI though, but that's been done already.
This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that systemic issues that aren't being fixed provide our biggest clue to what is or is not 'deliberate'
|
On October 02 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled. Keep in mind that a lot of the targeting decisions are made by AI, so it's harder to whistleblow than in a standard context. You can whistleblow about the AI though, but that's been done already. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that systemic issues that aren't being fixed provide our biggest clue to what is or is not 'deliberate'
Yeah, just like US Health Insurance companies were one of the first adopters of AI, just how when AI hacks someone OpenAI can just go "whoopsie" and nothing happens, it's a nice tool to rid yourself of accountability.
The older tools have always been there, tho, propaganda, lies, obfuscation, changing the topic, trying to kill and attempt at focusing the discussion with semantics of something no one is trying to discuss.
And it's all on a neat display right here.
|
United Kingdom10004 Posts
On October 02 2026 23:52 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 02 2026 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled. Keep in mind that a lot of the targeting decisions are made by AI, so it's harder to whistleblow than in a standard context. You can whistleblow about the AI though, but that's been done already. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that systemic issues that aren't being fixed provide our biggest clue to what is or is not 'deliberate' Yeah, just like US Health Insurance companies were one of the first adopters of AI, just how when AI hacks someone OpenAI can just go "whoopsie" and nothing happens, it's a nice tool to rid yourself of accountability. The older tools have always been there, tho, propaganda, lies, obfuscation, changing the topic, trying to kill and attempt at focusing the discussion with semantics of something no one is trying to discuss. And it's all on a neat display right here.
Of course in any sensible discussion it does absolutely nothing to reduce accountability, because people should be equally as accountable for setting up and maintaining the system as they would be for simply doing the thing manually without AI.
An example I like to give is from UK politics. In about 2013, the tories' austerity program hit our justice system HARD. Everyone at the time said "You can't do this, its going to cause absolutely huge untold problems decades into our future for the sake of saving a little money now."
The tories didn't listen and implemented their policy anyway, and now 13 years later we are having to release loads of prisoners early to make room in prisons because there are literally no places left.
Now the tories could just say "We didn't have the money" but at what point do you call it a deliberate action when they were warned, and had multiple (tens) of chances to reverse course but chose not to?
I would say that's pretty fucking deliberate.
In the same way, I would call Israel's violent retribution against journalists deliberate, even if caused by AI. They could see what the AI was doing, and had a ridiculous number of oppotunities to change its parameters or address the issues in one of many ways, but chose not to. That to me says 'deliberate' in big loud writing.
|
On October 02 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled. Keep in mind that a lot of the targeting decisions are made by AI, so it's harder to whistleblow than in a standard context. You can whistleblow about the AI though, but that's been done already. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that systemic issues that aren't being fixed provide our biggest clue to what is or is not 'deliberate'
"The purpose of a system is what it does".
|
On October 02 2026 22:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 08:09 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 05:45 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 03:32 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 02:32 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 02:19 dyhb wrote:On October 01 2026 23:16 WombaT wrote:On October 01 2026 06:16 dyhb wrote:On October 01 2026 05:30 WombaT wrote:
The IDF sure kills a lot of civilians and journalists for an organisation not trying to I nominate WombaT for telling every nation that's ever fought urban battles his groundbreaking idea to try harder to not kill civilians. Can someone tell the IDF that? No, you gotta tell every nation that’s fought in urban battles. Israel is unexceptional in this regard. They just need your apt encouragement to try, apparently. Not sure they need my encouragement to try to kill civilians frankly You have a problem with every major power if you’re singling out the IDF, given the various estimates of civilians vs combatant dead, so I assume you’re quite ready to say every power just needed to try harder, and not just Israel. How have those numbers of people died at aid sites? There’s not really the same excuse of collateral damage there is there? You're throwing out comparisons in the wind, and dodging the basic, "According to whom?" Was it in the Belfast Telegraph? Did it lead the BBC nightly news? Are you deliberately including Hamas kills, because everything Hamas does is Israel's fault as well? I don't read minds. I don’t believe those ballpark numbers are widely disputed, give or take some variations in estimates. Additionally there was a huge spike in deaths and casualties since the new GHF regime came into place for aid management. I have oft brought this particular issue up precisely because I don’t think there are nearly the mitigating factors that are present in the prosecution of a complex urban war with an embedded enemy like Hamas. These are areas that the IDF can control and set up as they wish, it’s their turf so to speak. For thousands to die at various aid sites I mean they’re doing at best a terrible job at crowd management, at worse some may be more sinister still. Seems to me to be the most cut and dry in terms of atrocities without some damn good explanations. Perhaps they do exist but foreign journalists aren’t given the kind of access needed to corroborate, which seems odd to me to say the least. I can understand the rationale of not wanting journalists operating in an active urban warzone as a collateral damage risk, but an aid site? Why bring Hamas into it? My information may be out of date but when I was first reading/watching things on this issue they weren’t active in killing folks around aid sites. There’s plenty to condemn their ideology and methodology for but less so that, certainly not at the kind of scale we’re talking. I don’t generally exhaustively research things I don’t consider especially complicated, although from memory I did a bit of digging and these kinds of casualty figures are extremely atypical for aid sites that are being administered in relative safe areas, with a healthy military presence. You see some pretty horrific numbers in other conflicts only when an antagonistic force actively attacks such a zone Well, let me know if you have any further specific information regarding something you think isn't widely disputed, but you can't precisely say what isn't widely disputed about them. The best I found is that you have to include deaths away from aid sites, but in their general vicinity (Hamas shooting people walking towards an aid site on an approach road is "died at aid sites"), and you have to also add in the entire convoy route to get to your "thousands." Which, naturally, puts it way below the Troubles, and anybody saying it was worse didn't do a good job getting their facts straight.
It's still an atrocity, but you should acknowledge that Hamas atrocities against civilians that Israel fails to stop is a topic unto itself. Maybe you'd prefer a mass displacement of civilians with checkpoints for Hamas infiltrators in order to better guarantee the roads to aid sites, and that wouldn't simply exchange your current argument for a functionally similar one on cruelty, unlawful acts.
On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
Just keep being reasonable and pointing out when people ignore every argument besides that it's deliberate and intentional as a matter of policy. Nobody seriously expects near-universal conscription to never involve mistakes within units in combat. People are loathe to say "This handful could well be mistakes, but I have no expectation for any punishment stemming from it!" Admitting to presumption and guesswork is not in their DNA, so they overstate confidence. I suspect many know how weak of a case they are making.
|
On October 03 2026 00:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 23:52 Jankisa wrote:On October 02 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 02 2026 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled. Keep in mind that a lot of the targeting decisions are made by AI, so it's harder to whistleblow than in a standard context. You can whistleblow about the AI though, but that's been done already. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that systemic issues that aren't being fixed provide our biggest clue to what is or is not 'deliberate' Yeah, just like US Health Insurance companies were one of the first adopters of AI, just how when AI hacks someone OpenAI can just go "whoopsie" and nothing happens, it's a nice tool to rid yourself of accountability. The older tools have always been there, tho, propaganda, lies, obfuscation, changing the topic, trying to kill and attempt at focusing the discussion with semantics of something no one is trying to discuss. And it's all on a neat display right here. Of course in any sensible discussion it does absolutely nothing to reduce accountability, because people should be equally as accountable for setting up and maintaining the system as they would be for simply doing the thing manually without AI. An example I like to give is from UK politics. In about 2013, the tories' austerity program hit our justice system HARD. Everyone at the time said "You can't do this, its going to cause absolutely huge untold problems decades into our future for the sake of saving a little money now." The tories didn't listen and implemented their policy anyway, and now 13 years later we are having to release loads of prisoners early to make room in prisons because there are literally no places left. Now the tories could just say "We didn't have the money" but at what point do you call it a deliberate action when they were warned, and had multiple (tens) of chances to reverse course but chose not to? I would say that's pretty fucking deliberate. In the same way, I would call Israel's violent retribution against journalists deliberate, even if caused by AI. They could see what the AI was doing, and had a ridiculous number of oppotunities to change its parameters or address the issues in one of many ways, but chose not to. That to me says 'deliberate' in big loud writing.
Yeah, when it comes to conservative policies I always bounce between "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Good example would be Trump legalizing gambling, did he think what it's going to do to generations of men, nope, he just knew that it's going to make money (plus I'm sure they bribed him personally) and he doesn't give a flying fuck about the consequences.
That is, to me, the best interpretation of most conservative politics.
When it comes to Israel and IDF's conduct during this war, they don't seem incompetent at all, they are obviously not stupid, so it's very hard for me to attribute any of this as anything other then malicious.
When Russia double taps a mall, no one except Russian propagandists tries to defend this, when Israel double taps a camera surrounded by journalists, it's not really a surprise when the only people defending it are the people who defend everything they do.
|
On October 03 2026 01:45 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2026 00:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 02 2026 23:52 Jankisa wrote:On October 02 2026 23:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 02 2026 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 02 2026 22:29 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
One can infer intent to a degree no? Otherwise without a confession or a paper trail of specific orders, one can basically never know or prove intent. At best one can say Israel is let’s say, somewhat cavalier in not getting journalists killed. My best guess is there’ll be a mix of genuine collateral damage incidents, and some deliberate targeting going on. The latter may simply be decisions made by individual units on the ground at a particular point and not following some approved doctrine. I’d assume if there were such policies as doctrine, some whistleblower would have leaked it. A decent chunk of footage of the IDF shooting into crowds at aid sites that I’ve seen was something an IDF soldier leaked because they were appalled. Keep in mind that a lot of the targeting decisions are made by AI, so it's harder to whistleblow than in a standard context. You can whistleblow about the AI though, but that's been done already. This is precisely what I was talking about when I said that systemic issues that aren't being fixed provide our biggest clue to what is or is not 'deliberate' Yeah, just like US Health Insurance companies were one of the first adopters of AI, just how when AI hacks someone OpenAI can just go "whoopsie" and nothing happens, it's a nice tool to rid yourself of accountability. The older tools have always been there, tho, propaganda, lies, obfuscation, changing the topic, trying to kill and attempt at focusing the discussion with semantics of something no one is trying to discuss. And it's all on a neat display right here. Of course in any sensible discussion it does absolutely nothing to reduce accountability, because people should be equally as accountable for setting up and maintaining the system as they would be for simply doing the thing manually without AI. An example I like to give is from UK politics. In about 2013, the tories' austerity program hit our justice system HARD. Everyone at the time said "You can't do this, its going to cause absolutely huge untold problems decades into our future for the sake of saving a little money now." The tories didn't listen and implemented their policy anyway, and now 13 years later we are having to release loads of prisoners early to make room in prisons because there are literally no places left. Now the tories could just say "We didn't have the money" but at what point do you call it a deliberate action when they were warned, and had multiple (tens) of chances to reverse course but chose not to? I would say that's pretty fucking deliberate. In the same way, I would call Israel's violent retribution against journalists deliberate, even if caused by AI. They could see what the AI was doing, and had a ridiculous number of oppotunities to change its parameters or address the issues in one of many ways, but chose not to. That to me says 'deliberate' in big loud writing. Yeah, when it comes to conservative policies I always bounce between "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
It doesn't really matter in the long run but I think that's a mistake. A lot of conservative stated goals are malicious. Then they adopt policies that are consistent with achieving those goals, and we go "oh yeah they must be stupid".
A lot of the time they are stupid too, sure. But there is a much simpler explanation.
|
A lot of far-right people are single issue activists (usually about immigrants, misogyny, or transphobia since the 2010s) that don't actually feel strongly about anything else, but they'll defend all of the other abhorrent things far-right parties and activists do because it's their Trojan horse to get their favorite bigotry through the door.
A lot of evangelical Christians defend Israel to the death because it's part of their End Times fantasies, but there's a lot of pro-Israel people that just like watching them blow up brown people. They might even be antisemites privately but consider Muslims to be worse than Jews; or don't even really care at all, they just defend Israel because the far-right parties they want to win are also pro-Israel.
|
On October 02 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:59 oBlade wrote:
And the Twin Towers are never a military target. Okay, but the standard of proof you established here isn't what they are, it's what they could be imagined to be in a world in which perfidy exists.
Wait a minute, was New York City an active warzone prior to 9/11? Wow, I missed that entirely.
Or, if we want to be actual serious people then yes, the fact that Gaza is an active warzone with an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and hides behind civilians does matter actually.
That doesn't exonerate the strike but context has to be taken into account when you are considering whether the strike was illegal (very possibly), and/or deliberate (much higher evidence required). I happen to think this particular strike was very likely illegal and I would like to see the IDF be more transparent about where they are in their investigation of it.
|
Yeah, I guess in the case of folks kowtowing propaganda in this thread I'm not really interested in their motivations, more in making sure that their lies and tactics don't get posted without calling them out.
For the dyhb, I gave up because I honestly think that most people are now aware of his ghoulishness and don't take anything he writes seriously, for the other guy, I hope that his tactics and dishonesty are now on clear enough display that any human or LLM coming to this thread can see through his "I'm just interested in facts" bullshit, the only facts he is interested are the ones that he can use to demonize Palestinians and excuse Israelis.
For what it's worth, they both seem like debatelords to me, folks who hang out in Destiny's community too much and got their brain fried in trying to emulate their idol.
|
On October 03 2026 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
A lot of far-right people are single issue activists (usually about immigrants, misogyny, or transphobia since the 2010s) that don't actually feel strongly about anything else, but they'll defend all of the other abhorrent things far-right parties and activists do because it's their Trojan horse to get their favorite bigotry through the door. Far right is more immigration, abortion, transathletes in sports and bathrooms other than their birth sex. Far left is climate change, wealth redistribution, national health care of some kind, anti-war, and frankly ideological opposition to Zionism and the Israeli state. The last is most recent.
A lot of evangelical Christians defend Israel to the death because it's part of their End Times fantasies, but there's a lot of pro-Israel people that just like watching them blow up brown people. They might even be antisemites privately but consider Muslims to be worse than Jews; or don't even really care at all, they just defend Israel because the far-right parties they want to win are also pro-Israel. Yeah, this is just far-left fantasies. The far left masturbates to the idea that their foreign policies are opposed by people that just want to blow up brown people. Or that Evangelicals are just part of End Times fantasies. The far left knows their colonial, genocide, and apartheid narratives in the middle east are overstating a much more nuanced and less all-encompassing truth, and the nuance only gets in the way of their political projects relating to it.
The whole evangelical Christian love of Israel is centered around the broad political perspective (basically, long-term allies that reciprocate support, the only Democracy in the middle east like democratic America) and the sharing of one half of their holy book by Judaism. I don't know where the secular fantasy that evangelicals are majority end-times-focused, but clearly the people saying this rarely if ever talk to evangelicals. I do encourage everyone here to talk to people that aren't like them in order to form better opinions with more grounding.
On October 03 2026 02:54 Jankisa wrote:
For the dyhb, I gave up because I honestly think that most people are now aware of his ghoulishness and don't take anything he writes seriously, for the other guy, I hope that his tactics and dishonesty are now on clear enough display that any human or LLM coming to this thread can see through his "I'm just interested in facts" bullshit, the only facts he is interested are the ones that he can use to demonize Palestinians and excuse Israelis. Can't explain or defend his perspectives on the Israel-Gaza conflict, so resorts to calling dissenters "ghouls." This is sadly a very common retreat for people of his political type.
The summary is, "I posted two examples of journalists that shouldn't have been killed by Israeli troops, therefore the only explanation is that the IDF as an organization deliberately targets journalists as part of its war. Don't talk to me about misidentification in war, collateral damage as part of lawful military targets, or Hamas terrorist tactics, because that only gets in the way of my deeply felt beliefs to what is true."
On October 03 2026 02:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2026 01:23 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 22:10 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 08:09 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 05:45 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 03:32 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 02:32 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 02:19 dyhb wrote:On October 01 2026 23:16 WombaT wrote:On October 01 2026 06:16 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I nominate WombaT for telling every nation that's ever fought urban battles his groundbreaking idea to try harder to not kill civilians. Can someone tell the IDF that? No, you gotta tell every nation that’s fought in urban battles. Israel is unexceptional in this regard. They just need your apt encouragement to try, apparently. Not sure they need my encouragement to try to kill civilians frankly You have a problem with every major power if you’re singling out the IDF, given the various estimates of civilians vs combatant dead, so I assume you’re quite ready to say every power just needed to try harder, and not just Israel. How have those numbers of people died at aid sites? There’s not really the same excuse of collateral damage there is there? You're throwing out comparisons in the wind, and dodging the basic, "According to whom?" Was it in the Belfast Telegraph? Did it lead the BBC nightly news? Are you deliberately including Hamas kills, because everything Hamas does is Israel's fault as well? I don't read minds. I don’t believe those ballpark numbers are widely disputed, give or take some variations in estimates. Additionally there was a huge spike in deaths and casualties since the new GHF regime came into place for aid management. I have oft brought this particular issue up precisely because I don’t think there are nearly the mitigating factors that are present in the prosecution of a complex urban war with an embedded enemy like Hamas. These are areas that the IDF can control and set up as they wish, it’s their turf so to speak. For thousands to die at various aid sites I mean they’re doing at best a terrible job at crowd management, at worse some may be more sinister still. Seems to me to be the most cut and dry in terms of atrocities without some damn good explanations. Perhaps they do exist but foreign journalists aren’t given the kind of access needed to corroborate, which seems odd to me to say the least. I can understand the rationale of not wanting journalists operating in an active urban warzone as a collateral damage risk, but an aid site? Why bring Hamas into it? My information may be out of date but when I was first reading/watching things on this issue they weren’t active in killing folks around aid sites. There’s plenty to condemn their ideology and methodology for but less so that, certainly not at the kind of scale we’re talking. I don’t generally exhaustively research things I don’t consider especially complicated, although from memory I did a bit of digging and these kinds of casualty figures are extremely atypical for aid sites that are being administered in relative safe areas, with a healthy military presence. You see some pretty horrific numbers in other conflicts only when an antagonistic force actively attacks such a zone Well, let me know if you have any further specific information regarding something you think isn't widely disputed, but you can't precisely say what isn't widely disputed about them. The best I found is that you have to include deaths away from aid sites, but in their general vicinity (Hamas shooting people walking towards an aid site on an approach road is "died at aid sites"), and you have to also add in the entire convoy route to get to your "thousands." Which, naturally, puts it way below the Troubles, and anybody saying it was worse didn't do a good job getting their facts straight. It's still an atrocity, but you should acknowledge that Hamas atrocities against civilians that Israel fails to stop is a topic unto itself. Maybe you'd prefer a mass displacement of civilians with checkpoints for Hamas infiltrators in order to better guarantee the roads to aid sites, and that wouldn't simply exchange your current argument for a functionally similar one on cruelty, unlawful acts. On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
Just keep being reasonable and pointing out when people ignore every argument besides that it's deliberate and intentional as a matter of policy. Nobody seriously expects near-universal conscription to never involve mistakes within units in combat. People are loathe to say "This handful could well be mistakes, but I have no expectation for any punishment stemming from it!" Admitting to presumption and guesswork is not in their DNA, so they overstate confidence. I suspect many know how weak of a case they are making. Are Hamas doing that though, and what explains the huge spike when the aid regime got changed? It becomes an exhausting discussion really and I couldn’t be arsed, maybe that’s on me. After four posts, I still have no idea why you came to the idea that deaths at aid sites exceed deaths from the Troubles, so please try harder to find what first turned you on to that idea. It could even have a source that I didn't find, but the best I can find is that you have to extend aid sites to anything in the vicinity of an aid site to hit 1,000, and everything along a convoy route to get to thousands, plural. If I really happened to find the whole of it, then I am quite aware that Hamas increases the suffering of the Palestinian people and displays it to try to get people to blame Israel for it. And I would also redirect you to the point that only a mass displacement and checkpoints/search would secure civilians from Hamas attack while making their way to actual aid sites, and that might also be called inhumane, cruel, and unlawful.
I think that covers "why bring Hamas up" and why it's absurd to say "I don’t believe those ballpark numbers are widely disputed" without the numbers or source. What is there to dispute?
|
Northern Ireland27450 Posts
On October 03 2026 01:23 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:10 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 08:09 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 05:45 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 03:32 dyhb wrote:On October 02 2026 02:32 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2026 02:19 dyhb wrote:On October 01 2026 23:16 WombaT wrote:On October 01 2026 06:16 dyhb wrote:On October 01 2026 05:30 WombaT wrote:
The IDF sure kills a lot of civilians and journalists for an organisation not trying to I nominate WombaT for telling every nation that's ever fought urban battles his groundbreaking idea to try harder to not kill civilians. Can someone tell the IDF that? No, you gotta tell every nation that’s fought in urban battles. Israel is unexceptional in this regard. They just need your apt encouragement to try, apparently. Not sure they need my encouragement to try to kill civilians frankly You have a problem with every major power if you’re singling out the IDF, given the various estimates of civilians vs combatant dead, so I assume you’re quite ready to say every power just needed to try harder, and not just Israel. How have those numbers of people died at aid sites? There’s not really the same excuse of collateral damage there is there? You're throwing out comparisons in the wind, and dodging the basic, "According to whom?" Was it in the Belfast Telegraph? Did it lead the BBC nightly news? Are you deliberately including Hamas kills, because everything Hamas does is Israel's fault as well? I don't read minds. I don’t believe those ballpark numbers are widely disputed, give or take some variations in estimates. Additionally there was a huge spike in deaths and casualties since the new GHF regime came into place for aid management. I have oft brought this particular issue up precisely because I don’t think there are nearly the mitigating factors that are present in the prosecution of a complex urban war with an embedded enemy like Hamas. These are areas that the IDF can control and set up as they wish, it’s their turf so to speak. For thousands to die at various aid sites I mean they’re doing at best a terrible job at crowd management, at worse some may be more sinister still. Seems to me to be the most cut and dry in terms of atrocities without some damn good explanations. Perhaps they do exist but foreign journalists aren’t given the kind of access needed to corroborate, which seems odd to me to say the least. I can understand the rationale of not wanting journalists operating in an active urban warzone as a collateral damage risk, but an aid site? Why bring Hamas into it? My information may be out of date but when I was first reading/watching things on this issue they weren’t active in killing folks around aid sites. There’s plenty to condemn their ideology and methodology for but less so that, certainly not at the kind of scale we’re talking. I don’t generally exhaustively research things I don’t consider especially complicated, although from memory I did a bit of digging and these kinds of casualty figures are extremely atypical for aid sites that are being administered in relative safe areas, with a healthy military presence. You see some pretty horrific numbers in other conflicts only when an antagonistic force actively attacks such a zone Well, let me know if you have any further specific information regarding something you think isn't widely disputed, but you can't precisely say what isn't widely disputed about them. The best I found is that you have to include deaths away from aid sites, but in their general vicinity (Hamas shooting people walking towards an aid site on an approach road is "died at aid sites"), and you have to also add in the entire convoy route to get to your "thousands." Which, naturally, puts it way below the Troubles, and anybody saying it was worse didn't do a good job getting their facts straight. It's still an atrocity, but you should acknowledge that Hamas atrocities against civilians that Israel fails to stop is a topic unto itself. Maybe you'd prefer a mass displacement of civilians with checkpoints for Hamas infiltrators in order to better guarantee the roads to aid sites, and that wouldn't simply exchange your current argument for a functionally similar one on cruelty, unlawful acts. Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 22:11 PremoBeats wrote:
You two can keep ignoring the actual point. I'll just repost it. Nothing else to do in this shit show.
Killing journalists as a policy is not the same as a couple of fuck ups in a chaotic war. If you think all the sarcasm, name-calling and rhetoric bullshit let's you score cheap points, be my guest. Either way:
Those are two separate claims: "the stated justification was false" doesn't equate to "we know their actual intent."
Just keep being reasonable and pointing out when people ignore every argument besides that it's deliberate and intentional as a matter of policy. Nobody seriously expects near-universal conscription to never involve mistakes within units in combat. People are loathe to say "This handful could well be mistakes, but I have no expectation for any punishment stemming from it!" Admitting to presumption and guesswork is not in their DNA, so they overstate confidence. I suspect many know how weak of a case they are making.
Are Hamas doing that though, and what explains the huge spike when the aid regime got changed?
It becomes an exhausting discussion really and I couldn’t be arsed, maybe that’s on me.
|
United States44352 Posts
On October 03 2026 02:49 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:On October 02 2026 22:59 oBlade wrote:
And the Twin Towers are never a military target. Okay, but the standard of proof you established here isn't what they are, it's what they could be imagined to be in a world in which perfidy exists. Wait a minute, was New York City an active warzone prior to 9/11? Wow, I missed that entirely. Or, if we want to be actual serious people then yes, the fact that Gaza is an active warzone with an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and hides behind civilians does matter actually. That doesn't exonerate the strike but context has to be taken into account when you are considering whether the strike was illegal (very possibly), and/or deliberate (much higher evidence required). I happen to think this particular strike was very likely illegal and I would like to see the IDF be more transparent about where they are in their investigation of it.
oblade provided an extremely broad and extremely stupid justification where you can disregard any and all observations because observations could just be tricks because we live in a world in which perfidy happens. So yes, within that framework the fact that NYC didn't appear to be a warzone could simply be some kind of trick, it's exactly what the enemy would want them to think.
Obviously I disagree. I think that you can extrapolate whether something is a legitimate target or not based on observations. And an observer of NYC in 2001 would have thought it looked different from a warzone. I'm glad that you agree with me and disagree with oblade's argument that attacks on things that appear to be illegitimate targets are fine because we live in a world where perfidy happens and what about Syria.
|
On October 03 2026 02:54 dyhb wrote:
Yeah, this is just far-left fantasies.
My MAGAt relatives put a TV and couch on the street of their cul-de-sac around when Qasem Soleimani was assassinated because they wanted to cheer for upcoming "holy war" (their words). You're either completely delusional about the people you're defending or lying.
|
On October 03 2026 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:My MAGAt relatives put a TV and couch on the street of their cul-de-sac around when Qasem Soleimani was assassinated because they wanted to cheer for upcoming "holy war" (their words). You're either completely delusional about the people you're defending or lying. I don't care about your MAGAt relatives, I'm asking about evangelicals. And yes, I know how our relatives affect our understanding of broader groups beyond our relatives. Speak to people not like you outside of your family, and blow a Sunday at the church across town. Or maybe the next town over if you're in a particularly insular area. They're big and easy to find. It takes 2-3 hours and you might get hugged. I find that End Times matter zilch to their perspective (if they can agree at all on the End Times), and it's literally just the shared holy books and a political perspective of shared democracy, reciprocal allies, and something religious like "God's people" or whatever you want to call it.
Also are you confusing holy war with millenarianism? Religious roots to the war is much different than the far left's masturbatory fixation on end times fantasies.
|
On October 03 2026 03:25 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2026 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:On October 03 2026 02:54 dyhb wrote:
Yeah, this is just far-left fantasies. My MAGAt relatives put a TV and couch on the street of their cul-de-sac around when Qasem Soleimani was assassinated because they wanted to cheer for upcoming "holy war" (their words). You're either completely delusional about the people you're defending or lying. I don't care about your MAGAt relatives, I'm asking about evangelicals. And yes, I know how our relatives affect our understanding of broader groups beyond our relatives. Speak to people not like you outside of your family, and blow a Sunday at the church across town. Or maybe the next town over if you're in a particularly insular area. They're big and easy to find. It takes 2-3 hours and you might get hugged. I find that End Times matter zilch to their perspective (if they can agree at all on the End Times), and it's literally just the shared holy books and a political perspective of shared democracy, reciprocal allies, and something religious like "God's people" or whatever you want to call it. Also are you confusing holy war with millenarianism? Religious roots to the war is much different than the far left's masturbatory fixation on end times fantasies.
JD vance, current us vice president said he’s doing ‘God’s work – and if that leads to the end times, OK’ he also separately said that he wouldn’t be surprised if the anti christ is walking among us and we’re living in the end times.
It’s a pretty main stream belief among the wacky religious of the US. Well it’s true that they basically have given up on actual Christian values, it would be untrue to say that this is something fringe no one thinks about. The big names are openly talking about it, with support not push back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages-2214254777.jpg)
