|
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 August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults.
And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to.
|
On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 21:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 21:10 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
Show your work, go ahead. Address all points and we can continue. I am tired of you cherry-picking the things where you think you are able to defend your view. Either respond to everything or I'll focus on people who are actually able to discuss in good faith. Anyway. That's it for today. See you guys around. 1) I don't believe you. 2) Show your work, go ahead. 3) We've already covered this. Islamophobia is in my opinion the most likely reason why someone would argue dishonestly in support of the killing of a bunch of muslims. Quit stalling and just answer 2). 1. Ok. So why don't we simply stop then? 2. You make the assumption that people argue in "bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians", while there can be numerous other reasons why the killing of Palestinians (or more generally: in war times) is seen as a necessary step. One does not necessarily have to think it is a good thing to kill Palestinians to explain why innocent victims will occur. One can even add context like every death is horrible and that the civilian population shouldn't suffer as much. You are using a non sequitur fallacy as "killing Palestinians is a good thing" doesn't follow from "civilians being killed is sometimes unavoidable in war". You also make assumptions about the beliefs ("muslims are dangerous and evil") and intent ("a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people") of other persons or groups without knowing their motives. You further use this generalized idea to attribute it to a specific person (in this case me), who told you most definitely that these accusations are not true. Here you use several hasty generalization fallacies as well as a straw man. 3. So you have no evidence? You accusing me of racism and Islamophobia simply stems from an opinion you have in general about people's motives? Do you realize that you build in #1 in #3? You assume from the start that people who argue in support of the killing of Muslims are dishonest/you don't believe them without taking any other factors into account. So there basically is no space for anything besides your opinion and everything is dependent on you believing the other person that they are not dishonest. On top, there can be several other reasons like wrong targeting, collateral, humanitarian crises, etc. for Muslim deaths. This is such an incredible amalgamation of inherently biased argumentation combined with fallacious thinking that we should create a new fallacy and name it after you to be honest. Show nested quote +On August 23 2024 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
OK. btw I know short one line questions like that can seem like gotcha questions, that's not my intent.
I'm going to take a few of these points and raise objections or questions:
1: On the concept of justifiability, I agree it can be subjective, but I also think with discussion there are some easy ways to meet in the middle on SOME of the points raised.
2: Your next paragraph sort of morphs between two arguments which are:
a) That Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, and that they glorified the deaths. and then
b) Comparing the conflict to other conflicts.
I'm not ignoring that you call Oct 7th a 'large scale attack' and the Israeli response a 'military operation' (and it hasn't passed me by that this is the exact language Putin used to justify his war). This is a false distinction, especially since you could easily describe Israel's response as 'an even larger scale attack'.
So
a) I don't see any meaningful distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, and bombing a whole neighborhood because AI told you it thinks there's a terrorist somewhere in there. Mass murder on purpose and mass murder through apathy are equally bad imo.
This isn't to even take into account the deliberate siege tactics and blocking of aid to cause famine and mass starvation, which are equal to Hamas in terms of deliberately targeting civilians.
When it comes to 'glorifying deaths' you only have to look at the Israeli ministers and some of their statements, including calling a cop who shot a Palestinian child in the West Bank in the head for playing with fireworks a 'hero'
b) That casualties are less based on comparisons to other cherry picked conflicts is not an argument that Israel hasn't deliberately targeted civilians. Starving an entire population as a strategy is deliberately targeting civilians. There is no possible argument against this.
Given all this I don't see any reason to count one set of mass murder as any more or less justifiable than the other.
1. I agree about there being a middle way. But I honestly think that the way I present it is already a pretty good middle road. Because a Zionist would frame this much more heavily pro-Israel to begin with. The same is true for a Palestine supporter as can be seen here quite obviously. 2 I totally agree that Israel’s response was even larger. But the large-scale was rather a reference to the usual attacks of Hamas, which didn’t have this kind of impact. The rest is simply describing what happened. An attack by one side with deliberate targeting of civilians and a military counter-invasion by the attacked. And Putin won’t be the only comparable narrative. Many wars are because of invasion and counter-invasions, so no surprise there (Although a notable difference would be that Vlad justified his invasion of another country without being attacked first). a. Which incident(s) do you refer to with bombing whole neighborhoods? Notice that you directly attribute the motive “cause starvation and famine”. I think the weapon narrative is much more plausible especially taking into consideration the humanitarian aid Israel provided, as well as the death toll by starvation, when looking at the blockade. When you talk about glorifying deaths you compare the statement of a far right minister - which drew heavy criticism even from within Israel - to thousands of Palestinians collectively celebrating October 7th. With civilians spitting on/hitting victims whose disfigured bodies were carried into Gaza and with people cherishing the actions on social media. Do you think this is a fair comparison? Is the incident you described neutrally reported? Because if we mean the same incident I would hardly call a 22/23 year old (depending on the sources) a child. If we indeed mean the same case, you can watch the video where this 22 year old “child” is fighting with a soldier, hitting him and trying to grab the rifle of the soldier before the soldier - after trying to shove/slap the man away - grabs his gun and shoots. And again: Was he justified in shooting to kill? Probably not, but as I said several times already: Put him under arrest and he should be held responsible. But the comparison of one dumbass statement by a far right Israeli figure to the glorification of October 7th by the Palestinians lacks massively in my opinion. b. I didn’t cherry pick conflicts. These are conflicts that have the most similarity with Gaza. Although one could weigh in that there were no terrorists hiding in civilian infrastructure, which makes the difference in how Israel is maintaining such low soldier-to-civilian casualty ratios even more commendable. But if you think I cherry picked these conflicts you can naturally provide other data for comparison that you think are more fitting. And sorry that I have to do this, but in this forum there are so many people arguing in bad faith that I simply have to ask for acknowledgements of the reality that is measurable: Can you acknowledge that the casualty rate for fighting in such a densely populated area is immensely low? That it is around/below the percentage of WW II which shouldn’t even be a comparison because of the obvious differences and tougher difficulties in Gaza that Israel faces? I never said that deliberate attacks by Israel NEVER happened and I don’t use the soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio as evidence for such a notion as I don’t believe it. I said several times that for each of those incidents, the respective people or the state itself should be held accountable. All I am saying is that - while there of course will be instances of Israeli soldiers attacking civilians deliberately or taking them in account as collateral in air strikes to take out targets - the narrative that Israel is deliberately attacking civilians en masse is bogus according to the data. The numbers don’t add up. If you look at famous famines (that sometimes were not even carried out with evil intentions - under Mao for example), the death counts are way higher absolutely and in relation to the population size. Gaza and the West Bank have been growing in population size since decades. While it is a severe humanitarian concern, less than 40 deaths attributed to malnutrition, not starvation (as you also were pretty precise with words before) have been documented. Perhaps I remember this wrong and there might be some more incidents… but not on a scale to speak of deliberately targeting the civilian Palestinians with starvation as a means of killing them. In my opinion this would be a bit of a stretch, especially taking into consideration that starvation and malnutrition have been reported in many conflict zones and children simply by the nature of things are more susceptible to it. It is a horrifying thing and every death caused by malnutrition or starvation is one too many, but again: We have to look at the big scope of things. These numbers represent 0,1% of the total casualties and 0,0018% of the overall population. These numbers further are seriously no surprise in any conflict zone and especially in Gaza with all the surrounding context like Hamas operating from hospitals and destroyed medical infrastructure because of that. It also seems to be the case that some people here think that the blockade means that Israel isn’t letting anything in at all. This is untrue, as the deliveries are simply delayed, because of security checks. And it can also be argued that these checks are indeed necessary as Israel has reported finding explosives, firearms and other components that could be used to manufacture weapons. If all of this wouldn’t happen, then the goods could enter Gaza much easier and faster. As I said before: From a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable and I agree with that.This is exactly what Hamas was doing. It also doesn’t help to simply use the word mass murder for both sides to hide the fact that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilians as collateral are simply different things. Are you playing devil’s advocate here or do you seriously believe that Israel is on a broad scale targeting civilians deliberately? If so, how does that add up with the numbers that can be googled/that I posted here?
1: You believe you are presenting a middle way. I don't believe that and I'm not coming at it from that as a starting point. You are defending Israel's actions in Gaza, I'm criticizing those actions because I believe that at this point, Israel shouldn't be there and any continued action at this point is causing more harm that it could possibly do good.
As you seem to infer, i suppose this is kind of inevitable, but your middle way is a justification to continue the war, mine involves Israel stopping doing what they are currently doing, allow aid into Gaza properly and allow their population to at least try and start rebuilding.
2: I suppose comparing attacks and the violence in Israel to other attacks and violence right now is kind of useless. I was making a point about the language used, but I'll be honest that was a very small point in the scheme of things, just something I noticed.
I'm not referring to a specific incident, more what appear to be the rules of conflict for Israel. When i talk about them destroying whole neighbourhoods I'm referring to the whole neighbourhoods that have been destroyed, which I have seen from multiple photos and witness accounts.
Its hard to quote sources about this stuff because my knowledge of the war comes from various accounts over the last 9 months so when I'm talking about how Israel has conducted the actual invasion I'm not talking about specific examples but how they seem to be approaching things in general, and you can see from satellite imagery and photos that are all over the internet that Northern Gaza in particular is absolutely destroyed.
Now, destroying whole areas of a city to kill probably around 1-2000 fighters is already bound to make alot of collateral damage.
Can I acknowledge that the casualty rate is immensely low?
Not definitively. I wouldn't say I could tell you what the casualty rate actually IS. Do we have numbers?
Every time I have tried to present numbers they have been disputed as 'having come from Hamas'. I don't think the death toll of this conflict is going to be accurate or apparent to observers for quite some time. This is partially due to the fact that there will be alot of dead whose bodies haven't yet been found and partially due to the fact that Israel isn't letting anyone independent in to go and have a look at the situation yet.
I'll admit that if you ignore rural conflict this does seem to have a lower death toll specifically than battles that have taken place in cities (again though, its hard to make any argument based on death toll when we don't have accurate numbers of the dead). I just don't think you can use this as evidence of Israel's intentions.
I'm not being dishonest when I take this position btw so let's not take this discussion to the same unproductive place your other discussions have ended up at. No accusations are being aimed at you and I assume you are approaching this honestly, please allow me the same assumption or I'll just stop responding pretty quick.
I'm about to start a game of mafia down there in that section so the last thing I want to do is use all my energy accusing and countering accusations in here also  .
Let's just assume each other are presenting our honest opinions based on our information and sources that have built up over the last 9 months, and accept that this will probably lead to some difficulty in agreeing on things.
I've jumped around a bit in what I'm responding to there but that's the bit before a) and also b)
a) The incident I'm referring to is this 12 year old child:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68557147
Now I'm using this as an example because I believe it typifies how Israeli higher ups see Palestinians as a whole. Its also the clearest example of 'glorifying death' you can possibly get. An Israeli cop shooting an unarmed Palestinian child ('armed with fireworks' is another way of saying unarmed) in the head gets called a hero officially by the Israeli government.
This is not an isolated incident of the rhetoric coming from Israel's government. We all know the Bible stories they have referred to, the call of elimination of Palestinians. The propaganda TV 'discussion' shows that insist that all Palestinians are terrorist sympathizers therefore legitimate targets on Knesset TV.
https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
This is a link to a database of 500 instances of Israeli higher ups calling for genocide or something like it in Gaza.
Its not isolated instances, its how the far right Israeli government sees the world, how they see the conflict and how they see Palestinian people as a whole. These are the exact people I'm criticizing in the conflict, so when you talk about how its far right people that are causing these problems I totally agree. Its not just the head of the armed forces, its endemic in positions of power throughout the entire government.
When you talk about the blockade just delaying aid, in most cases that is the same as destroying the aid. Now again I'm not going to be referring to specific incidents here but in general how Israel was carrying out its orders. We're going to run into difficulty here because you are taking a pretty niche position on what Israel is doing. They weren't simply delaying aid for a few days here or there. They have been outright stopping any aid from getting in to Gaza and if you ask anyone present at the blockades who don't directly work for the Israeli government that is what they are saying.
The only people denying this work for the Israeli government are presenting propaganda.
You claim that because there haven't been alot of deaths from malnutrition or starvation, that is proof that Israel isn't targeting civilians. I can't agree with that point at all. When you block an entire population from getting food, water, medical supplies and power, you are deliberately targeting that entire population, civilians included.
How can you possibly block aid without targeting civilians? You just can't.
BTW when I talk about the difficulties we're going to have with sources, I'm reading stuff like this:
The report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or I.P.C., says in order to buy food, more than half of households in Gaza have had to exchange clothes and other goods for money. A third have resorted to picking up trash to sell. The report says many in Gaza go entire days and nights without eating.
The analysis was conducted by 35 experts, some from U.N. agencies and major aid groups. The I.P.C. was founded two decades ago to address famine in Somalia at the time.
The I.P.C.report says more than 340,000 Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing the most severe form of acute food insecurity and starvation, or what is classified as “catastrophe,” a category just short of famine. That number is expected to climb to 495,000 people over the coming three months, the study says. The report team used publicly available data as well as phone surveys to reach people in Gaza.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/25/g-s1-6193/gaza-famine-hunger-war-israel
Coming from the UN. So when you talk about how it isn't that bad I don't agree with the reality you are presenting. Obviously we'll have those difficulties.
I'll give another example of targeting civilians so you know what I mean. When the UK and probably others targeted the Russian economy, in response to their war in Ukraine, that was targeting Russian civilians. The important difference, of course, being that the Russian civilians were targeted with economic sanctions, where in Gaza they are being denied the essentials required to survive.
As I said before: From a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable and I agree with that.This is exactly what Hamas was doing.
It also doesn’t help to simply use the word mass murder for both sides to hide the fact that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilians as collateral are simply different things. Are you playing devil’s advocate here or do you seriously believe that Israel is on a broad scale targeting civilians deliberately? If so, how does that add up with the numbers that can be googled/that I posted here?
Don't accuse me of trying to hide things please, I'm not accusing you of anything and I don't expect you to start with the accusations.
I'm not trying to hide anything and I'm not using the words mass murder as a tactic. Look at what has happened! It is mass murder. Massive amounts of people have been killed with guns and bombs. I don't know what else you would call it. A really terrible accident? Invoking the word war doesn't stop murder from being murder imo. If you call what Hamas did murder, and i absolutely would, I am comfortable using the same word for what Israel is doing, because as I explained before, I don't see a moral difference between killing people because you want to kill people and killing people because you bombed their house not caring whether or not anyone was in it or not.
Collateral damage is very well known phrase that is used as an excuse to wipe out civilians with impunity. You know this. It was true when the US and their allies started using it, its been true ever since, and it always, always ends up being proven to be a very poor excuse that covers up bad intentions (I'm not accusing you trying to cover something up, just that this is how collateral damage is almost always used by governments).
Again let's be specific about language here: Do I believe that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately? Yes, but only in their denial of aid.
Do I believe that Israel is trying to maximize the direct casualties of their attacks - absolutely not.
However, that doesn't mean that Israel should be able to take actions that are obviously going to lead to huge amounts of civilians suffering and death because Israel unilaterally says 'oh there was a terrorist in there' which they always say about everything, including that firework holding 12 year old we saw earlier.
Are attacks aimed at civilians and attacks on civilian housing containing civilians that are described as 'collateral' the same thing? Technically no, but as I've said frequently, morally I see them as identical. Describing both as mass murder is accurate imo.
Let's give an example that we can both relate to. I'm in the UK now and its 3am. If I were to walk out of my house, go down the road and set fire to a random house, blocking the entrances and exits, and then came back to my house and go to bed, and a family dies, could I be charged with murder? I'm not trying to kill anyone. I just wanted to set fire to a house and block some doorways. The family was collateral. All I wanted to do was some arson and property damage. Can you see where I'm coming from here? You claim I'm using language to hide something, I'm not. I'm using it to reveal something that has been hidden, or at least the attempt was made to hide it when the word collateral was introduced to describe these kinds of deaths in conflicts.
I'm not going to accept that numbers are good way to prove intentions, especially incomplete data like the death toll in Gaza.
I'm sorry that this reply is ridiculously disorganized.
|
Well the north got very active tonight.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-gaza-palestinians-hezbollah-52056075daebc9aac6675043f64439ab
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel launched intense airstrikes in southern Lebanon early Sunday in what it said was a pre-emptive strike against the Hezbollah militant group, threatening to trigger a broader regionwide war that could torpedo efforts to forge a cease-fire in Gaza.
The army said Hezbollah was planning to launch a heavy barrage of rockets and missiles toward Israel. Soon after, Hezbollah announced it had launched an attack on Israel with a large number of rockets and drones as an initial response to the killing of one of its top commanders in a strike in Beirut last month.
|
On August 25 2024 13:48 Kreuger wrote:Well the north got very active tonight. https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-gaza-palestinians-hezbollah-52056075daebc9aac6675043f64439abJERUSALEM (AP) — Israel launched intense airstrikes in southern Lebanon early Sunday in what it said was a pre-emptive strike against the Hezbollah militant group, threatening to trigger a broader regionwide war that could torpedo efforts to forge a cease-fire in Gaza. The army said Hezbollah was planning to launch a heavy barrage of rockets and missiles toward Israel. Soon after, Hezbollah announced it had launched an attack on Israel with a large number of rockets and drones as an initial response to the killing of one of its top commanders in a strike in Beirut last month.
Interestingly this comes as Iran has practically refused to retaliate for the assassination of Haniyeh.
Given the face-loss Iran might be losing control of its proxies.
|
On August 25 2024 15:25 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 13:48 Kreuger wrote:Well the north got very active tonight. https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-gaza-palestinians-hezbollah-52056075daebc9aac6675043f64439abJERUSALEM (AP) — Israel launched intense airstrikes in southern Lebanon early Sunday in what it said was a pre-emptive strike against the Hezbollah militant group, threatening to trigger a broader regionwide war that could torpedo efforts to forge a cease-fire in Gaza. The army said Hezbollah was planning to launch a heavy barrage of rockets and missiles toward Israel. Soon after, Hezbollah announced it had launched an attack on Israel with a large number of rockets and drones as an initial response to the killing of one of its top commanders in a strike in Beirut last month. Interestingly this comes as Iran has practically refused to retaliate for the assassination of Haniyeh. Given the face-loss Iran might be losing control of its proxies.
Could also be Iran directing its proxies to attack since they dont have the "guts" to do so themselfes.
|
On August 24 2024 20:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:
1. Ok. So why don't we simply stop then?
I did, you insisted that I answer to everything you said. I agree that it would be better if I only answer when it's interesting. Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:
2. You make the assumption that people argue in "bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians", while there can be numerous other reasons why the killing of Palestinians (or more generally: in war times) is seen as a necessary step.
One does not necessarily have to think it is a good thing to kill Palestinians to explain why innocent victims will occur. One can even add context like every death is horrible and that the civilian population shouldn't suffer as much. You are using a non sequitur fallacy as "killing Palestinians is a good thing" doesn't follow from "civilians being killed is sometimes unavoidable in war".
You also make assumptions about the beliefs ("muslims are dangerous and evil") and intent ("a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people") of other persons or groups without knowing their motives. You further use this generalized idea to attribute it to a specific person (in this case me), who told you most definitely that these accusations are not true. Here you use several hasty generalization fallacies as well as a straw man. This is not what I asked you to do. You said that the reasons I give in post 6174 for thinking that you argue dishonestly make no sense and include fallacies. Show your work, go ahead. Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:
3. So you have no evidence? You accusing me of racism and Islamophobia simply stems from an opinion you have in general about people's motives?
Do you realize that you build in #1 in #3? You assume from the start that people who argue in support of the killing of Muslims are dishonest/you don't believe them without taking any other factors into account. So there basically is no space for anything besides your opinion and everything is dependent on you believing the other person that they are not dishonest. On top, there can be several other reasons like wrong targeting, collateral, humanitarian crises, etc. for Muslim deaths.
This is such an incredible amalgamation of inherently biased argumentation combined with fallacious thinking that we should create a new fallacy and name it after you to be honest. This is all settled facts, we've been through all of this. You're just trying to have other conversations in order to hide the fact that you're not answering point 2, and it's a little more obvious than you're picturing.
1. I cannot force you to answer and it is your call to simply stop replying if you don't want to continue. But if you continue to talk to me, I want evidence of me being an Islamophobe and racist, as you called me those things and which so far you have not provided (see below).
As it stands: I don’t argue dishonestly as I base my opinion on numbers, data, facts and coherent reasoning.
2. I gave the overall idea to how you arrived at your conclusion based on your own writing. 6174 is a narrative based on statements that either cannot be proven, go against what the numbers/facts indicate, involve massive speculation or are simply notions with hyper-loaded language that arrive at a predetermined conclusion filled with fallacies. But from the top:
a. The whole stuff about N. and his father is completely irrelevant. You can leave all of the history lesson, that is completely shrouded in massive speculation, away and simply tell the more plausible story that N. wants to prolong the war because of internal power struggles (which I already said multiple times here).
b. To attribute motives of N.'s father and that Israel wasn't fascist enough when he moved to the USA (so is the USA more fascist or what, lol?) is simply speculation in such a biased fashion that it is borderline insulting to even ask someone else to point out a fallacy.
c. The story about inciting violence sounds like you are talking about Rabbi Elasar Schach. But perhaps I am mixing that up. Can you post a source/evidence that N. was approached by intelligence services?
d. You said N. changed the constitution. Which constitution exactly? I thought Israel doesn't have one and is operating on basic rights?
d. You go on to say that this constitutional change gave Jews more rights than Arabs. Which exact change is that? If you mean 2018: Do you realize that the law does not explicitly say that Jews have more rights in all respects nor does it legally reduce any civil rights of Arab citizens?
e. Agreed on him accelerating settlements in the West Bank. I can fully agree that this should stop and is in the way of peace-talks.
f. How did N. "prop up" Hamas? Please post clear evidence for this notion/theory. Keep in mind all the reasoning that follows under g, as N. can’t make this decision alone.
g. "It is inconceivable to me that anyone who is familiar with this government seriously thinks that this isn't a government who would kill as many Palestinians as they think they can get away with."
It may be inconceivable to you, but with looking at other realities/alternative reasoning it can obviously be the case (even for you, if you'd be open to it).
Your notion is a sweeping generalization that lacks nuanced understanding and assumes that there is a monolithic intention and uniform policy that can be applied from top to down. This assumption is not only unprovable but also illogical. All governments are composed of a diverse range of motivations, strategies and ideologies. The idea that from top to bottom, an entire government could be engaged in or supportive of a singular policy of indiscriminately killing as many Palestinians as possible is both a vast oversimplification and a misrepresentation of how governments work.
Alternate reasons:
- Focus on security and self-defense of the Israeli government, especially in response to continuous terrorist attacks as well as one larger scale incident.
- Looking at the soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio.
- Desire to maintain control over territories for strategic or historical reasons, without the intention to comment indiscriminate violence against civilians.
In democratic societies, policies are shaped by a multitude of factors like public opinion, international pressure, legal frameworks, ethical considerations and political strategy. To claim that an entire government is unified in a covert or overt genocidal policy without substantial evidence (even more so: actual numbers and comparisons to other conflict zones even showing the opposite… that Israel is creating much less casualties) is to ignore the complexity of political decision making and the checks and balances of a democracy.
This statement is an expression of extreme bias and skepticism as well as distrust more than an argument grounded in concrete evidence or logical reasoning. It fails to account for the diversity of thought and policy within government and the public and overlooks the possibility that people can and do come to different conclusions.
So the fallacies involved are: Hasty generalization (entire government wants to kill as many Palestinians a possible), straw man (oversimplification of policy or thought and ignoring complexities), appeal to emotion (it invokes fear and moral outrage without providing evidence), begging the question (the statement presumes the conclusion within the premise as it starts with the assumption that the government is willing to kill as many Palestinians as it can and then uses that assumption to argue that anyone who thinks otherwise is inconceiveblae), false dichotomy (no other options are available except believing the notion or not knowing all the facts), ad hominem (the notion attacks the credibility of those who disagree as they are either immoral or uninformed).
h. Can you please quote anyone here that justified “killing a bunch of civilians” with “have western values"?
i. You yourself - again - are asking the question “is my argument logical and coherent” and arrive at the unsurprising answer “yes” in regards to your Muslim-theory, it is obviously not.
You start off with a broad generalization (“a lot of people”) and go on by putting fallacies on top of the vastly generalized group when you conflate radical Islamists with Palestinians from their POV. But not everyone falls so easily into fallacies as you and a theory certainly is not logical when it puts them onto others.
With the Trump comparison you draw a false equivalence as the threats they pose - even if you believe Trump is one to democracy - are fundamentally different. It further implies a similar justification for indifference to their death. The use of lethal violence by terrorists and political actions by an elected official, regardless of one’s views of those actions, are not equivalent situations.
You go on with further generalizations of right-wingers (“as is the case of almost every single rightwinger”), further implying that people who side with Israel necessarily have to be right-wing, because otherwise your theory can’t be used on them.
It also - similar to the previous argument about the Israeli government - attributes simplistic motives to right-wing Westerners, as according to you, the only reason they could support Israele is because they see Palestinians as a threat and thus supporting killing them is justified. This overlooks the complexity of political support for Israel which can by manyfold. It can be historical, religious, strategic, political. It can be because people look at the actual numbers and don’t see support for the narratives of forced famine, genocide or Israel trying to kill as many people as they can.
Your argument further dismisses any ethical frameworks people put forward that involve self-defense that can involve killing. You’d be perfectly fine to dismiss morally inconsistent frameworks but the generalization is simply not sound.
j. “Everything in this reasoning works”
I seriously had to laugh out loud. Because no. Not “everything else flows logically”. Hasty generalizations, attributing simplistic motives, ethical relativism, equating defense with indiscriminate violence and reductionist and binary thinking would need to take effect for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”. Not only that, but on top, you have to shuffle anyone who argues against Palestine/pro Israel into this right-wing-group for this “theory” to work plus you have to project this specific thought process onto this entire group without evidence or acknowledgement of the diversity within these groups. This type of projection lacks factual basis and fails to recognize the wide range of perspectives that exist within politically aligned groups.
You also ignore me (remember you specifically mentioned me to support your unfounded accusations) saying that every death including Palestinians is one too many. You ignore all the times when I said how horrible these deaths are and that Israel as well as individuals should be held accountable for every crime/war crime that was committed. So not only is the theory faulty in logic and reasoning, it further runs contrary to what I was actually communicating this entire time.
Full of fallacies, stereotypes and faulty reasoning. 6174 is a hot mess of a thought process and only shows an incredible bias and lack of logical and coherent thinking.
3. So: You still accuse me of Islamophobia and racism without any evidence. The only thing you put forth is 6174 which has 0 evidence except your internal reasoning, which is heavily flawed - see above.
What I just realized: For 6174 to work on me, you’d also have to call me a right-winger. Not as bad, as the other two, but still quite a stretch if you’d know me personally.
I am still waiting for evidence that justifies you in calling me a racist and Islamophobe. So please, either provide evidence or take these accusations back and apologize.
On August 25 2024 09:50 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults. And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to.
Did you already forget that I addressed this argument before? Are you all that resistant to learning new information or is this simply cognitive dissonance? Are you deliberately choosing to ignore informations or arguments that the other side is presenting?
Because when Hamas is hiding in these areas (will your absurd follow up argument again be that Hamas simply has no other way than to hide in Mosques, schools, hospitals and safe zones, lol? You know I will tell you about abandoned factories, 1 and 2-storey buildings, outskirts of towns, etc.) and firing rockets from there, yes, these areas will be attacked back.
|
On August 25 2024 11:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 16:07 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 21:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 21:10 PremoBeats wrote:On August 23 2024 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2024 21:06 PremoBeats wrote:
2. The reasons in 6174 you give for thinking that I argue dishonestly make no sense/include several fallacies
Show your work, go ahead. Address all points and we can continue. I am tired of you cherry-picking the things where you think you are able to defend your view. Either respond to everything or I'll focus on people who are actually able to discuss in good faith. Anyway. That's it for today. See you guys around. 1) I don't believe you. 2) Show your work, go ahead. 3) We've already covered this. Islamophobia is in my opinion the most likely reason why someone would argue dishonestly in support of the killing of a bunch of muslims. Quit stalling and just answer 2). 1. Ok. So why don't we simply stop then? 2. You make the assumption that people argue in "bad faith in favor of Israel's effort to kill Palestinians", while there can be numerous other reasons why the killing of Palestinians (or more generally: in war times) is seen as a necessary step. One does not necessarily have to think it is a good thing to kill Palestinians to explain why innocent victims will occur. One can even add context like every death is horrible and that the civilian population shouldn't suffer as much. You are using a non sequitur fallacy as "killing Palestinians is a good thing" doesn't follow from "civilians being killed is sometimes unavoidable in war". You also make assumptions about the beliefs ("muslims are dangerous and evil") and intent ("a lot of people would want to get rid of those dangerous, evil people") of other persons or groups without knowing their motives. You further use this generalized idea to attribute it to a specific person (in this case me), who told you most definitely that these accusations are not true. Here you use several hasty generalization fallacies as well as a straw man. 3. So you have no evidence? You accusing me of racism and Islamophobia simply stems from an opinion you have in general about people's motives? Do you realize that you build in #1 in #3? You assume from the start that people who argue in support of the killing of Muslims are dishonest/you don't believe them without taking any other factors into account. So there basically is no space for anything besides your opinion and everything is dependent on you believing the other person that they are not dishonest. On top, there can be several other reasons like wrong targeting, collateral, humanitarian crises, etc. for Muslim deaths. This is such an incredible amalgamation of inherently biased argumentation combined with fallacious thinking that we should create a new fallacy and name it after you to be honest. On August 23 2024 21:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
OK. btw I know short one line questions like that can seem like gotcha questions, that's not my intent.
I'm going to take a few of these points and raise objections or questions:
1: On the concept of justifiability, I agree it can be subjective, but I also think with discussion there are some easy ways to meet in the middle on SOME of the points raised.
2: Your next paragraph sort of morphs between two arguments which are:
a) That Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, and that they glorified the deaths. and then
b) Comparing the conflict to other conflicts.
I'm not ignoring that you call Oct 7th a 'large scale attack' and the Israeli response a 'military operation' (and it hasn't passed me by that this is the exact language Putin used to justify his war). This is a false distinction, especially since you could easily describe Israel's response as 'an even larger scale attack'.
So
a) I don't see any meaningful distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, and bombing a whole neighborhood because AI told you it thinks there's a terrorist somewhere in there. Mass murder on purpose and mass murder through apathy are equally bad imo.
This isn't to even take into account the deliberate siege tactics and blocking of aid to cause famine and mass starvation, which are equal to Hamas in terms of deliberately targeting civilians.
When it comes to 'glorifying deaths' you only have to look at the Israeli ministers and some of their statements, including calling a cop who shot a Palestinian child in the West Bank in the head for playing with fireworks a 'hero'
b) That casualties are less based on comparisons to other cherry picked conflicts is not an argument that Israel hasn't deliberately targeted civilians. Starving an entire population as a strategy is deliberately targeting civilians. There is no possible argument against this.
Given all this I don't see any reason to count one set of mass murder as any more or less justifiable than the other.
1. I agree about there being a middle way. But I honestly think that the way I present it is already a pretty good middle road. Because a Zionist would frame this much more heavily pro-Israel to begin with. The same is true for a Palestine supporter as can be seen here quite obviously. 2 I totally agree that Israel’s response was even larger. But the large-scale was rather a reference to the usual attacks of Hamas, which didn’t have this kind of impact. The rest is simply describing what happened. An attack by one side with deliberate targeting of civilians and a military counter-invasion by the attacked. And Putin won’t be the only comparable narrative. Many wars are because of invasion and counter-invasions, so no surprise there (Although a notable difference would be that Vlad justified his invasion of another country without being attacked first). a. Which incident(s) do you refer to with bombing whole neighborhoods? Notice that you directly attribute the motive “cause starvation and famine”. I think the weapon narrative is much more plausible especially taking into consideration the humanitarian aid Israel provided, as well as the death toll by starvation, when looking at the blockade. When you talk about glorifying deaths you compare the statement of a far right minister - which drew heavy criticism even from within Israel - to thousands of Palestinians collectively celebrating October 7th. With civilians spitting on/hitting victims whose disfigured bodies were carried into Gaza and with people cherishing the actions on social media. Do you think this is a fair comparison? Is the incident you described neutrally reported? Because if we mean the same incident I would hardly call a 22/23 year old (depending on the sources) a child. If we indeed mean the same case, you can watch the video where this 22 year old “child” is fighting with a soldier, hitting him and trying to grab the rifle of the soldier before the soldier - after trying to shove/slap the man away - grabs his gun and shoots. And again: Was he justified in shooting to kill? Probably not, but as I said several times already: Put him under arrest and he should be held responsible. But the comparison of one dumbass statement by a far right Israeli figure to the glorification of October 7th by the Palestinians lacks massively in my opinion. b. I didn’t cherry pick conflicts. These are conflicts that have the most similarity with Gaza. Although one could weigh in that there were no terrorists hiding in civilian infrastructure, which makes the difference in how Israel is maintaining such low soldier-to-civilian casualty ratios even more commendable. But if you think I cherry picked these conflicts you can naturally provide other data for comparison that you think are more fitting. And sorry that I have to do this, but in this forum there are so many people arguing in bad faith that I simply have to ask for acknowledgements of the reality that is measurable: Can you acknowledge that the casualty rate for fighting in such a densely populated area is immensely low? That it is around/below the percentage of WW II which shouldn’t even be a comparison because of the obvious differences and tougher difficulties in Gaza that Israel faces? I never said that deliberate attacks by Israel NEVER happened and I don’t use the soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio as evidence for such a notion as I don’t believe it. I said several times that for each of those incidents, the respective people or the state itself should be held accountable. All I am saying is that - while there of course will be instances of Israeli soldiers attacking civilians deliberately or taking them in account as collateral in air strikes to take out targets - the narrative that Israel is deliberately attacking civilians en masse is bogus according to the data. The numbers don’t add up. If you look at famous famines (that sometimes were not even carried out with evil intentions - under Mao for example), the death counts are way higher absolutely and in relation to the population size. Gaza and the West Bank have been growing in population size since decades. While it is a severe humanitarian concern, less than 40 deaths attributed to malnutrition, not starvation (as you also were pretty precise with words before) have been documented. Perhaps I remember this wrong and there might be some more incidents… but not on a scale to speak of deliberately targeting the civilian Palestinians with starvation as a means of killing them. In my opinion this would be a bit of a stretch, especially taking into consideration that starvation and malnutrition have been reported in many conflict zones and children simply by the nature of things are more susceptible to it. It is a horrifying thing and every death caused by malnutrition or starvation is one too many, but again: We have to look at the big scope of things. These numbers represent 0,1% of the total casualties and 0,0018% of the overall population. These numbers further are seriously no surprise in any conflict zone and especially in Gaza with all the surrounding context like Hamas operating from hospitals and destroyed medical infrastructure because of that. It also seems to be the case that some people here think that the blockade means that Israel isn’t letting anything in at all. This is untrue, as the deliveries are simply delayed, because of security checks. And it can also be argued that these checks are indeed necessary as Israel has reported finding explosives, firearms and other components that could be used to manufacture weapons. If all of this wouldn’t happen, then the goods could enter Gaza much easier and faster. As I said before: From a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable and I agree with that.This is exactly what Hamas was doing. It also doesn’t help to simply use the word mass murder for both sides to hide the fact that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilians as collateral are simply different things. Are you playing devil’s advocate here or do you seriously believe that Israel is on a broad scale targeting civilians deliberately? If so, how does that add up with the numbers that can be googled/that I posted here? 1: You believe you are presenting a middle way. I don't believe that and I'm not coming at it from that as a starting point. You are defending Israel's actions in Gaza, I'm criticizing those actions because I believe that at this point, Israel shouldn't be there and any continued action at this point is causing more harm that it could possibly do good. As you seem to infer, i suppose this is kind of inevitable, but your middle way is a justification to continue the war, mine involves Israel stopping doing what they are currently doing, allow aid into Gaza properly and allow their population to at least try and start rebuilding. 2: I suppose comparing attacks and the violence in Israel to other attacks and violence right now is kind of useless. I was making a point about the language used, but I'll be honest that was a very small point in the scheme of things, just something I noticed. I'm not referring to a specific incident, more what appear to be the rules of conflict for Israel. When i talk about them destroying whole neighbourhoods I'm referring to the whole neighbourhoods that have been destroyed, which I have seen from multiple photos and witness accounts. Its hard to quote sources about this stuff because my knowledge of the war comes from various accounts over the last 9 months so when I'm talking about how Israel has conducted the actual invasion I'm not talking about specific examples but how they seem to be approaching things in general, and you can see from satellite imagery and photos that are all over the internet that Northern Gaza in particular is absolutely destroyed. Now, destroying whole areas of a city to kill probably around 1-2000 fighters is already bound to make alot of collateral damage. Can I acknowledge that the casualty rate is immensely low? Not definitively. I wouldn't say I could tell you what the casualty rate actually IS. Do we have numbers? Every time I have tried to present numbers they have been disputed as 'having come from Hamas'. I don't think the death toll of this conflict is going to be accurate or apparent to observers for quite some time. This is partially due to the fact that there will be alot of dead whose bodies haven't yet been found and partially due to the fact that Israel isn't letting anyone independent in to go and have a look at the situation yet. I'll admit that if you ignore rural conflict this does seem to have a lower death toll specifically than battles that have taken place in cities (again though, its hard to make any argument based on death toll when we don't have accurate numbers of the dead). I just don't think you can use this as evidence of Israel's intentions. I'm not being dishonest when I take this position btw so let's not take this discussion to the same unproductive place your other discussions have ended up at. No accusations are being aimed at you and I assume you are approaching this honestly, please allow me the same assumption or I'll just stop responding pretty quick. I'm about to start a game of mafia down there in that section so the last thing I want to do is use all my energy accusing and countering accusations in here also . Let's just assume each other are presenting our honest opinions based on our information and sources that have built up over the last 9 months, and accept that this will probably lead to some difficulty in agreeing on things. I've jumped around a bit in what I'm responding to there but that's the bit before a) and also b) a) The incident I'm referring to is this 12 year old child: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68557147Now I'm using this as an example because I believe it typifies how Israeli higher ups see Palestinians as a whole. Its also the clearest example of 'glorifying death' you can possibly get. An Israeli cop shooting an unarmed Palestinian child ('armed with fireworks' is another way of saying unarmed) in the head gets called a hero officially by the Israeli government. This is not an isolated incident of the rhetoric coming from Israel's government. We all know the Bible stories they have referred to, the call of elimination of Palestinians. The propaganda TV 'discussion' shows that insist that all Palestinians are terrorist sympathizers therefore legitimate targets on Knesset TV. https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/This is a link to a database of 500 instances of Israeli higher ups calling for genocide or something like it in Gaza. Its not isolated instances, its how the far right Israeli government sees the world, how they see the conflict and how they see Palestinian people as a whole. These are the exact people I'm criticizing in the conflict, so when you talk about how its far right people that are causing these problems I totally agree. Its not just the head of the armed forces, its endemic in positions of power throughout the entire government. When you talk about the blockade just delaying aid, in most cases that is the same as destroying the aid. Now again I'm not going to be referring to specific incidents here but in general how Israel was carrying out its orders. We're going to run into difficulty here because you are taking a pretty niche position on what Israel is doing. They weren't simply delaying aid for a few days here or there. They have been outright stopping any aid from getting in to Gaza and if you ask anyone present at the blockades who don't directly work for the Israeli government that is what they are saying. The only people denying this work for the Israeli government are presenting propaganda. You claim that because there haven't been alot of deaths from malnutrition or starvation, that is proof that Israel isn't targeting civilians. I can't agree with that point at all. When you block an entire population from getting food, water, medical supplies and power, you are deliberately targeting that entire population, civilians included. How can you possibly block aid without targeting civilians? You just can't. BTW when I talk about the difficulties we're going to have with sources, I'm reading stuff like this: Show nested quote +The report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or I.P.C., says in order to buy food, more than half of households in Gaza have had to exchange clothes and other goods for money. A third have resorted to picking up trash to sell. The report says many in Gaza go entire days and nights without eating.
The analysis was conducted by 35 experts, some from U.N. agencies and major aid groups. The I.P.C. was founded two decades ago to address famine in Somalia at the time.
The I.P.C.report says more than 340,000 Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing the most severe form of acute food insecurity and starvation, or what is classified as “catastrophe,” a category just short of famine. That number is expected to climb to 495,000 people over the coming three months, the study says. The report team used publicly available data as well as phone surveys to reach people in Gaza. https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/25/g-s1-6193/gaza-famine-hunger-war-israelComing from the UN. So when you talk about how it isn't that bad I don't agree with the reality you are presenting. Obviously we'll have those difficulties. I'll give another example of targeting civilians so you know what I mean. When the UK and probably others targeted the Russian economy, in response to their war in Ukraine, that was targeting Russian civilians. The important difference, of course, being that the Russian civilians were targeted with economic sanctions, where in Gaza they are being denied the essentials required to survive. Show nested quote +
As I said before: From a human rights and international law perspective, violence - especially deliberate - against civilians is generally considered unjustifiable and I agree with that.This is exactly what Hamas was doing.
It also doesn’t help to simply use the word mass murder for both sides to hide the fact that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilians as collateral are simply different things. Are you playing devil’s advocate here or do you seriously believe that Israel is on a broad scale targeting civilians deliberately? If so, how does that add up with the numbers that can be googled/that I posted here?
Don't accuse me of trying to hide things please, I'm not accusing you of anything and I don't expect you to start with the accusations. I'm not trying to hide anything and I'm not using the words mass murder as a tactic. Look at what has happened! It is mass murder. Massive amounts of people have been killed with guns and bombs. I don't know what else you would call it. A really terrible accident? Invoking the word war doesn't stop murder from being murder imo. If you call what Hamas did murder, and i absolutely would, I am comfortable using the same word for what Israel is doing, because as I explained before, I don't see a moral difference between killing people because you want to kill people and killing people because you bombed their house not caring whether or not anyone was in it or not. Collateral damage is very well known phrase that is used as an excuse to wipe out civilians with impunity. You know this. It was true when the US and their allies started using it, its been true ever since, and it always, always ends up being proven to be a very poor excuse that covers up bad intentions (I'm not accusing you trying to cover something up, just that this is how collateral damage is almost always used by governments). Again let's be specific about language here: Do I believe that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately? Yes, but only in their denial of aid. Do I believe that Israel is trying to maximize the direct casualties of their attacks - absolutely not. However, that doesn't mean that Israel should be able to take actions that are obviously going to lead to huge amounts of civilians suffering and death because Israel unilaterally says 'oh there was a terrorist in there' which they always say about everything, including that firework holding 12 year old we saw earlier. Are attacks aimed at civilians and attacks on civilian housing containing civilians that are described as 'collateral' the same thing? Technically no, but as I've said frequently, morally I see them as identical. Describing both as mass murder is accurate imo. Let's give an example that we can both relate to. I'm in the UK now and its 3am. If I were to walk out of my house, go down the road and set fire to a random house, blocking the entrances and exits, and then came back to my house and go to bed, and a family dies, could I be charged with murder? I'm not trying to kill anyone. I just wanted to set fire to a house and block some doorways. The family was collateral. All I wanted to do was some arson and property damage. Can you see where I'm coming from here? You claim I'm using language to hide something, I'm not. I'm using it to reveal something that has been hidden, or at least the attempt was made to hide it when the word collateral was introduced to describe these kinds of deaths in conflicts. I'm not going to accept that numbers are good way to prove intentions, especially incomplete data like the death toll in Gaza. I'm sorry that this reply is ridiculously disorganized.
1.
Fair enough. My point was that both narratives can be portrayed much more one-sided than you and I have done. But we can simply focus on me supporting Israel against unvalidated accusations and trying to portray that the death counts are low in comparison to similar conflict zones as well as there being no genocide or any other things you want to discuss… I can happily retract the “I present a middle way”-notion.
2.
Neighborhoods: Ah ok. I mean yeah.. destroyed neighborhoods will obviously occur in such a war. It simply seemed like you said that whole neighborhoods are destroyed because of AI targeting one person which of course would be an absurd statement for the general war (not that they potentially never occurred). I can agree though that the war has done significant (whatever that means) damage to the cities.
Proportion/solution: I agree… destroying so much to kill some thousand terrorists seems out of proportion, but what would be another solution? Simply leave them be?
Casualty rate: I made it easy for you and took Hamas numbers. These are the ones I used for my comparison, where Israel is way below any other similar conflict zone. Again. You are happy to provide other data if you think I used biased ones, which I think I did not.
And I do think that these numbers are clearly demonstrating that Israel in general is doing its best to reduce civilian casualties while pursuing their goals (NOT that it always succeeds in doing so AND there of course being soldiers or divisions that commit outright atrocities like in any war). Because how can one outperform other factions so heavily if you’d have the agenda of killing as many civilians as possible as Nebuchad implies? Logically, you’d need to have higher numbers in comparison to other war zones where this was not the case. Especially given the unprecedented context of how Hamas operates from civilian infrastructure which makes Israel’s job much more difficult.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to press this once more as I don’t see any other explanation and this statistic is one of the pillars for my thinking. If this one crumbles, you’d definitely be in reachable territory to change my perspective. The importance of this ratio cannot be underestimated.
By the way: There is no accusation involved. Simply trying to figure out how Israel is not doing well in comparison to other war zones.
But we can also agree to disagree here if you don’t want to continue discussing the casualty rate.
Glorifying deaths/Far right: Are you sure that you are not making generalizations when you talk about typifying Israeli higher ups?
The same way I wouldn’t call the whole Palestinians population death glorifiers, you should also acknowledge that Israel is a state actor with a formal military and its actions are subject to both domestic laws and international scrutiny. Further, governments and populations are incredibly diverse in policy and opinion in contrast to a terrorist organization, despite the Israeli government being rather right-focused at the moment.
Both sides have individuals and factions that dehumanize the other side, I won’t deny that as it is reality.
But the person praising IDF soldiers every time with this dumbass word “hero” is one person. It is nothing in comparison to what we saw following October 7th in my opinion. I simply don’t see the same reactions from the whole Israeli government.
I only read through a couple of the first statements from your link and to be honest… This list is heavily biased if things like 1 (I don’t see this as a threat, but more as a way to get citizens on your side), 2 (I mean yeah.. end things in Gaza as in the terrorists, not all Gazans), 3 (what is wrong with that? That is the normal term, no?), 4 (actively telling the Gazans to leave so they don’t get killed while Hamas is fought) and 5 (makes perfect sense… I even made the same argument about the educational system and the whole narrative needing to change) are deemed as inciting genocide. We can go through all 500 but I doubt this will make much sense. Military rhetoric can often be interpreted as genocide, but do the actual numbers reflect this accusation?
Humanitarian aid: Yes, you are correct that there was a time where humanitarian aid was completely blocked. That was for 2 weeks after October 7th and was lifted after international pressure on October 21st when the opening of the Rafah crossing marked the end of the complete blockade. Notice that this only happened for 2 weeks, was over 9 months ago and was enacted because of severe security-concerns because of the attack.
If there is counter-evidence I am happy to see it.
As I said before. On this issue, motives are important. Is the motive to deliberately target/starve the population or is it looking for explosives, weapons and components that can be used to manufacture weapons, which Israel finds time and again in this humanitarian aid? What is the goal/target and what is the consequence?
And I don’t remember saying that it “isn’t that bad”. I said “it is a severe humanitarian concern”.
Also, what many seem to forget: The inspections by Israel are not the problem. What about the 650 trucks that are at Kerem Shalom post-inspection? What about the overall humanitarian aid that was supplied and is much more than what the Gazan population actually needs, simply based on calculations?
In my opinon the narrative that Hamas is attacking the convoys as soon as they are out of reach of the Israeli military seems much more plausible. Because we have direct validations of the claim by Palestinians how Hamas is robbing the trucks and selling the goods for inflated prices at the black market. That not only generates income, but also serves their number one goal to survival at this point: International outrage through a fabricated humanitarian crisis.
I mean, we have the reports and numbers of how many trucks and how much food in general goes into Gaza. So I seriously have trouble following this narrative that this is somehow Israel's fault (not denying that tragedies as with the World Kitchen convoy have happened). I think the distribution is the main issue according to numbers and facts about food entering Gaza... and that - again - is where Hamas comes into play.
Accusation: I apologize. Perhaps the overall rhetoric of this thread got to me, but that shouldn’t be placed upon you. I am sorry!
Moral difference: As there is a clear distinction legally between murder, war crime and collateral one can only look at ethical questions. But I doubt anyone would argue that in war (especially given the context of Gaza) would assume that there wouldn’t be any civilian casualties. Thus I said several times that I believe that if we look at the relative and absolute numbers where we are able to compare this war to others, Israel is doing a commendable job of not hurting civilians.
But I will say this:
I can agree that civilians suffer because of the actions of Israel. That is undeniably. But their suffering is a consequence of many factors that Israel has to take into account. Now is the suffering still proportionate? If the report of 450k people (?... I don't want to scroll back up again  ) being on the brink of starvation is accurate, of course not and Israel should lift the restrictions immediately with probably international supervision and random controls for weapons, etc..
But still, the question remains: What if the blockade was eased sooner and more weapons and defense mechanisms for Hamas could have entered the region? It could have led to prolonged fights, more civilian deaths etc.
Or what would be the alternative? Should Israel leave Hamas be? When should it have stopped?
Example: Why would you block the exits if your only motive was to burn a house (that didn’t attack you in the first place ). The problem with this analogy is that it lacks on too many levels. I think we can use our time better if we look at the actual scenery (see Moral difference).
Conclusion: If you don’t want to argue with the numbers (from Hamas) for reasons, that is fine. But I am someone who looks at the numbers (being the most generous I can, in taking those of the terrorist organization) and I still can’t seem to find reason to believe the accusations that have been hurled at Israel from so many people here.
So I don't know if we are able to sort this out, as I think statistics and numbers (meaning actions instead of subjective words or interpretations) are worth much more. Let me know what you think...
|
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
1. I cannot force you to answer and it is your call to simply stop replying if you don't want to continue.
Excellent, so I will no longer answer everything and I will only focus on what is interesting.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
a. The whole stuff about N. and his father is completely irrelevant. You can leave all of the history lesson, that is completely shrouded in massive speculation, away and simply tell the more plausible story that N. wants to prolong the war because of internal power struggles (which I already said multiple times here).
So, Netanyahou's background isn't relevant to him being a fascist in that you can just read what he says today and see what he does today and understand very easily that he is a fascist, I agree, and also you could have a fascist background and not be a fascist today. But his background isn't completely irrelevant because I'm not just showing that he's a fascist, I'm showing how cartoonishly easy it is to understand that he's a fascist. The point isn't just "look at this fascist", the point is "imagine what kind of insane person you would have to be to not understand that he's a fascist". To make this point I think it's important to come back in time and show that the data and the facts have always very clearly indicated this, so that an unbiased observer of the situation can ask: "Do people really not see this?" and I can answer that I think they do see it, they're just not honest.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
b. To attribute motives of N.'s father and that Israel wasn't fascist enough when he moved to the USA (so is the USA more fascist or what, lol?) is simply speculation in such a biased fashion that it is borderline insulting to even ask someone else to point out a fallacy.
So we have to go into more detail. My source for this was Sylvain Cypel, who wrote "L'Etat d'Israel contre les Juifs" ("The State of Israel against the Jews"), so that's some french shit, I have a little more trouble finding english sources. Benzion Netanyahu was active in revisionist zionism, which was a movement that had split from their mainstream zionist counterparts, "believing those in the mainstream were too conciliatory to the British authorities governing Palestine, and espousing a more militant, right-wing Jewish nationalism than the one advocated by the Labour Zionists who led Israel in its early years." (wiki) This movement is led by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who I've mentioned in this thread before because he wrote this cool essay about how Israelis are colonizing Palestine and that's a good thing, but Arabs won't let themselves be colonized they'll resist, so we need to subjugate them through violence ( Essay ). You see at the time Israel was led by "moderate zionists", a faction that had inherent contradictions within it and was tied with the Labour, and there were utopian socialist kibbutzim going around. To fascists like Jabotinsky and Netanyahu senior, socialism is the worst thing you can have, it's really really bad, so we need Israel to become more fascist and less socialist, which, given what zionism is as a core project, was more or less doomed to happen (but hadn't yet at the time). You can read more about this period and these fanatics in Medof, Rafael (2002). Militant Zionism in America: The Rise and Impact of the Jabotinsky Movement in the United States, 1926–1948.
Zooming back on Netanyahu Senior himself, he was an admirer of Mussolini in the 1920s. He comes back to the States to lead some organization that opposes moderate zionists and is trying to influence America in this direction. He believes in Greater Israel, a concept that can only happen if Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, and during his younger years colonialism isn't yet a bad word so he openly supports the idea of transfering Arabs out of Palestine. We have this cool quote from when he was one zillion years old: "The tendency to conflict is the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won't allow him to compromise. It doesn't matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetual war."
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
c. The story about inciting violence sounds like you are talking about Rabbi Elasar Schach. But perhaps I am mixing that up. Can you post a source/evidence that N. was approached by intelligence services?
Sure, here's one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/assassination-yitzhak-rabin-never-knew-his-people-shot-him-in-back
"The then leader of the opposition, Benjamin Netanyahu, was the star speaker at two now infamous demonstrations, where the crowd’s slogans included “Death to Rabin”. In July 1995, Netanyahu walked at the head of a mock funeral procession featuring a fake black coffin.
Israel’s head of internal security asked Netanyahu to dial down the rhetoric, warning that the prime minister’s life was in danger. Netanyahu declined."
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
d. You said N. changed the constitution. Which constitution exactly? I thought Israel doesn't have one and is operating on basic rights?
d. You go on to say that this constitutional change gave Jews more rights than Arabs. Which exact change is that? If you mean 2018: Do you realize that the law does not explicitly say that Jews have more rights in all respects nor does it legally reduce any civil rights of Arab citizens?
So based on the second point you know what I'm talking about, so why did you feel the need to write the first point? Silly.
It is true that the law can be said to be symbolic in nature because most of what's in it was already happening before the law. But you can read about opposition to it in the links of this wiki page if you're interested.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
e. Agreed on him accelerating settlements in the West Bank. I can fully agree that this should stop and is in the way of peace-talks.
That's the whole point. They're in the way of peace talks because Netanyahu and more generally everyone supporting his brand of zionism do not want peace, they want expansion and elimination of the enemy. This is an oxymoronic approach to this situation, you're doing the tweet "The problems are bad, but the causes - the causes are good"
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
f. How did N. "prop up" Hamas? Please post clear evidence for this notion/theory. Keep in mind all the reasoning that follows under g, as N. can’t make this decision alone.
I can tell from the word "clear" that you already know what I'm going to post, and you plan to criticize it for not being "clear" enough. That's not an honest way of having a conversation.
Nevertheless, here are the links:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
It may be inconceivable to you, but with looking at other realities/alternative reasoning it can obviously be the case (even for you, if you'd be open to it). [...] All governments are composed of a diverse range of motivations, strategies and ideologies. The idea that from top to bottom, an entire government could be engaged in or supportive of a singular policy of indiscriminately killing as many Palestinians as possible is both a vast oversimplification and a misrepresentation of how governments work.
There are no other realities, just this one. In this reality governments are mechanical systems, they don't care if some of the individuals in the cogs disagree with the goal. There were a bunch of people who were employed by the US government who were socialists or social democrats, and a bunch of people who were employed by the US government who were fascists. It hasn't stopped the US from being liberal (derogatory), because that's what this system does. A fascist machine will be fascist regardless of if some individuals are not fascists within it, that's how systems work. In order to have different politics, you need a systemic change, not different individuals.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
Alternate reasons:
- Focus on security and self-defense of the Israeli government, especially in response to continuous terrorist attacks as well as one larger scale incident.
Obviously false. People who are concerned with security and self-defense do not aggressively settle the lands of the people they're fearful of, as that is likely to anger them, causing more danger, and the people who are settling are right next to the threat. When you're fearful of something, you don't incite people to go and expose themselves to the danger, that would be like unironically telling children to go play near the freeway. You have also mentioned yourself that Israel presents itself as a "safe haven" for Jews, which again it wouldn't do if it was in constant fear, you wouldn't tell the people you love "Come live with me, it's a safe haven, although I also believe it's such a dangerous place that we have to keep killing people!"
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
- Looking at the soldier-to-civilian casualty ratio.
You put this in a list of reasons that Israel can have to kill Palestinians that aren't ethnic cleansing, and that's simply not one. You shouldn't have put that here.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
- Desire to maintain control over territories for strategic or historical reasons, without the intention to comment indiscriminate violence against civilians.
How are you going to control a territory that is inhabited by other people without committing indiscriminate violence against civilians? The reason why you are not controlling this territory is because the civilians are there. They're the problem in this view. You're doing mental gymnastics in which it's not an ethnic cleansing if you do an ethnic cleansing but your goal is land grab and not extermination of the enemy, there is no such distinction, the thing that you're describing is ethnic cleansing.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
In democratic societies, policies are shaped by a multitude of factors like public opinion, international pressure, legal frameworks, ethical considerations and political strategy. To claim that an entire government is unified in a covert or overt genocidal policy without substantial evidence (even more so: actual numbers and comparisons to other conflict zones even showing the opposite… that Israel is creating much less casualties) is to ignore the complexity of political decision making and the checks and balances of a democracy.
So I'm going to have to refer back to my friend Jock who made an excellent post during the night, he gave you this link to a database of 500 instances of incitement to genocide from Israeli officials and public figures.
As for your continuous number dance, what would be a number of dead Palestinians that you think is sufficiently high to warrant having negative feelings toward the situation? Cause the 40000 number is, in all likelihood, dramatically understated. There are a ton of missing persons, and those persons aren't missing because they wandered in the woods, they're missing because they're buried under buildings and they're dead, but we haven't found them yet. An estimate by The Lancet (which admittedly seems high to me, I don't know if I trust it) was that it's not implausible that 186000 people are dead. Would that be enough deaths to satisfy you, or will you continue to defend this mass murder at that point?
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
h. Can you please quote anyone here that justified “killing a bunch of civilians” with “have western values"?
JimmiC did that quite directly in his time, but that's a past that is best left undisturbed. More recently some guy named PremoBeats was making fun of western people who are protesting against Palestinians getting mass murdered with western weapons and western approval, and one of the things he said to diminish their protest was that they "cherish a way of life that is utterly incompatible with Western values".
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
You start off with a broad generalization (“a lot of people”)
That is not what a generalization is, by the way. If I say that a lot of people in Sweden speak swedish, I didn't broadly generalize the Swedes.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
further implying that people who side with Israel necessarily have to be right-wing
It's going to be fucking hard to find a single socialist who thinks oppression and mass murder based on ethnicity is good in 2024, I can tell you that much.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
according to you, the only reason they could support Israele is because they see Palestinians as a threat and thus supporting killing them is justified.
Incorrect, I didn't say that it was the only reason, just the most simple one. I believe in a theory called Occam's razor, that states that if there's a simple explanation for something, it's more likely to be the correct explanation than the complex ones. So yeah there are subsets of people who support Israel for complex, personal reasons, that's not in dispute. But most likely the simplest explanation is responsible for a larger share of the support, and the simplest explanation is that muslims are threatening and evil.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
j. “Everything in this reasoning works”
I seriously had to laugh out loud. Because no. Not “everything else flows logically”. Hasty generalizations, attributing simplistic motives, ethical relativism, equating defense with indiscriminate violence and reductionist and binary thinking would need to take effect for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”.
You're talking about my reasoning, I'm talking about the rightwinger's reasoning. You are off topic. Try and keep up, please.
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
You also ignore me (remember you specifically mentioned me to support your unfounded accusations)
I specifically mentioned you because you tried and wiggle your way out of addressing this post by saying that it didn't mention you, lol, did you think I would have forgotten?
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:
every death including Palestinians is one too many.
But it isn't, though. Every death is not one too many, that's just a convenient saying. We were all living fine when Israel was killing hundreds of Palestinians every year for decades, so much so that when October 7th happened it was an "attack", a "breach of a ceasefire". Every year hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israel, but the fire had ceased, apparently. It wouldn't have if every death including Palestinians is one too many.
|
On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 09:50 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults. And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to. Did you already forget that I addressed this argument before? Are you all that resistant to learning new information or is this simply cognitive dissonance? Are you deliberately choosing to ignore informations or arguments that the other side is presenting? Because when Hamas is hiding in these areas (will your absurd follow up argument again be that Hamas simply has no other way than to hide in Mosques, schools, hospitals and safe zones, lol? You know I will tell you about abandoned factories, 1 and 2-storey buildings, outskirts of towns, etc.) and firing rockets from there, yes, these areas will be attacked back.
I am not taking Israel at its word that Hamas just so happens to be in every group of civilians they blow up when they're committing ethnic cleansing, at best.
|
On August 24 2024 22:09 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 15:06 RvB wrote:On August 24 2024 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps? Talk about going from zero to 100 in the space of one post. Hamas is not systematically executing millions of civilians, and the allies weren't fighting an aggressive war. I didn't realize I'd have to point out something that obvious to someone on here. btw you don't need to bother responding. I'm not discussing this further with you as you are way, way beyond reason on this topic. You don't see the irony of calling his analogy beyond reason when you've made one with students protesting for more democracy run over by tanks two pages ago? If you read the context I was talking about the difference in power levels and how much of a threat Hamas are to the existence of Israel, Elroi is talking about the morality of Israel's aggressive war in Gaza. @Premo I'll respond later...
And the context of Elrois post is this conflict where Hamas launched an attack with genocidal intent and Israel has responded militarily in a defensive war.
Either way even with the context of the conversation it's an incredibly poor analogy. Israel has some of the highest military spending as a percentage of gdp, has conscription for the majority of the population, and requires an iron dome and saferooms at every building to be kept safe. Despite that it suffered the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11 while the perpetrator is not even their strongest enemy. That power difference is not at all comparable to a machine built for war and a person with zero intent or ability to hurt. There are enough asymmetrical conflicts that can serve as a logical analogy for the power difference between Israel and its enemies yet you don't use any of them. Instead you use tiannanmen with all the history that goes with it. That's not reasonable.
|
Northern Ireland22769 Posts
On August 26 2024 02:13 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2024 22:09 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 24 2024 15:06 RvB wrote:On August 24 2024 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 24 2024 05:53 Elroi wrote:
Do you also think that the "mass murder" of Germans by the allies during World War 2 is morally the same as the Nazis' death camps? Talk about going from zero to 100 in the space of one post. Hamas is not systematically executing millions of civilians, and the allies weren't fighting an aggressive war. I didn't realize I'd have to point out something that obvious to someone on here. btw you don't need to bother responding. I'm not discussing this further with you as you are way, way beyond reason on this topic. You don't see the irony of calling his analogy beyond reason when you've made one with students protesting for more democracy run over by tanks two pages ago? If you read the context I was talking about the difference in power levels and how much of a threat Hamas are to the existence of Israel, Elroi is talking about the morality of Israel's aggressive war in Gaza. @Premo I'll respond later... And the context of Elrois post is this conflict where Hamas launched an attack with genocidal intent and Israel has responded militarily in a defensive war. Either way even with the context of the conversation it's an incredibly poor analogy. Israel has some of the highest military spending as a percentage of gdp, has conscription for the majority of the population, and requires an iron dome and saferooms at every building to be kept safe. Despite that it suffered the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11 while the perpetrator is not even their strongest enemy. That power difference is not at all comparable to a machine built for war and a person with zero intent or ability to hurt. There are enough asymmetrical conflicts that can serve as a logical analogy for the power difference between Israel and its enemies yet you don't use any of them. Instead you use tiannanmen with all the history that goes with it. That's not reasonable.
I mean I live in such an area, there’s still scars to this day, albeit by global conflict standards it’s relatively small fry. And isn’t diredtly comparable for other reasons, to stress that too.
What does that conflict end up looking like if the British government pursue a policy where civilians are fair game, provided there’s also an IRA higher-up in the target zone?
Largely speaking the Irish, be they Irish-identifying up North, or part of an Irish state don’t hate British folks. They may wish a unitary Irish state, but aside from that there’s very little ill-will to folks from my particular background.
I’m pretty damn confident that you don’t see relative peace today if that was pursued as policy.
Seems an odd thing to expect from Palestinians, especially given their starting position is already considerably, considerably worse than those who see themselves as Irish in this locale, even going back to the bad days of the pre 1960s and the civil rights movement here.
|
@Nebuchad
1.
Nah, man. Either you stop replying and that is fine, or you continue and address the parts I deem important. I will give you the same courtesy. But I won’t let others only reply to points they think they are able to handle and dodge the hard parts. That’s not how this works.
As it stands: I don’t argue dishonestly as I base my opinion on numbers, data, facts and coherent, non-fallacious reasoning.
2.
a+b+c. Simply calling someone a fascist, does not make that person one.
You continue to load an argument with your biased perception and end in a begging the question fallacy.
So do you believe that the USA was more fascist than Israel back when N.’s father moved there? Or how should I take that previous notion of yours?
Yes, it is known that Benzion was a Revisionist Zionist. That does not make him a fascist. Or are you equating the two?
So is it your position that Netanyahu incited violence or was calling for the assassination?
d. Silly? No, I simply made a guess. But as you talked about things that did not happen, because, a, Israel did/does not have a constitution and, b, no rights were taken away from anyone, I simply wanted to make sure to not put words in your mouth.
So which Israeli constitution did you speak of?
I don’t really care about the opposition. I care about what you said, namely “He ruled for a long while, changed the Constitution of his country to have it in writing that Jews should have more rights than Arabs”. Now which rights are that? Or which things “already happened before the law”? Which rights do Jews have in Israel that Arabs don’t?
e. I said that it is wrong, agreeing with you, lol. So for all I care, this can be dropped.
f. Funny, that you talk about me not having honest conversations, looking at 6174 and how you approached me from the start.
Anyway: Is there any internal document or any government official that supports these supposed motives? Any leak of this big government where many disagreed over the years with Netanyahu’s policies?
I mean… the actual intentions and full reasoning behind the policies are complex and subject to interpretation. And you simply use the sources that align with your narrative. If you click on a link that is mentioned in your own, you can read this:
“With Israel’s approval, Qatar since 2018 has periodically provided millions of dollars in cash to Hamas to pay for fuel for the Strip’s power plant, allow the group to pay its civil servants and provide aid to tens of thousands of impoverished families.
Israel has reportedly done so in exchange for Hamas ensuring calm in the south and as part of efforts to reach a long-term ceasefire with the terror group.”
g. Again begging the question. A fascist government (just a random accusation/assumption) is fascist, because it is fascist. That is your argument. I don’t even think you understand what that word means with how often you throw it around in unfitting circumstances.
Your assumptions regarding the Israeli government are not only unprovable but also illogical. All governments are composed of a diverse range of motivations, strategies and ideologies. The idea that from top to bottom, an entire government could be engaged in or supportive of a singular policy of indiscriminately killing as many Palestinians as possible is both a vast oversimplification and a misrepresentation of how governments work. A government is exactly NOT what you describe (mechanical). On top, this policy would need to go through the military from top to bottom as well, without any whistleblowers or policy opponents. This idea is utterly illogical and unprovable.
The reasons are all discussed by various groups internationally and within Israel. It is you who can’t acknowledge the diverse POVs that may even contradict each other at times. As is shown in your original post: The problem is in your head. You have a theory that makes sense to you and you shut down all other incoming intel (cognitive dissonance?).
And I will redirect you to my answer I gave your friend Jock too in regards to the list.
As you seem to have paid attention to my discussion with your friend, you might have read that I was referring to the soldier-to-civilian casualty rate. I mean… it probably would be more believable that Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible, if it wasn’t the lowest ratio of ALL conflicts that had similar population densities. By far.With Hamas occupying civilian infrastructures on top. Right?
And this madness will continue until all hostages are released. You know which party holds them, right? So I will blame the group that took the hostages and deliberately attacked civilians first (while not denying that Israel has committed atrocities too).
h. I don’t see any quotes.
I personally didn’t make fun of anyone. I talked about the protestors who spout nonsense such as Apartheid state, defend terrorists (aka the 7th of October attacks) and not knowing about the way of life which indeed is incompatible with Western values (homophobia, women’s rights, etc.). I said they should be educated/their views should be debunked.
But your original accusation has nothing to do with that. I never said anything about killing civilians, so I couldn't even defend that claim with having Western values, as the claim was never in existence. Your explanation is again completely illogical. I said that everyday life in Palestine is incompatible with Western values, nothing more. Your shameless lies are seriously nuts and I am getting tired of your unfounded insults and accusations.
So far, this notion of yours “But then evidence comes in that this government is killing a bunch of civilians, and none of the people on forums' positions ever budge, sure Israel does a few war crimes from time to time but they "have western values" so they're not a problem.” is still unfounded. This unfounded conclusion is the end of your first part. And apparently only one user MIGHT have posted something along those lines. Do you accept that this accusation is unfounded and you are fighting against windmills? You attribute YOUR internal rationalization to “users on this forums”, yet you can perhaps name one who did so. And if you can’t prove that JimmiC uttered something along those lines, there is none. Not a single user. So, yeah. It indeed would probably be an insane view (if we accept all the false premises that lead to it on top), but that probably is why not many people have it.
All the fallacies you fall into here:
Hasty generalization (entire government wants to kill as many Palestinians a possible), straw man (oversimplification of policy or thought and ignoring complexities), appeal to emotion (it invokes fear and moral outrage without providing evidence), begging the question (the statement presumes the conclusion within the premise as it starts with the assumption that the government is willing to kill as many Palestinians as it can and then uses that assumption to argue that anyone who thinks otherwise is inconceivable), false dichotomy (no other options are available except believing the notion or not knowing all the facts), ad hominem (the notion attacks the credibility of those who disagree as they are either immoral or uninformed).
j. Your Sweden example is also a generalization, but in contrast to the other a factual one that does not imply any judgment. Swedish is the official language in Sweden. This statement does not make assumptions about people’s opinion, attitudes or behaviors beyond what is evident. Your statement that “a lot of Westerners” don’t like Islam very much does. It assumes attitudes of a large and diverse group of people.
And if I can find any socialists is besides the point, as the point is that not all right-wingers think alike. The false dichotomy (that there are only right-wingers versus socialists) you weave in to try to weasel your way out, does not help either… your fallacies are way too easy to spot.
So according to Occam’s razor you believe in collateral damage statistics in war which makes absolutely sense according to the numbers and facts rather than a government top down conspiracy theory that also has to expand to the entire military and… ah no. You don’t. Shame.
So what are other reasons one might have to support Israel besides seeing Palestinians as a threat and thus viewing them being killed as justified? You said that “Incorrect, I didn't say that it was the only reason, just the most simple one”.. so what are other reasons?
No, I am talking about the reasoning you attribute to right-wingers. Here read again: “ for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”.”
As you did not address the rest: Hasty generalizations, attributing simplistic motives, ethical relativism, equating defense with indiscriminate violence and reductionist and binary thinking would need to take effect for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”. Not only that, but on top, you have to shuffle anyone who argues against Palestine/pro Israel into this right-wing-group for this “theory” to work plus you have to project this specific thought process onto this entire group without evidence or acknowledgement of the diversity within these groups. This type of projection lacks factual basis and fails to recognize the wide range of perspectives that exist within politically aligned groups.
I did not forget. But it is interesting to note that you cut the quote halfway to make it seem like I said something else. The entire quote is: “You also ignore me (remember you specifically mentioned me to support your unfounded accusations) saying that every death including Palestinians is one too many. You ignore all the times when I said how horrible these deaths are and that Israel as well as individuals should be held accountable for every crime/war crime that was committed. So not only is the theory faulty in logic and reasoning, it further runs contrary to what I was actually communicating this entire time.”
Seriously, your underhanded tactics are something else.
Do you also have a theory why other Muslims don’t give a crap why these exact Muslims are killed? Because that is something your golden theory can’t explain.
Why aren’t Jordan and Egypt taking them? Why did Egypt build an even larger border wall? Probably because they are forced to by Israel, right? Or is it because if refugees can’t leave Gaza, the following humanitarian crisis can be simply blamed on Israel? But certainly not because Palestinians wherever they found refuge stirred up trouble, right?
300k were expelled from the Kuwaiti government in 1991 (18% of Kuwait’s population) because the government saw the majority of Palestinians complicit in the Iraqi occupation of their country.
What about Jordan? There, the Palestinians groups openly called for the overthrow of Jordan’s monarchy and the PLO used their armies stationed on Jordanian soil to sow chaos. They robbed Jordanians to “collect funds” for their war against Israel. All of this, as well as the hijacking of planes and hostage situations in Jordan led the Jordanian military to war against the PLO themselves, which led to the Palestinians being driven out of the country, not before Black September assassinated the Jordanian Prime minister. But where did the PLO move then?
Correct, Lebanon, which was completely destabilized and where the PLO attempted their next coup. 4 years after the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan, Lebanon saw itself in one of the most bloody and chaotic civil wars in Middle Eastern history.
I already mentioned Sinai and its history with Muslim extremists in another post.
So, yeah… how does your theory fit in with non-Westerners who on top share the same faith? Why is no one letting Palestinians in?
3. So: You still accuse me of Islamophobia and racism without any evidence. The only thing you put forth is 6174 which has 0 evidence except your internal reasoning, which is heavily flawed - see above.
On top, for your accusation to work, you also need to call me a right-winger.
On August 26 2024 00:48 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:On August 25 2024 09:50 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults. And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to. Did you already forget that I addressed this argument before? Are you all that resistant to learning new information or is this simply cognitive dissonance? Are you deliberately choosing to ignore informations or arguments that the other side is presenting? Because when Hamas is hiding in these areas (will your absurd follow up argument again be that Hamas simply has no other way than to hide in Mosques, schools, hospitals and safe zones, lol? You know I will tell you about abandoned factories, 1 and 2-storey buildings, outskirts of towns, etc.) and firing rockets from there, yes, these areas will be attacked back. I am not taking Israel at its word that Hamas just so happens to be in every group of civilians they blow up when they're committing ethnic cleansing, at best.
Wow, you can nearly fit more fallacies into one sentence than Nebuchad does in a paragraph (which really means something).
1. Straw man: Israel only claimed that Hamas is hiding in civilian infrastructures and this is a documented fact - not only by Israel, but also organizations like Amnesty International, UN, HRW and the International Crisis Group have reported this since years. Your oversimplification creates a straw man in order to make this statement easier to attack.
2. The assertion that Israel is "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" is a hasty generalization. Especially given the numbers I ad nauseam posted in this thread.
3. The appeal to emotion using such loaded implicative language is striking too.
4. One could also find a false dichotomy in "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" suggesting that there is only a worse option (genocide), ignoring all other possible explanations like collateral damage in a complex conflict, Hamas making no consistent disctinction between combatans and civilians or simple mistakes.
5. You further assume intent, again disregarding complexities of warfare.
6. By stating "I am not taking Israel at its word" you demonstrate a confirmation bias where you reject the information by Israel without considering evidence as the one I posted multiple times. This approach indicates a pre-determined conclusion, reducing the argument to one based solely on distrust rather than a balanced assessment of facts (which are also provided by other organizations).
So why is Hamas hiding in and attacking from safe zones?
And from before:
Can't they hide in abandoned factories? In the outskirts of town? In 1- or 2-story-buildings?
Can't they occupy whole houses or complexes as they have control in the area?
|
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 00:48 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:On August 25 2024 09:50 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults. And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to. Did you already forget that I addressed this argument before? Are you all that resistant to learning new information or is this simply cognitive dissonance? Are you deliberately choosing to ignore informations or arguments that the other side is presenting? Because when Hamas is hiding in these areas (will your absurd follow up argument again be that Hamas simply has no other way than to hide in Mosques, schools, hospitals and safe zones, lol? You know I will tell you about abandoned factories, 1 and 2-storey buildings, outskirts of towns, etc.) and firing rockets from there, yes, these areas will be attacked back. I am not taking Israel at its word that Hamas just so happens to be in every group of civilians they blow up when they're committing ethnic cleansing, at best. Wow, you can nearly fit more fallacies into one sentence than Nebuchad does in a paragraph (which really means something). 1. Straw man: Israel only claimed that Hamas is hiding in civilian infrastructures and this is a documented fact - not only by Israel, but also organizations like Amnesty International, UN, HRW and the International Crisis Group have reported this since years. Your oversimplification creates a straw man in order to make this statement easier to attack. 2. The assertion that Israel is "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" is a hasty generalization. Especially given the numbers I ad nauseam posted in this thread. 3. The appeal to emotion using such loaded implicative language is striking too. 4. One could also find a false dichotomy in "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" suggesting that there is only a worse option (genocide), ignoring all other possible explanations like collateral damage in a complex conflict, Hamas making no consistent disctinction between combatans and civilians or simple mistakes. 5. You further assume intent, again disregarding complexities of warfare. 6. By stating "I am not taking Israel at its word" you demonstrate a confirmation bias where you reject the information by Israel without considering evidence as the one I posted multiple times. This approach indicates a pre-determined conclusion, reducing the argument to one based solely on distrust rather than a balanced assessment of facts (which are also provided by other organizations). So why is Hamas hiding in and attacking from safe zones? And from before: Can't they hide in abandoned factories? In the outskirts of town? In 1- or 2-story-buildings? Can't they occupy whole houses or complexes as they have control in the area?
1. Right, documented fact like "The AI said Hamas was there."
2. Yes, it is ethnic cleansing at best, unless you're denying that the settlements exist.
3. What's striking is talking to people in Lebanon that are having trouble sleeping because their village is shaking due to Israel striking places where Hezbollah was 20 years ago.
4 & 5. I'm saying ethnic cleansing at best because that's what it is, as explained above. We have seen advertisements for future settlements in territory that has been leveled during the war. What do you think Gazan access to these settlements will look like? At best to avoid the all too tired "uhm, acktually, it's not genocide..." as the debate of what has to qualify as a genocide suddenly needs to be re-litigated.'
6. I don't take any party directly involved or heavily invested in a conflict at it's word. It would be stupid to. I would love more 3rd party access to the area, but conveniently the UN has been barred from access until recently by Israel, and some parts of it accused of being "Hamas"
Hamas is doing it because they're a terror organization in a prison city conflict.
|
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad
1.
Nah, man. Either you stop replying and that is fine, or you continue and address the parts I deem important. I will give you the same courtesy. But I won’t let others only reply to points they think they are able to handle and dodge the hard parts. That’s not how this works.
As it stands: I don’t argue dishonestly as I base my opinion on numbers, data, facts and coherent, non-fallacious reasoning.
Like most dishonest people, you believe that writing some string of words in response to something is sufficient to claim you have answered it, and that's how conversations go. There are no parts of your argument that are hard to handle because your argument has no connexion with reality, it's simply the wish for Israel to be justified as it mauls down muslims.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
2.
a+b+c. Simply calling someone a fascist, does not make that person one.
You continue to load an argument with your biased perception and end in a begging the question fallacy.
So do you believe that the USA was more fascist than Israel back when N.’s father moved there? Or how should I take that previous notion of yours?
Here for example, you didn't answer my post. I didn't "simply call someone a fascist", I provided an entire development to explain why it is extremely obvious that he is a fascist. You just skip all of the reasonment to ask a loaded question, and you do so because you don't really care that the guy is obviously a fascist, you're just interested in defending Israel no matter what. In N's father position, you wouldn't move to the US because the US is more fascist, as a more fascist US would be a US that discriminates against Jews, and you're jewish, so your question is profoundly stupid. You would move to the US because you believe you can influence the politics of Israel and the politics of the US toward Israel more from the US, in your position as CEO of whatever reformed zionist organization you're in. It doesn't work as a counterargument to what I said, which makes sense because what I said was simply historical facts, so there are no counterarguments.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Yes, it is known that Benzion was a Revisionist Zionist. That does not make him a fascist. Or are you equating the two?
So is it your position that Netanyahu incited violence or was calling for the assassination?
Yes obviously lol. Again you're not answering you're just asking the same question again in order to make it look like you have something to say.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
d. Silly? No, I simply made a guess. But as you talked about things that did not happen, because, a, Israel did/does not have a constitution and, b, no rights were taken away from anyone, I simply wanted to make sure to not put words in your mouth.
So which Israeli constitution did you speak of?
I don’t really care about the opposition. I care about what you said, namely “He ruled for a long while, changed the Constitution of his country to have it in writing that Jews should have more rights than Arabs”. Now which rights are that? Or which things “already happened before the law”? Which rights do Jews have in Israel that Arabs don’t?
Again, not answering, just asking more questions which are already answered in the link I provided, that was a wiki page on the change you don't think that you could have found those changes on the wiki page? But you're not really interested in the answer, you just want to project the perception that we're having a debate.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
e. I said that it is wrong, agreeing with you, lol. So for all I care, this can be dropped.
I know you did, and I explained the problem with your worldview, for which you didn't have an answer. What you're saying is basically the equivalent of "I don't think children should be burned with napalm. But I support loading planes with napalm and having them drop their load onto a countryside."
The government that you support will always settle Palestine, that's a primary goal for this brand of zionism. You support the continuation of the conditions that lead to settlements as a direct consequence.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
f. Funny, that you talk about me not having honest conversations, looking at 6174 and how you approached me from the start.
Yes, that was me being honest. Me pretending that you're a serious person who has no ulterior motive would have been me being dishonest. Do you understand how honesty works.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Anyway: Is there any internal document or any government official that supports these supposed motives? Any leak of this big government where many disagreed over the years with Netanyahu’s policies?
I have no idea. Do you have any reason to disagree with reporting from international and israeli media that claim that it happened, other than because it doesn't suit your narrative?
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I mean… the actual intentions and full reasoning behind the policies are complex and subject to interpretation.
What is a "complex and subject to interpretation" intention that one can have as a leader of Israel to facilitate support of a terrorist faction that is set on destroying Israel?
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
And you simply use the sources that align with your narrative. If you click on a link that is mentioned in your own, you can read this:
“With Israel’s approval, Qatar since 2018 has periodically provided millions of dollars in cash to Hamas to pay for fuel for the Strip’s power plant, allow the group to pay its civil servants and provide aid to tens of thousands of impoverished families.
Israel has reportedly done so in exchange for Hamas ensuring calm in the south and as part of efforts to reach a long-term ceasefire with the terror group.”
Ok? I don't care about this fact, so I didn't use it. I also didn't mention that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, which is also true, but not really relevant to what I'm saying. It sounds like you're trying to argue against what I said by pointing to the existence of other things, that's not how honest people who use facts construct arguments, generally they would argue against the facts that I provided, not bring up an unrelated other thing.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
g. Again begging the question. A fascist government (just a random accusation/assumption) is fascist, because it is fascist. That is your argument. I don’t even think you understand what that word means with how often you throw it around in unfitting circumstances.
As usual no substance to your answer, you're just saying "nah it's not fascist" and giving no argument. You don't care whether it's fascist or not, you just want to disagree with me. An honest person would have recognized that I didn't say that Israel's government is fascist because it's fascist, instead I pointed out that it's a far right government who is openly trying to increase its lebensraum by ethnically cleansing a population of subhumans that don't deserve to live on their own lands because they don't have the right lineage and the right religion, which is as textbook fascist as you can be. I also provided a myriad of other evidence for my claim, which you didn't counter in any way, and at the end of that you dare to claim to be fact based when you assert that I just said it's fascist because it's fascist. Obviously dishonest.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Your assumptions regarding the Israeli government are not only unprovable but also illogical. All governments are composed of a diverse range of motivations, strategies and ideologies. The idea that from top to bottom, an entire government could be engaged in or supportive of a singular policy of indiscriminately killing as many Palestinians as possible is both a vast oversimplification and a misrepresentation of how governments work. A government is exactly NOT what you describe (mechanical). On top, this policy would need to go through the military from top to bottom as well, without any whistleblowers or policy opponents. This idea is utterly illogical and unprovable.
There are many whistleblowers, for example the people who talked to 972 about Who's Daddy and the rest of the obscene AI system that allows for the targeting of palestinian civilians. Ofer Cassif, the only leftist currently in the Knesset, would and has agreed with my characterization of the israeli government. There is at least one minister currently in power who self-identifies as fascist, I would be surprised if it's not more than one. You handwaving whistleblowers away is not the same thing as them not existing in reality.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
The reasons are all discussed by various groups internationally and within Israel. It is you who can’t acknowledge the diverse POVs that may even contradict each other at times. As is shown in your original post: The problem is in your head. You have a theory that makes sense to you and you shut down all other incoming intel (cognitive dissonance?).
I'm searching for new fun ways to type that you didn't answer my point. I explained why these reasons were silly, I never claimed that it was the first time I heard them. Instead of telling me something I already know, why don't you tell me why they aren't silly in the ways that I claim? Reminder: it's supposedly not silly to claim that you're terrified of a group on the land of which you're currently sending civilian settlers, so that they can remove the inhabitants through force (either force of the army or force of terrorism). And it's supposedly not silly to claim that it's not ethnic cleansing when you violently remove an ethnic group from an area, but you have a motive to do it (btw you included a "religious" motive, lol), as if people who do genocides and ethnic cleansings don't usually have a motive to do it. Absurd stuff.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
As you seem to have paid attention to my discussion with your friend, you might have read that I was referring to the soldier-to-civilian casualty rate. I mean… it probably would be more believable that Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible, if it wasn’t the lowest ratio of ALL conflicts that had similar population densities. By far.With Hamas occupying civilian infrastructures on top. Right?
The AI that Israel uses has determined that 37000 people are Hamas operatives, which is a very high number, so a lot of people who are "Hamas operatives" in your stats would be civilians in a non-islamophobic person's stats. I saw the other day that someone who was targeted as a minor operative for Hamas, which means that you can justify killing 20 civilians in order to kill him, was 8 years old.
Another thing that Israel did was drop leaflets to warn civilians that a location was going to be attacked, and then go into the area of this location and kill everyone who is still there because if they're still there they can't be civilians. It's very easy to have a casualty rate of soldiers to civilians that looks good, all you have to do is disregard the humanity of the people you kill. This happens in most wars, this happened in Vietnam too. "How did you know that he was a Vietcong? -Cause I killed him."
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
And this madness will continue until all hostages are released. You know which party holds them, right? So I will blame the group that took the hostages and deliberately attacked civilians first (while not denying that Israel has committed atrocities too).
Several ceasefire deals that have been accepted by Hamas and rejected by Israel included the release of all the hostages, which you already know. You're just using the hostages as human shields to shield Israel from criticism as it continues to maul down more Palestinians with your approval.
You forgot to answer how many dead Palestinians would be sufficient to quench your blood thirst btw, since 40000 is not enough. Would 186000 be enough?
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
h. I don’t see any quotes.
I personally didn’t make fun of anyone.
Ah shit, guess I must be lying then. Seriously more than 75% of your post is just stalling.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I talked about the protestors who spout nonsense such as Apartheid state, defend terrorists (aka the 7th of October attacks) and not knowing about the way of life which indeed is incompatible with Western values (homophobia, women’s rights, etc.).
There are many homophobes and mysogynists in the West, it is not incompatible with Western values at all, that's just something that racists love to say in order to project superiority on non-western groups. Under the kind of "values" logic described here, mass murdering an ethnic group in order to seize their land for another ethnic group would also be "against western values" (even though the West did that all the time as well), but somehow we never hear that Israel's ways are incompatible with western values. It's a loaded claim that fails to stand up to reality.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
But your original accusation has nothing to do with that. I never said anything about killing civilians, so I couldn't even defend that claim with having Western values, as the claim was never in existence. Your explanation is again completely illogical. I said that everyday life in Palestine is incompatible with Western values, nothing more.
You were discussing a group of people who are protesting against people being mass murdered by saying, wow, how silly are these people, don't they know that this group they're defending has views that are incompatible with western values? If you're not making a point that is connected to killing civilians, then you shouldn't have brought up western values in this context. As usual, you're the problem.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Your shameless lies are seriously nuts and I am getting tired of your unfounded insults and accusations.
Demonstrate that I have lied.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
So far, this notion of yours “But then evidence comes in that this government is killing a bunch of civilians, and none of the people on forums' positions ever budge, sure Israel does a few war crimes from time to time but they "have western values" so they're not a problem.” is still unfounded. This unfounded conclusion is the end of your first part. And apparently only one user MIGHT have posted something along those lines. Do you accept that this accusation is unfounded and you are fighting against windmills?
Of course I don't accept that lol. Your only argument against this theory is you saying that it's not true, but as we've established in all of your other answers in this post, you have no problem with being dishonest, so that's not enough for me to accept anything. The claim that it's unfounded is obviously silly, all of the other things that you've answered in this thread, including you literally saying the thing about western values in connexion to people being engaged in protest against mass murder, are the foundation.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
j. Your Sweden example is also a generalization, but in contrast to the other a factual one that does not imply any judgment. Swedish is the official language in Sweden. This statement does not make assumptions about people’s opinion, attitudes or behaviors beyond what is evident. Your statement that “a lot of Westerners” don’t like Islam very much does. It assumes attitudes of a large and diverse group of people.
I skipped the paragraph about the fallacies because this is enough to answer it I believe. It is not a generalization to claim that a lot of people in Sweden speak swedish, you absolute clown.
And yes of course I judge people for being islamophobic, but that has no relation to whether it is true or not that a lot of people in the West are islamophobic. There's a french poll from 2011 in which 40% of people think islamic culture is a threat. Do you think other countries are faring much better?
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
And if I can find any socialists is besides the point, as the point is that not all right-wingers think alike.
That is not the claim you made, no. You said "further implying that people who side with Israel necessarily have to be rightwing". My answer about socialists was completely justified given your claim, you were just dishonestly hoping that I would have forgotten and would let you get away with the lie that we're talking about whether all rightwingers think alike.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
The false dichotomy (that there are only right-wingers versus socialists)
Liberals are rightwingers, friend. And you can definitely find liberals who support Israel. Such as Joseph "Genocide Joe" Robinette Biden.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
So according to Occam’s razor you believe in collateral damage statistics in war which makes absolutely sense according to the numbers and facts rather than a government top down conspiracy theory that also has to expand to the entire military and… ah no. You don’t. Shame.
You want to have another go at it? It seems like I got you riled up and you started to make a point about Occam's razor, and then instead of making that point (probably because it was a weak point) you just added a bunch of random things?
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
So what are other reasons one might have to support Israel besides seeing Palestinians as a threat and thus viewing them being killed as justified? You said that “Incorrect, I didn't say that it was the only reason, just the most simple one”
The main reason would be ignorance of the situation and an undue trust in mainstream media narratives, which are overly sympathetic toward Israel in a way that often amounts to journalism malpractice. But that doesn't apply to people like you who go on forums to lie, people like that need something more. I posit that in the large majority of cases it's islamophobia. There are also other reasons for specific individuals, I have no doubt, but those reasons are too limited to explain how many people I see regularly debase themselves pretending they don't understand how reality works.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
No, I am talking about the reasoning you attribute to right-wingers. Here read again: “ for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”.” As you did not address the rest: Hasty generalizations, attributing simplistic motives, ethical relativism, equating defense with indiscriminate violence and reductionist and binary thinking would need to take effect for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”.
None of those attacks are related to the reasoning I posited for the rightwingers. "Attributing simplistic motives" is something I'm doing, not them. You were obviously talking about my reasoning. It's okay to admit that you were wrong when we can all obviously see that you were wrong.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I did not forget. But it is interesting to note that you cut the quote halfway to make it seem like I said something else. The entire quote is: “You also ignore me (remember you specifically mentioned me to support your unfounded accusations) saying that every death including Palestinians is one too many. You ignore all the times when I said how horrible these deaths are and that Israel as well as individuals should be held accountable for every crime/war crime that was committed. So not only is the theory faulty in logic and reasoning, it further runs contrary to what I was actually communicating this entire time.”
Seriously, your underhanded tactics are something else.
I address the rest of what you said in the next point, how underhanded of me lol.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Do you also have a theory why other Muslims don’t give a crap why these exact Muslims are killed? Because that is something your golden theory can’t explain.
They do, lol. You can very easily find muslims speaking in support of Palestine. This would be a better example of a generalization, "other muslims don't give a crap about Palestinians getting killed", than "a lot of people in Sweden speak swedish". Let me know if you need more help with the concept of fallacies in the future.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Why aren’t Jordan and Egypt taking them?
I see, so "Jordan" and "Egypt" are "other muslims", you're not beating the islamophobia allegation. The authoritarian governments of Egypt and Jordan have taken many refugees and there might be reasons why they are not taking the rest, I don't know and also don't care, because it's not their job to do that. Why doesn't Europe take all Ukrainians as refugees and let Russia get Ukraine for itself? I don't care, because that's not what should be happening.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Why did Egypt build an even larger border wall? Probably because they are forced to by Israel, right?
Yes, probably, I imagine that's part of their dealings with Israel. Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza and Egypt doesn't want to take the refugees, so it builds a bigger wall. Makes sense.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Or is it because if refugees can’t leave Gaza, the following humanitarian crisis can be simply blamed on Israel? But certainly not because Palestinians wherever they found refuge stirred up trouble, right?
Damn, what an evil conniving plan, which you could counter by not oppressing and killing Palestinians. It's a shame that Egypt knows that Israel must kill Palestinians and as such their plan of making Israel look bad when they kill Palestinians has to work.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
300k were expelled from the Kuwaiti government in 1991 (18% of Kuwait’s population) because the government saw the majority of Palestinians complicit in the Iraqi occupation of their country.
What about Jordan? There, the Palestinians groups openly called for the overthrow of Jordan’s monarchy and the PLO used their armies stationed on Jordanian soil to sow chaos. They robbed Jordanians to “collect funds” for their war against Israel. All of this, as well as the hijacking of planes and hostage situations in Jordan led the Jordanian military to war against the PLO themselves, which led to the Palestinians being driven out of the country, not before Black September assassinated the Jordanian Prime minister. But where did the PLO move then?
Correct, Lebanon, which was completely destabilized and where the PLO attempted their next coup. 4 years after the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan, Lebanon saw itself in one of the most bloody and chaotic civil wars in Middle Eastern history.
Couldn't care less. You are not going to be able to convince me that Palestinians deserve to be ethnically cleansed. Sorry. It's also going to be harder for you in the future to beat the racist allegations, cause an unbiased observer wouldn't really look into whether Palestinians did enough evil to deserve to be genocided or if they didn't.
On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I already mentioned Sinai and its history with Muslim extremists in another post.
So, yeah… how does your theory fit in with non-Westerners who on top share the same faith? Why is no one letting Palestinians in?
There is a place that is letting Palestinians in. It's called Palestine. Maybe you should let them live there?
You also forgot to care about every single palestinian death in this last development, which is a shame. Maybe you don't really?
|
On August 26 2024 22:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
@Nebuchad
1.
Nah, man. Either you stop replying and that is fine, or you continue and address the parts I deem important. I will give you the same courtesy. But I won’t let others only reply to points they think they are able to handle and dodge the hard parts. That’s not how this works.
As it stands: I don’t argue dishonestly as I base my opinion on numbers, data, facts and coherent, non-fallacious reasoning. Like most dishonest people, you believe that writing some string of words in response to something is sufficient to claim you have answered it, and that's how conversations go. There are no parts of your argument that are hard to handle because your argument has no connexion with reality, it's simply the wish for Israel to be justified as it mauls down muslims. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
2.
a+b+c. Simply calling someone a fascist, does not make that person one.
You continue to load an argument with your biased perception and end in a begging the question fallacy.
So do you believe that the USA was more fascist than Israel back when N.’s father moved there? Or how should I take that previous notion of yours? Here for example, you didn't answer my post. I didn't "simply call someone a fascist", I provided an entire development to explain why it is extremely obvious that he is a fascist. You just skip all of the reasonment to ask a loaded question, and you do so because you don't really care that the guy is obviously a fascist, you're just interested in defending Israel no matter what. In N's father position, you wouldn't move to the US because the US is more fascist, as a more fascist US would be a US that discriminates against Jews, and you're jewish, so your question is profoundly stupid. You would move to the US because you believe you can influence the politics of Israel and the politics of the US toward Israel more from the US, in your position as CEO of whatever reformed zionist organization you're in. It doesn't work as a counterargument to what I said, which makes sense because what I said was simply historical facts, so there are no counterarguments. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Yes, it is known that Benzion was a Revisionist Zionist. That does not make him a fascist. Or are you equating the two?
So is it your position that Netanyahu incited violence or was calling for the assassination? Yes obviously lol. Again you're not answering you're just asking the same question again in order to make it look like you have something to say. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
d. Silly? No, I simply made a guess. But as you talked about things that did not happen, because, a, Israel did/does not have a constitution and, b, no rights were taken away from anyone, I simply wanted to make sure to not put words in your mouth.
So which Israeli constitution did you speak of?
I don’t really care about the opposition. I care about what you said, namely “He ruled for a long while, changed the Constitution of his country to have it in writing that Jews should have more rights than Arabs”. Now which rights are that? Or which things “already happened before the law”? Which rights do Jews have in Israel that Arabs don’t? Again, not answering, just asking more questions which are already answered in the link I provided, that was a wiki page on the change you don't think that you could have found those changes on the wiki page? But you're not really interested in the answer, you just want to project the perception that we're having a debate. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
e. I said that it is wrong, agreeing with you, lol. So for all I care, this can be dropped. I know you did, and I explained the problem with your worldview, for which you didn't have an answer. What you're saying is basically the equivalent of "I don't think children should be burned with napalm. But I support loading planes with napalm and having them drop their load onto a countryside." The government that you support will always settle Palestine, that's a primary goal for this brand of zionism. You support the continuation of the conditions that lead to settlements as a direct consequence. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
f. Funny, that you talk about me not having honest conversations, looking at 6174 and how you approached me from the start. Yes, that was me being honest. Me pretending that you're a serious person who has no ulterior motive would have been me being dishonest. Do you understand how honesty works. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Anyway: Is there any internal document or any government official that supports these supposed motives? Any leak of this big government where many disagreed over the years with Netanyahu’s policies? I have no idea. Do you have any reason to disagree with reporting from international and israeli media that claim that it happened, other than because it doesn't suit your narrative? Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I mean… the actual intentions and full reasoning behind the policies are complex and subject to interpretation. What is a "complex and subject to interpretation" intention that one can have as a leader of Israel to facilitate support of a terrorist faction that is set on destroying Israel? Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
And you simply use the sources that align with your narrative. If you click on a link that is mentioned in your own, you can read this:
“With Israel’s approval, Qatar since 2018 has periodically provided millions of dollars in cash to Hamas to pay for fuel for the Strip’s power plant, allow the group to pay its civil servants and provide aid to tens of thousands of impoverished families.
Israel has reportedly done so in exchange for Hamas ensuring calm in the south and as part of efforts to reach a long-term ceasefire with the terror group.” Ok? I don't care about this fact, so I didn't use it. I also didn't mention that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, which is also true, but not really relevant to what I'm saying. It sounds like you're trying to argue against what I said by pointing to the existence of other things, that's not how honest people who use facts construct arguments, generally they would argue against the facts that I provided, not bring up an unrelated other thing. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
g. Again begging the question. A fascist government (just a random accusation/assumption) is fascist, because it is fascist. That is your argument. I don’t even think you understand what that word means with how often you throw it around in unfitting circumstances. As usual no substance to your answer, you're just saying "nah it's not fascist" and giving no argument. You don't care whether it's fascist or not, you just want to disagree with me. An honest person would have recognized that I didn't say that Israel's government is fascist because it's fascist, instead I pointed out that it's a far right government who is openly trying to increase its lebensraum by ethnically cleansing a population of subhumans that don't deserve to live on their own lands because they don't have the right lineage and the right religion, which is as textbook fascist as you can be. I also provided a myriad of other evidence for my claim, which you didn't counter in any way, and at the end of that you dare to claim to be fact based when you assert that I just said it's fascist because it's fascist. Obviously dishonest. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Your assumptions regarding the Israeli government are not only unprovable but also illogical. All governments are composed of a diverse range of motivations, strategies and ideologies. The idea that from top to bottom, an entire government could be engaged in or supportive of a singular policy of indiscriminately killing as many Palestinians as possible is both a vast oversimplification and a misrepresentation of how governments work. A government is exactly NOT what you describe (mechanical). On top, this policy would need to go through the military from top to bottom as well, without any whistleblowers or policy opponents. This idea is utterly illogical and unprovable. There are many whistleblowers, for example the people who talked to 972 about Who's Daddy and the rest of the obscene AI system that allows for the targeting of palestinian civilians. Ofer Cassif, the only leftist currently in the Knesset, would and has agreed with my characterization of the israeli government. There is at least one minister currently in power who self-identifies as fascist, I would be surprised if it's not more than one. You handwaving whistleblowers away is not the same thing as them not existing in reality. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
The reasons are all discussed by various groups internationally and within Israel. It is you who can’t acknowledge the diverse POVs that may even contradict each other at times. As is shown in your original post: The problem is in your head. You have a theory that makes sense to you and you shut down all other incoming intel (cognitive dissonance?). I'm searching for new fun ways to type that you didn't answer my point. I explained why these reasons were silly, I never claimed that it was the first time I heard them. Instead of telling me something I already know, why don't you tell me why they aren't silly in the ways that I claim? Reminder: it's supposedly not silly to claim that you're terrified of a group on the land of which you're currently sending civilian settlers, so that they can remove the inhabitants through force (either force of the army or force of terrorism). And it's supposedly not silly to claim that it's not ethnic cleansing when you violently remove an ethnic group from an area, but you have a motive to do it (btw you included a "religious" motive, lol), as if people who do genocides and ethnic cleansings don't usually have a motive to do it. Absurd stuff. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
As you seem to have paid attention to my discussion with your friend, you might have read that I was referring to the soldier-to-civilian casualty rate. I mean… it probably would be more believable that Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible, if it wasn’t the lowest ratio of ALL conflicts that had similar population densities. By far.With Hamas occupying civilian infrastructures on top. Right? The AI that Israel uses has determined that 37000 people are Hamas operatives, which is a very high number, so a lot of people who are "Hamas operatives" in your stats would be civilians in a non-islamophobic person's stats. I saw the other day that someone who was targeted as a minor operative for Hamas, which means that you can justify killing 20 civilians in order to kill him, was 8 years old. Another thing that Israel did was drop leaflets to warn civilians that a location was going to be attacked, and then go into the area of this location and kill everyone who is still there because if they're still there they can't be civilians. It's very easy to have a casualty rate of soldiers to civilians that looks good, all you have to do is disregard the humanity of the people you kill. This happens in most wars, this happened in Vietnam too. "How did you know that he was a Vietcong? -Cause I killed him." Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
And this madness will continue until all hostages are released. You know which party holds them, right? So I will blame the group that took the hostages and deliberately attacked civilians first (while not denying that Israel has committed atrocities too). Several ceasefire deals that have been accepted by Hamas and rejected by Israel included the release of all the hostages, which you already know. You're just using the hostages as human shields to shield Israel from criticism as it continues to maul down more Palestinians with your approval. You forgot to answer how many dead Palestinians would be sufficient to quench your blood thirst btw, since 40000 is not enough. Would 186000 be enough? Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
h. I don’t see any quotes.
I personally didn’t make fun of anyone. Ah shit, guess I must be lying then. Seriously more than 75% of your post is just stalling. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I talked about the protestors who spout nonsense such as Apartheid state, defend terrorists (aka the 7th of October attacks) and not knowing about the way of life which indeed is incompatible with Western values (homophobia, women’s rights, etc.). There are many homophobes and mysogynists in the West, it is not incompatible with Western values at all, that's just something that racists love to say in order to project superiority on non-western groups. Under the kind of "values" logic described here, mass murdering an ethnic group in order to seize their land for another ethnic group would also be "against western values" (even though the West did that all the time as well), but somehow we never hear that Israel's ways are incompatible with western values. It's a loaded claim that fails to stand up to reality. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
But your original accusation has nothing to do with that. I never said anything about killing civilians, so I couldn't even defend that claim with having Western values, as the claim was never in existence. Your explanation is again completely illogical. I said that everyday life in Palestine is incompatible with Western values, nothing more. You were discussing a group of people who are protesting against people being mass murdered by saying, wow, how silly are these people, don't they know that this group they're defending has views that are incompatible with western values? If you're not making a point that is connected to killing civilians, then you shouldn't have brought up western values in this context. As usual, you're the problem. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Your shameless lies are seriously nuts and I am getting tired of your unfounded insults and accusations. Demonstrate that I have lied. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
So far, this notion of yours “But then evidence comes in that this government is killing a bunch of civilians, and none of the people on forums' positions ever budge, sure Israel does a few war crimes from time to time but they "have western values" so they're not a problem.” is still unfounded. This unfounded conclusion is the end of your first part. And apparently only one user MIGHT have posted something along those lines. Do you accept that this accusation is unfounded and you are fighting against windmills? Of course I don't accept that lol. Your only argument against this theory is you saying that it's not true, but as we've established in all of your other answers in this post, you have no problem with being dishonest, so that's not enough for me to accept anything. The claim that it's unfounded is obviously silly, all of the other things that you've answered in this thread, including you literally saying the thing about western values in connexion to people being engaged in protest against mass murder, are the foundation. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
j. Your Sweden example is also a generalization, but in contrast to the other a factual one that does not imply any judgment. Swedish is the official language in Sweden. This statement does not make assumptions about people’s opinion, attitudes or behaviors beyond what is evident. Your statement that “a lot of Westerners” don’t like Islam very much does. It assumes attitudes of a large and diverse group of people.
I skipped the paragraph about the fallacies because this is enough to answer it I believe. It is not a generalization to claim that a lot of people in Sweden speak swedish, you absolute clown. And yes of course I judge people for being islamophobic, but that has no relation to whether it is true or not that a lot of people in the West are islamophobic. There's a french poll from 2011 in which 40% of people think islamic culture is a threat. Do you think other countries are faring much better? Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
And if I can find any socialists is besides the point, as the point is that not all right-wingers think alike. That is not the claim you made, no. You said "further implying that people who side with Israel necessarily have to be rightwing". My answer about socialists was completely justified given your claim, you were just dishonestly hoping that I would have forgotten and would let you get away with the lie that we're talking about whether all rightwingers think alike. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
The false dichotomy (that there are only right-wingers versus socialists)
Liberals are rightwingers, friend. And you can definitely find liberals who support Israel. Such as Joseph "Genocide Joe" Robinette Biden. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
So according to Occam’s razor you believe in collateral damage statistics in war which makes absolutely sense according to the numbers and facts rather than a government top down conspiracy theory that also has to expand to the entire military and… ah no. You don’t. Shame. You want to have another go at it? It seems like I got you riled up and you started to make a point about Occam's razor, and then instead of making that point (probably because it was a weak point) you just added a bunch of random things? Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
So what are other reasons one might have to support Israel besides seeing Palestinians as a threat and thus viewing them being killed as justified? You said that “Incorrect, I didn't say that it was the only reason, just the most simple one” The main reason would be ignorance of the situation and an undue trust in mainstream media narratives, which are overly sympathetic toward Israel in a way that often amounts to journalism malpractice. But that doesn't apply to people like you who go on forums to lie, people like that need something more. I posit that in the large majority of cases it's islamophobia. There are also other reasons for specific individuals, I have no doubt, but those reasons are too limited to explain how many people I see regularly debase themselves pretending they don't understand how reality works. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
No, I am talking about the reasoning you attribute to right-wingers. Here read again: “ for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”.” As you did not address the rest: Hasty generalizations, attributing simplistic motives, ethical relativism, equating defense with indiscriminate violence and reductionist and binary thinking would need to take effect for your theory to work from the POV of those “Western right-wingers”. None of those attacks are related to the reasoning I posited for the rightwingers. "Attributing simplistic motives" is something I'm doing, not them. You were obviously talking about my reasoning. It's okay to admit that you were wrong when we can all obviously see that you were wrong. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I did not forget. But it is interesting to note that you cut the quote halfway to make it seem like I said something else. The entire quote is: “You also ignore me (remember you specifically mentioned me to support your unfounded accusations) saying that every death including Palestinians is one too many. You ignore all the times when I said how horrible these deaths are and that Israel as well as individuals should be held accountable for every crime/war crime that was committed. So not only is the theory faulty in logic and reasoning, it further runs contrary to what I was actually communicating this entire time.”
Seriously, your underhanded tactics are something else. I address the rest of what you said in the next point, how underhanded of me lol. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Do you also have a theory why other Muslims don’t give a crap why these exact Muslims are killed? Because that is something your golden theory can’t explain. They do, lol. You can very easily find muslims speaking in support of Palestine. This would be a better example of a generalization, "other muslims don't give a crap about Palestinians getting killed", than "a lot of people in Sweden speak swedish". Let me know if you need more help with the concept of fallacies in the future. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Why aren’t Jordan and Egypt taking them? I see, so "Jordan" and "Egypt" are "other muslims", you're not beating the islamophobia allegation. The authoritarian governments of Egypt and Jordan have taken many refugees and there might be reasons why they are not taking the rest, I don't know and also don't care, because it's not their job to do that. Why doesn't Europe take all Ukrainians as refugees and let Russia get Ukraine for itself? I don't care, because that's not what should be happening. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Why did Egypt build an even larger border wall? Probably because they are forced to by Israel, right? Yes, probably, I imagine that's part of their dealings with Israel. Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza and Egypt doesn't want to take the refugees, so it builds a bigger wall. Makes sense. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
Or is it because if refugees can’t leave Gaza, the following humanitarian crisis can be simply blamed on Israel? But certainly not because Palestinians wherever they found refuge stirred up trouble, right? Damn, what an evil conniving plan, which you could counter by not oppressing and killing Palestinians. It's a shame that Egypt knows that Israel must kill Palestinians and as such their plan of making Israel look bad when they kill Palestinians has to work. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
300k were expelled from the Kuwaiti government in 1991 (18% of Kuwait’s population) because the government saw the majority of Palestinians complicit in the Iraqi occupation of their country.
What about Jordan? There, the Palestinians groups openly called for the overthrow of Jordan’s monarchy and the PLO used their armies stationed on Jordanian soil to sow chaos. They robbed Jordanians to “collect funds” for their war against Israel. All of this, as well as the hijacking of planes and hostage situations in Jordan led the Jordanian military to war against the PLO themselves, which led to the Palestinians being driven out of the country, not before Black September assassinated the Jordanian Prime minister. But where did the PLO move then?
Correct, Lebanon, which was completely destabilized and where the PLO attempted their next coup. 4 years after the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan, Lebanon saw itself in one of the most bloody and chaotic civil wars in Middle Eastern history. Couldn't care less. You are not going to be able to convince me that Palestinians deserve to be ethnically cleansed. Sorry. It's also going to be harder for you in the future to beat the racist allegations, cause an unbiased observer wouldn't really look into whether Palestinians did enough evil to deserve to be genocided or if they didn't. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:
I already mentioned Sinai and its history with Muslim extremists in another post.
So, yeah… how does your theory fit in with non-Westerners who on top share the same faith? Why is no one letting Palestinians in?
There is a place that is letting Palestinians in. It's called Palestine. Maybe you should let them live there? You also forgot to care about every single palestinian death in this last development, which is a shame. Maybe you don't really?
1.
As it stands: I don’t argue dishonestly as I base my opinion on numbers, data, facts and coherent, non-fallacious reasoning.
2.
a+b+c. You provided a “development” where you used the word fascist so often, that it seems that you have to say it so often to believe it yourself. Did he call himself a fascist? How many other people did?
It was you who said that “ here's a guy whose father left Israel because Israel wasn't fascistic enough in his view”. So first, you spin a story, that Israel is not fascist enough, so the guy moves to another country because he has more control in the country he just left from in the new country? Uh, yeah…
How do you prove this unfounded accusation anyway? Where did he ever say he left Israel because it wasn’t fascist enough? Or is this another one of those unfounded guesses?
How exactly did Ben N. incite violence? How did he call for the asssassination? I am eager to see if one of your allegations can actually be proven.
Well, if you equate fascism and Revisionist Zionism then no, you are not only stating historical facts.
You further attribute motives to Benzion N. without providing proof so far. You also made the loaded notion that he raised “a good little fascist”, again begging the question. You said in the same line of argumentation that Israel has a constitution and that it was changed so that Arabs have fewer rights (I won’t look at a whole article and search for an answer… it is on you to support the point/accusation you made), which obviously is a lie as Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Further, Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel since 1966 when martial law was lifted.
You attribute a motive that fits your narrative to his Hamas policy (because no, actually trying to give the Gazan communities money to help economically or humanitarily is completely out of the question although Israel has been doing it for years) and you also attribute the motive of ethnic cleansing (did he even once say so? Or ANY whistleblower?)
d. As I said earlier: You are making accusations, so you have to post the evidence. The burden of proof is on you; I will not look it up for you.
So which Israeli constitution did you speak of?
Which rights do Jews have in Israel that Arabs don’t?
e. Your reasoning is flawed again, as I said that the settlements should not happen. I can be for a Jewish state and against settlements. These two don’t contradict each other. I further never said that I particularly like the current government, so again a straw man.
On another note as this also came up often: Settling and ethnic cleansing are not the same. Creating a Muslim majority does not necessarily mean that the indigenous population has to leave or needs to be removed.
f. I don’t deny it happened, I question your knowledge of the motif which is obvious if you read my questions. So again: Is there any internal document or any government official that supports these supposed motives? Any leak of this big government where many disagreed over the years with Netanyahu’s policies?
A "complex and subject to interpretation" intention could be that the money went to local governments. Gazan authorities. So perhaps humanitarian aid? Construction material for schools? Is that such an implausible idea, looking at the vast amounts of humanitarian aid that Israel is sending to Gaza every year and the quote I posted that follows from your own source?
Yes, that is my point. The only things you care about are the ones that feed into your thinking. Hence you leave aside all data (soldier-to-civilian casualty rates, the humanitarian aid, the fact that over 1.5 million Arabs of which the majority are Muslim, live in Israel) that your narrative can’t explain and hyperfocus on things that went wrong to create a picture of how bad Israel is.
The thing I quoted is the very thing you asked for in the paragraph before that one.
g. The same way someone who wants to prove that pink flying unicorns exist (Israel being fascist) can’t put the burden of proof on someone asking for evidence: You are the one making the claim, thus you have to prove it.
But alright. Why is Israel not fascist? Democratic governance and elections with multiple parties, independent judiciary, freedom of speech and press, protection of minority rights, civilian control of the military, pluralistic society, massively helps the civilians of a region which attacks them non-stop, religious foundation.
Can you provide the quotes from the Israeli government that led to this quote: “ far right government who is openly trying to increase its lebensraum by ethnically cleansing a population of subhumans that don't deserve to live on their own lands because they don't have the right lineage and the right religion, “?
Sounds again like a lot of logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques instead of neutrally re-phrasing Israel’s policy. Loaded language (Lebensraum, subhumans), straw man (ignoring the complex and contentious issues, framing them in the way you did does not reflect the position of the Israeli government), appeal to motive (“don’t have the right lineage…” implies motive without evidence or substantiating the claim), hasty generalization (as many times you are ignoring the reality of diverse opinion within Israel, the parties, the government, etc.) as well as guilt by association (Associate Israel to Nazis).
Yes, Smotrich is a self-described fascist. And how many ministers are there in the government that are not? As I said, you tilt reality till it fits your story.
And what about these AI tools? Saying that the use of these programs would mean more collateral is not the same as saying that the government wants to kill as many civilians as possible. Don’t you understand the difference?
I hope you see the flaw in your logic. Because if that AI tool was actually used and we talk about 40k Hamas officials at an STC casualty rate of 1:20 we would have over 800k dead. Which we obviously don’t. You are so focused on finding any mistake or bad practice to reason your way through this, without realizing that even if that AI was used a hundred times, the IDF must have made up for it at other angles to come out with a rate of 1:1,5.
Again: Having by far the least STC casualty rate out of all comparable conflicts directly kills your claim.
So the fallacies involved are: Hasty generalization (entire government wants to kill as many Palestinians a possible), straw man (oversimplification of policy or thought and ignoring complexities), appeal to emotion (it invokes fear and moral outrage without providing evidence), begging the question (the statement presumes the conclusion within the premise as it starts with the assumption that the government is willing to kill as many Palestinians as it can and then uses that assumption to argue that anyone who thinks otherwise is inconceivable), false dichotomy (no other options are available except believing the notion or not knowing all the facts), ad hominem (the notion attacks the credibility of those who disagree as they are either immoral or uninformed).
h. You still didn’t quote anyone that justified “killing a bunch of civilians” with “have western values". Can you please do?
Yes, you were lying about what I said. Again. And no, I am not stalling. I simply won’t let you all twist your way out of unfounded accusations and loaded language that can be proven as displaying lies. From now on there is someone on this forum who will people hold accountable when they make accusations of genocide, deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel or a forced famine if they aren’t backing up their claims with numbers and facts.
My point was about you falsely accusing me of justifying “killing a bunch of civilians” with “have western values"?.
I never did that, as I explained. As I said, I simply pointed out that the views of the protestors need to be debunked. You are again, straw maning, attributing (hidden) motives and generating a supposed causal connection that simply is not there.
Since when are misogyny, homophobia or mass murder considered Western Values? Again, the same rhetorical tools to create an argument based on fallacies.
You lied…
about Israel having a constitution without a correction, despite me pointing it out several times
me thinking it was good to kill Palestinians
me justifying killing a bunch of civilians with having Western values
me being an Islamophobe
me being a racist
perhaps about JimmiC… so far you still haven’t posted evidence
You never believe people that have a disagreement with you, don’t you? And I am dishonest in all of my replies? Very lucky coincidences.
Your absolutely illogical spree of attributing motifs does not end, even when the people that you directly accuse tell you that this is not what is happening. No words for such a line of argumentation.
j. Yes, a lot of people in Sweden speaking Swedish is a generalization. A factual generalization, as I said in my last post. Contrary to this factual generalization yours was implying judgment. That is the difference. I could have also said that a lot of people in Sweden speaking Swedish is a fact, that thus your comparison is bogus and all the following criticisms of your comparison would still hold value, so I have no issue in doing so. Why are you so hyper focused on things that don’t even matter? The point was that you yourself used a non factual generalization. “ a lot of people in the West don't like islam very much”
Your rhetorical tactics know no bounds. The point is not IF you judge people for being islamophobic. The point is that you MAKE assumptions about a large group of people without evidence. Your statement that “a lot of Westerners” don’t like Islam very much assumes attitudes and opinions of a large and diverse group of people.
With the follow up you equate Islamophobia with seeing Islam as a threat. This is simply intellectually appalling.
No, I was not hoping you would forget.
Your words: “That sounds coherent so far, now let's imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger. “
So why should I not assume that people who criticize Israel necessarily have to be right-wing or insane when in your “development” you yourself wrote before: “That's an insane view, and I don't mean it rhetorically, I mean I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized.”
So your point is that you are either insane or that there is another reason. Then you go on to talk about “a lot of people in the west” and conclude with right-wingers seeing Muslims as a threat and thus no one cares about killed Palestinians. That is your theory. Your words.
Media being biased towards Israel? Have you seen any Western news lately? How often they had to retract false news about Israel while already having dealt the propaganda damage? That has got to be the joke of the century.
No, you are applying simplistic motives to these right-wingers. You are generalizing them. It is YOU who is doing this in YOUR theory without any evidence.
You didn’t address the main point: Why aren’t any Muslim countries letting Palestinian refugees in like they did in the past? You simply say you don't care. It seems you are not thinking about unsettling things in regards to your world view, like when people directly tell you that your theory is not valid.
I am not for ethnically cleansing Palestine. I simply gave reasons as to why no Muslim countries are taking in Palestinians. Seriously. These deliberate straw men and misunderstandings are insane.
And I think it is absolutely fine to give Palestinians land. I never said otherwise. Once they are able to not throw bombs, make suicide attacks or attack Israel on any possible occassion and they put all terrorists behind bars themselves, yes, give them their country.
The funny thing is that I never was a friend of the idea of an Israeli state in the Middle East. The idea of Jewish Farmers building a state on Arab land in the Middle east is a stupid idea to begin with.
But now that it is there, we have to face the reality. If we let Palestinians create a state how they want it, around 10x the amount of people that have been displaced in the Nakba will be displaced then.
Many states are founded on foolishness, injustices or bad ideas but that does not mean that the people who have been born there and living there for decades should suffer because of it, the same way Palestinians shouldn’t suffer as well which they do under occupation, humiliation, being dispossessed or living in exile. Thus, something has to be done about this original misconception. It is a matter of principle. If Jews born in Manhattan have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine.
I gave you ideas on how I would try to implement it which you simply swept away and never presented an alternative.
Now just a quick summary:
You try to spin a story in 6174 of how insane it would be to not think that Israel is a government which “would kill as many Palestinians as they think they can get away with”. Continuing that even when evidence comes in that this government is “killing a bunch of civilians” (which of course happens in all wars for various reasons I pointed out many times) “none of the people on forums' positions ever budge”. You then attribute the most possible motive as to why there is no budging, namely “ sure Israel does a few war crimes from time to time but they "have western values" so they're not a problem”. You so far acknoledged only two other reasonings (being insane or having complex, personal reasons... whatever that means).You so far didn't acknowledge the one I present: A position based on numbers and facts.
You conclude that “That's an insane view” and with “ I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized”.
I fully agree. If that was the case. But it isn’t as there are other reasons. But you ignore all these other reasons and spin a story on top because “Luckily I don't think anyone truly believes this, really, I have an alternative theory”.
This time you attribute the motif to a “lot of people in the West”. Namely, that they are scared of Islam. You further argue that this irrational fear of Islam (as “ islam isn't actually a threat”) leads people to actually side with Israel.
After I asked for a follow-up, you made clear that you think that this explanation is “the most simple one”.
But if it is so simple, why are you the only one who came up with it? Why is everyone else arguing with facts, numbers and arguments that don’t have anything to do with Islamophobia?
You even acknowledge that “ there are subsets of people who support Israel for complex, personal reasons, that's not in dispute”.
But in the end you are the arbiter to impose judgment. You are the one who can check if your fallacious theory (see all the fallacies I pointed out above) holds true. Because even though I (nor anyone else since I have been here IIRC) did not make one Islamophobic remark in this entire thread and even though I told you several times that I am not an Islamophobe, you still apply your theory to me. All I did was argue based on numbers, data and facts that have nothing to do with Islam. You also never seemed to think differently anyway, as you started with your accusation in your very first reply to me. Hence, your theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy on which only you are able to say who is or is not an Islamophobe. But I won’t let myself get called one. Not by you or anyone else.
Followed by some anecdotes of my “Islamophobic life”.
In my first company, 33% of my employees are Muslim. My second company has 42% Muslims. In 2019 I volunteered to help a Syrian Muslim refugee who was in first grade with school and do some outer-school care and support. This got me so close to the family that I have been invited to all birthdays, Eid al-Fitr, to his siblings first day of school and many other events since then. After years of me helping them out with visits to authorities and other bureaucratic BS they called me a member of their family.
3.
In summary, your evidence free insinuations and insults are massively displaced and truly hurtful.
I ask one last time that you please take these insults back and apologize or provide evidence that I am an Islamophobe.
Further, please take back that you called me a racist (you can keep the weirdo, clown, right-winger and other things you threw at me… I don’t really care about those).
|
On August 26 2024 22:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:On August 26 2024 00:48 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:On August 25 2024 09:50 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults. And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to. Did you already forget that I addressed this argument before? Are you all that resistant to learning new information or is this simply cognitive dissonance? Are you deliberately choosing to ignore informations or arguments that the other side is presenting? Because when Hamas is hiding in these areas (will your absurd follow up argument again be that Hamas simply has no other way than to hide in Mosques, schools, hospitals and safe zones, lol? You know I will tell you about abandoned factories, 1 and 2-storey buildings, outskirts of towns, etc.) and firing rockets from there, yes, these areas will be attacked back. I am not taking Israel at its word that Hamas just so happens to be in every group of civilians they blow up when they're committing ethnic cleansing, at best. Wow, you can nearly fit more fallacies into one sentence than Nebuchad does in a paragraph (which really means something). 1. Straw man: Israel only claimed that Hamas is hiding in civilian infrastructures and this is a documented fact - not only by Israel, but also organizations like Amnesty International, UN, HRW and the International Crisis Group have reported this since years. Your oversimplification creates a straw man in order to make this statement easier to attack. 2. The assertion that Israel is "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" is a hasty generalization. Especially given the numbers I ad nauseam posted in this thread. 3. The appeal to emotion using such loaded implicative language is striking too. 4. One could also find a false dichotomy in "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" suggesting that there is only a worse option (genocide), ignoring all other possible explanations like collateral damage in a complex conflict, Hamas making no consistent disctinction between combatans and civilians or simple mistakes. 5. You further assume intent, again disregarding complexities of warfare. 6. By stating "I am not taking Israel at its word" you demonstrate a confirmation bias where you reject the information by Israel without considering evidence as the one I posted multiple times. This approach indicates a pre-determined conclusion, reducing the argument to one based solely on distrust rather than a balanced assessment of facts (which are also provided by other organizations). So why is Hamas hiding in and attacking from safe zones? And from before: Can't they hide in abandoned factories? In the outskirts of town? In 1- or 2-story-buildings? Can't they occupy whole houses or complexes as they have control in the area? 1. Right, documented fact like "The AI said Hamas was there." 2. Yes, it is ethnic cleansing at best, unless you're denying that the settlements exist. 3. What's striking is talking to people in Lebanon that are having trouble sleeping because their village is shaking due to Israel striking places where Hezbollah was 20 years ago. 4 & 5. I'm saying ethnic cleansing at best because that's what it is, as explained above. We have seen advertisements for future settlements in territory that has been leveled during the war. What do you think Gazan access to these settlements will look like? At best to avoid the all too tired "uhm, acktually, it's not genocide..." as the debate of what has to qualify as a genocide suddenly needs to be re-litigated.' 6. I don't take any party directly involved or heavily invested in a conflict at it's word. It would be stupid to. I would love more 3rd party access to the area, but conveniently the UN has been barred from access until recently by Israel, and some parts of it accused of being "Hamas" Hamas is doing it because they're a terror organization in a prison city conflict.
1. The famous AI of Amnesty International, UN, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group, who all have reports on Hamas' presence? Is this truly your answer?
What did the link say about Lavender/AI? Soldier-to-civilian casualty rate of 1:10, when used? 1:20? Simply make a calculation how often it could have been used and how much better the other parts of Israel’s military operates if they still arrive at an overall ratio of 1:1,5. Do you people give a single thought to the things you post before doing so? Because it makes absolutely no sense.
Or the news of Israel attacking "only" safe zones, after it was discovered that ammunition of Hamas was located there, which resulted in a second explosion and proved that they were operating there?
2. Since when is the definition of ethnic cleansing making illegal settlements? One does not have to necessarily remove an indigenous population when settling.
3. So? I guess Hezbollah shouldn’t have attacked Israel, the same way the Hamas was doing on October 7th, as civilians always get caught up in war.
4+5. Were these settlements in the ads approved by the Israeli government?
6. Maybe the fact that Israel didn’t annex both areas after it was attacked and captured them for a couple of decades might persuade you?
So they HAVE to use civilian infrastructure? Is that your argument still? Despite there being other possibilities that wouldn’t lead to such catastrophic outcomes among civilians? Do you deny that this is a strategic decision to give Israel a more difficult time and spark moral outrage from the international community?
The same way Hamas is attacking humanitarian aid convoys, destroying or stealing goods and selling them on the black market at inflated prices as Palestinians themselves said?
|
On August 28 2024 14:35 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 22:24 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2024 20:44 PremoBeats wrote:On August 26 2024 00:48 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 19:13 PremoBeats wrote:On August 25 2024 09:50 Gahlo wrote:On August 25 2024 08:19 aseq wrote:On August 25 2024 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:On August 25 2024 04:17 aseq wrote:
From #6174 (Nebuchad):
"it would be deemed insulting and patronizing to the audience to make it so clear which side you're supposed to be on." -> you're dumb
"I think anyone who truly believes this should be institutionalized" -> you're insane
"arguments based on worldviews that no human subscribes to" -> you're inhuman
"imagine that I'm rightwing and I've never thought in a systemic fashion in my entire life, as is the case of almost every single rightwinger" -> you're retarded
These aren't even arguments, they're just insults. Yet you call out Premo for having an unchangeable opinion and not being open to discussion. Have fun looking down on us from your crazy high moral tower. Maybe the arguments were in the parts that you've voluntarily chosen not to quote? Reading through it again, your only argument is 'Israel is killing civilians'. So are the Palestinians. This happens in every war. They're also avoiding more killings by telling Palestinians to leave areas, which is uncommon in a war.Then there's some background story about the evil leader of the Israeli. And the rest is just stuff like "I just think I'm right". No shit, you think there many people who think they're wrong? And you introduce some theory about a sentiment, which has no foundation in evidence or logic whatsoever (even though I agree with you on Trump vs Bernie). I dislike jews as much as muslims. No preferences there. So your narrative isn't very argumentative and riddled with insults. And then at times bombing the areas they tell people to flee to. Did you already forget that I addressed this argument before? Are you all that resistant to learning new information or is this simply cognitive dissonance? Are you deliberately choosing to ignore informations or arguments that the other side is presenting? Because when Hamas is hiding in these areas (will your absurd follow up argument again be that Hamas simply has no other way than to hide in Mosques, schools, hospitals and safe zones, lol? You know I will tell you about abandoned factories, 1 and 2-storey buildings, outskirts of towns, etc.) and firing rockets from there, yes, these areas will be attacked back. I am not taking Israel at its word that Hamas just so happens to be in every group of civilians they blow up when they're committing ethnic cleansing, at best. Wow, you can nearly fit more fallacies into one sentence than Nebuchad does in a paragraph (which really means something). 1. Straw man: Israel only claimed that Hamas is hiding in civilian infrastructures and this is a documented fact - not only by Israel, but also organizations like Amnesty International, UN, HRW and the International Crisis Group have reported this since years. Your oversimplification creates a straw man in order to make this statement easier to attack. 2. The assertion that Israel is "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" is a hasty generalization. Especially given the numbers I ad nauseam posted in this thread. 3. The appeal to emotion using such loaded implicative language is striking too. 4. One could also find a false dichotomy in "committing ethnic cleansing, at best" suggesting that there is only a worse option (genocide), ignoring all other possible explanations like collateral damage in a complex conflict, Hamas making no consistent disctinction between combatans and civilians or simple mistakes. 5. You further assume intent, again disregarding complexities of warfare. 6. By stating "I am not taking Israel at its word" you demonstrate a confirmation bias where you reject the information by Israel without considering evidence as the one I posted multiple times. This approach indicates a pre-determined conclusion, reducing the argument to one based solely on distrust rather than a balanced assessment of facts (which are also provided by other organizations). So why is Hamas hiding in and attacking from safe zones? And from before: Can't they hide in abandoned factories? In the outskirts of town? In 1- or 2-story-buildings? Can't they occupy whole houses or complexes as they have control in the area? 1. Right, documented fact like "The AI said Hamas was there." 2. Yes, it is ethnic cleansing at best, unless you're denying that the settlements exist. 3. What's striking is talking to people in Lebanon that are having trouble sleeping because their village is shaking due to Israel striking places where Hezbollah was 20 years ago. 4 & 5. I'm saying ethnic cleansing at best because that's what it is, as explained above. We have seen advertisements for future settlements in territory that has been leveled during the war. What do you think Gazan access to these settlements will look like? At best to avoid the all too tired "uhm, acktually, it's not genocide..." as the debate of what has to qualify as a genocide suddenly needs to be re-litigated.' 6. I don't take any party directly involved or heavily invested in a conflict at it's word. It would be stupid to. I would love more 3rd party access to the area, but conveniently the UN has been barred from access until recently by Israel, and some parts of it accused of being "Hamas" Hamas is doing it because they're a terror organization in a prison city conflict. 1. The famous AI of Amnesty International, UN, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group. Is this truly your answer? What did the link say? Soldier-to-civilian casualty of 1:10, when used? 1:20? Simply make a calculation how often it could have been used and how much better the other parts of Israel’s military operates if they still arrive at an overall ratio of 1:1,5. Do you people give a single thought to the things you post before doing so? Because it makes absolutely no sense. Or the news of Israel attacking "only" safe zones, after it was discovered that ammunition of Hamas was located there, which resulted in a second explosion and proved that they were operating there? 2. Since when is the definition of ethnic cleansing making illegal settlements? One does not have to necessarily remove an indigenous population when settling. 3. So? I guess Hezbollah shouldn’t have attacked Israel, the same way the Hamas was doing on October 7th, as civilians always get caught up in war. 4+5. Were these settlements in the ads approved by the Israeli government? 6. Maybe the fact that Israel didn’t annex both areas after it was attacked and captured them for a couple of decades might persuade you? So they HAVE to use civilian infrastructure? Is that your argument still? Despite there being other possibilities that wouldn’t lead to such catastrophic outcomes among civilians? Do you deny that this is a strategic decision to give Israel a more difficult time and spark moral outrage from the international community? The same way Hamas is attacking humanitarian aid convoys, destroying or stealing goods and selling them on the black market at inflated prices as Palestinians themselves said?
1. It's 20:1, and 1.5:1 is absolute horseshit and you know it.
2. Doesn't matter, because they are. The UN estimates that 90% of Gazans have been displaced.
3. Then should I not care that Hamas commited 10/7 because Gaza has been oppressed by Isreal? For the intelligence powerhouse they're supposed to be in the region, maybe they should be hitting buildings that their targets had been using this century. Oh wait, I wonder if this is applicable to other theaters.
4+5. How Israel has acted with settlements that haven't been officially sanctioned proves that this is irrrelevant
6. What are you even talking about?
It's a mix of both, and Isreal's been known to wait until a supposed Hamas member goes home before blowing them up shows that they don't really care. But sure, let's play "they made me kill those civilians" again.
So Israel fucking around with aid is fine because Hamas is doing it? Good to know you think Israel is acting like a terror organization, I'm glad we can agree on something. As an occupying force it is Isreal's duty to provide aid for those it's occupying. Maybe there wouldn't be such a high demand for "black market goods" such as a carton of egg costing $73.80 in North Gaza if Israel wasn't deliberately starving them, or the shrinking "humanitarian zone" that is acutely lacking resources that totally isn't a concentration camp.
|
|
|
Can someone tell me what might be the reason that Israel was able to make peace with multiple Arab countries but cannot with Palestinians?
I am not super informed about the situation. As I understand the source of their conflict was same or very similar. And Israel was willing to give up captured territories and remove their settlements.
Is there some special value to Gaza or West Bank?
|
I don't get it.
If they're looking for terrorists in the West Bank why raid Palestinians and not Israelis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
