Israel v Hamas

[eaglesdare]

Yet another straw man 👍🏻

Not really. You were the one that said "Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent."

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Not really. You were the one that said "Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent."

That’s correct.

So what point are you making?

 

[eaglesdare]

That’s correct.

So what point are you making?

That Israels actions are aimed to defend against terrorism. And that civilian casualties is not evidence of genocide. 👍🏻

 

[cryrst]

The key word is intent, which is why it can be difficult to prove.

As mentioned above, Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples of wars where despite a lot of casualties, there were no real allegations of genocide.

Squaddies sent down for killing the enemy though. How weird.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That Israels actions are aimed to defend against terrorism. And that civilian casualties is not evidence of genocide. 👍🏻

You’re misunderstanding - civilian casualties can absolutely be evidence of genocide, but alone they do not prove a genocide.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Squaddies sent down for killing the enemy though. How weird.

Yes, as I said war crimes and atrocities can and do take place outside of genocides.

The whole point here, which your post strengthens, is that credible accusations of genocide are not made lightly.

 

[eaglesdare]

You’re misunderstanding - civilian casualties can absolutely be evidence of genocide, but alone they do not prove a genocide.

You already said they can't 🤷🏻‍♂️ which is it?

Israel actions are in defence against terrorism. Very sad that civilians are dieing but it does not count as genocide.

The only genocidal actions and threats are those that come from Hamas.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I'm primarily irritated because a military is killing thousands of women and children - I don't know why that is so difficult to understand. I don't understand why you spend so much time telling me what I must really think - I have not been shy in sharing my views here. The constant straw mans and made up claims are so boring.

You are claiming I can't see things that I can - I agree Hamas has no moral high ground over anyone and they couldn't give a s*** about Palestinians. Completely agree.
Does that therefore give the IDF free reign to slaughter civilians? No, obviously not - that's illogical.

You acknowledge that you're not sure Israel will ever achieve what they claim is their objective, yet you continue to support them regardless, irrespective of how many civilians they kill - I find that another wholly illogical position.

For the XXth time, I don't support Hamas and never have - to equate condemnation of Israel's genocide with support of Hamas is just plain stupid.

You give you your unconditional support to a foreign government because they're a western ally - I don't agree with that, but I understand it as your position.

I don't agree with that unconditional support - I don't know why that's so hard for you to grasp.

Women and children always die in wars.

Would you have protested about the firebombing of Germany? What about Nagasaki or Hiroshima?

War is disgusting, but it normally continues until one side surrenders.

When Hamas surrenders, it will end.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Slight difference is that one has been elected and is in Government.

Hamas does not control Palestine?

 

[Spindle]

Why don't the peoples who have seen their entire livelihood destroyed, families killed, who can't access basic food and water, never mind medical care, and who are displaced and living in makeshift camps, go and overthrow the armed terrorists..?

Do these things actually make sense in your head before you post them?

Because there are only some? Can't think why they wouldn't be able to do that. Surely it's not riskier than the obvious definite certain death by genocide by bombing, shooting, starvation or thirst, which are the primary causes.

 

[Spindle]

My claim? Or Groks?

No, the claim by Saturn that you easily refuted.

 

[Spindle]

The key word is intent, which is why it can be difficult to prove.

As mentioned above, Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples of wars where despite a lot of casualties, there were no real allegations of genocide.

That's because it wasn't Jews doing it. The killing was pretty similar though, very one sided, lot's of civilians killed.

 

[Spindle]

The Religious Zionist Party, Likud's coalition partner have some interesting policies that predate the October 7th atrocities.

Policies like this one?

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

 

[Spindle]

Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent.

The US can certainly be accused for committing war crimes in Iraq, but there is not much evidence to suggest their intent was to destroy a protected group.

What group are the IDF trying destroy aside Hamas then?

Palestine is not a nation, Palestinians are not an ethnic group nor do they follow a unique religion. So they are not a protected group, not least of all because their own elected government, Hamas, don't protect them either.

 

[Penge Eagle]

What group are the IDF trying destroy aside Hamas then?

Palestine is not a nation, Palestinians are not an ethnic group nor do they follow a unique religion. So they are not a protected group, not least of all because their own elected government, Hamas, don't protect them either.

He said exactly what he meant, oppressed group because that's how Marxists view geopolitics - oppressed v oppressor - in their dumb ideology. Muslims are in the "protected group".

 

[HKOwen]

Yes, as I said war crimes and atrocities can and do take place outside of genocides.

The whole point here, which your post strengthens, is that credible accusations of genocide are not made lightly.

Hamas hammy is fixated on the word genocide as he thinks it gives his pro Hamas position some kind of moral high ground if he keeps saying it.

You can't argue with a fixed position so why bother.

 

[HKOwen]

The intransigence of the pro Hamas posters on here reminds me of the time when it was virtuous to chant Black Lives Matter but evil and racist to say All Lives Matter.

 

[chris123]

Hamas does not control Palestine?

Not elected recently as in Israel

 

[chris123]

Policies like this one?

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Both horrendous

 

[HKOwen]

Not elected recently as in Israel

Are you seriously suggesting that Hamas do not control Gaza because there has not been any election sine the last one which Hamas won on a destroy Israel ticket

If you are happy to state that Hamas need to be eradicated ( without qualification ) then I can give some time to what you post.

The problem here is that jew haters will not accept that if Israel is not attacked from Gaza then it has no need to expend massive resources on a military defence.