Israel v Hamas

[eaglesdare]

There’s a documentary called Naza, go watch and report your findings.

Do you have a link? Im happy to watch it if you also watch "October 7th, bearing witness to the massacre" perhaps we can both watch them and report back?

October 7: Bearing Witness to the Massacre - Apple TV

A gripping feature documentary that traces the history of radical Islam in Gaza and unveils the horrors of October 7, 2023—told through the harrowing …

tv.apple.com

 

[HKOwen]

NAZA relies entirely on anonymous whistleblowers.

The content can be neither proved or disproved.

It is a view.

Remember the BBC commissioned documentary featuring the son of a Hamas official.

I am saying it should not be taken as gospel so to speak and relied upon as evidential

 

[Mark B]

NAZA relies entirely on anonymous whistleblowers.

The content can be neither proved or disproved.

It is a view.

Remember the BBC commissioned documentary featuring the son of a Hamas official.

I am saying it should not be taken as gospel so to speak and relied upon as evidential

NAZA will be streaming on The Guardian in November. I wouldn't be surprised to see it on other platforms sometime next year.

The issue that I have is the same as guys like John Spencer have, while there is likely a lot valid facts that will be shared, there is also going to be a lot of hyperbole and excessive statements that don't pass the smell test that allows the IDF to disregard everything inside of the documentary.

The two biggest are likely the to deal with the targeting process utilizing only AI and excessive collateral damage estimates. Israel does use AI but they keep human beings in the loop as the decision makers and to ensure that the data is correct before the decision to fire is given. The only time you currently see completely autonomous AI is when it comes to missile defense and even that has parameters to prevent the shooting down on airliners and other possible mistakes. The other issue is that use of "500 deaths" from collateral damage. This is like saying that Palace will have a bigger payroll than then the Big 6 next year. While people who aren't familiar will just say wow and be impressed, anyway with a basic understanding can quickly smell the BS that the math just doesn't work. To frame this, the US killed 92 when it dropped a MOAB and the MOAB is roughly 20 times more powerful than the 2,000 lbs'er that Israel drops. If they had gone with a potential 100 dead, it could be believable, 500 just doesn't work.

I will also say that the IDF will eventually find out who most of their members are who talked to the documentary team. Whether Bibi is still in office will determine whether they ware viewed as criminals or heroes when their names come out.

 

[Spindle]

Baffles me you spend your time defending Israel at this point in time. Crack on though, whatever makes you happy

Would you be happier if the IDF lost just as many?

 

[Rossboss2908]

Would you be happier if the IDF lost just as many?

What is your question out of curiosity? Would I be happy if the IDF lost as many as the civilians they have killed? Or the 500 civilians specially cited in Naza?

Be good if the senseless violence stopped- and when does it currently stop? When all the Palestinians have been forcibly moved and ethnically cleansed from their land?

 

[Spindle]

What is your question out of curiosity? Would I be happy if the IDF lost as many as the civilians they have killed? Or the 500 civilians specially cited in Naza?

Be good if the senseless violence stopped- and when does it currently stop? When all the Palestinians have been forcibly moved and ethnically cleansed from their land?

Or
when does it stop? When all the Jews have been forcibly moved and ethnically cleansed from their land?

It's "their" land to you. This is your problem, and it's people like you who will see that more deaths happen.

I expect that you are new to all of this, and you are just on the early big peak of the Dunning-Kruger scale.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That's absolutely fine and it's your perogative. I feel the same way about the BBC and other pro Hamas institutions about their reports.

As long as you continue to believe that everyone not mindlessly regurgitating Israeli propaganda is 'pro-Hamas', you will continue to believe utter nonsense.

Holding up the IDF and the BBC as if they are equivalents on opposite sides of the argument is just mind-numbingly dumb.

 

[silvertop]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/26/bbc-reports-53-journalists-died-hamas-claims-martyrs/

Oh Lordy, is that your evidence?

 

[silvertop]

Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are both known to utilize children for various tasks.

You can tell how much a society values its children when it thinks that getting them killed is acceptable since it will provide bad public relations.

From child soldiers in Africa, to suicide "martyrs" in Middle East conflicts and to the routine rape of girls, children are always used very badly when everything breaks down.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

NAZA will be streaming on The Guardian in November. I wouldn't be surprised to see it on other platforms sometime next year.

The issue that I have is the same as guys like John Spencer have, while there is likely a lot valid facts that will be shared, there is also going to be a lot of hyperbole and excessive statements that don't pass the smell test that allows the IDF to disregard everything inside of the documentary.

The two biggest are likely the to deal with the targeting process utilizing only AI and excessive collateral damage estimates. Israel does use AI but they keep human beings in the loop as the decision makers and to ensure that the data is correct before the decision to fire is given. The only time you currently see completely autonomous AI is when it comes to missile defense and even that has parameters to prevent the shooting down on airliners and other possible mistakes. The other issue is that use of "500 deaths" from collateral damage. This is like saying that Palace will have a bigger payroll than then the Big 6 next year. While people who aren't familiar will just say wow and be impressed, anyway with a basic understanding can quickly smell the BS that the math just doesn't work. To frame this, the US killed 92 when it dropped a MOAB and the MOAB is roughly 20 times more powerful than the 2,000 lbs'er that Israel drops. If they had gone with a potential 100 dead, it could be believable, 500 just doesn't work.

I will also say that the IDF will eventually find out who most of their members are who talked to the documentary team. Whether Bibi is still in office will determine whether they ware viewed as criminals or heroes when their names come out.

The IDF will disregard it whatever the content. Sensible people would not take the same approach.

Already you see posters above pre-empting it - ready to dismiss the evidence before they've even seen it.

 

[eaglesdare]

Oh Lordy, is that your evidence?

Just one example of their bias. Feel free to look into it and come back with counter points.

 

[silvertop]

As long as you continue to believe that everyone not mindlessly regurgitating Israeli propaganda is 'pro-Hamas', you will continue to believe utter nonsense.

Holding up the IDF and the BBC as if they are equivalents on opposite sides of the argument is just mind-numbingly dumb.

Unfortunately, this site is polluted by binary thinking like that.

If you do not 100% agree with Israel you are 100% a Jew hating supporter of Hamas.

It is simply not within their bandwidth to comprehend a hatred of mindless violence by either side.

 

[silvertop]

Just one example of their bias. Feel free to look into it and come back with counter points.

It's absolute nonsense. I am not giving it the time of day.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

" A Centre for Media Monitoring analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC coverage found that Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, emotive language was used around four times more frequently for Israeli victims, and "murder" was used 220 times for Israeli victims compared with once for Palestinians. A separate academic analysis of a BBC report on the al-Shifa raid found that 3 minutes 17 seconds of a 6-minute report was devoted to Israeli officials, compared with only seven seconds to the Palestinian perspective. There are also repeated examples of passive formulations for Palestinian deaths, such as "air strike on Gaza school kills..." rather than explicitly identifying Israel as the actor. None of this proves deliberate pro-Israel intent, and there are certainly examples of BBC coverage that could be criticised as anti-Israel. But if we're discussing evidence rather than simply asserting that the BBC is biased, there is a substantial case that aspects of its coverage have systematically given greater prominence, humanisation and narrative authority to Israeli perspectives."

 

[silvertop]

" A Centre for Media Monitoring analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC coverage found that Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, emotive language was used around four times more frequently for Israeli victims, and "murder" was used 220 times for Israeli victims compared with once for Palestinians. A separate academic analysis of a BBC report on the al-Shifa raid found that 3 minutes 17 seconds of a 6-minute report was devoted to Israeli officials, compared with only seven seconds to the Palestinian perspective. There are also repeated examples of passive formulations for Palestinian deaths, such as "air strike on Gaza school kills..." rather than explicitly identifying Israel as the actor. None of this proves deliberate pro-Israel intent, and there are certainly examples of BBC coverage that could be criticised as anti-Israel. But if we're discussing evidence rather than simply asserting that the BBC is biased, there is a substantial case that aspects of its coverage have systematically given greater prominence, humanisation and narrative authority to Israeli perspectives."

The problem is that this report was not based on scientific fact. It was produced by a radical, antisemitic, cat-hating terror group intent on installing a cat-free, Marxist-Leninist Islamic State in Britain by bloody revolution.

Fact.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The problem is that this report was not based on scientific fact. It was produced by a radical, antisemitic, cat-hating terror group intent on installing a cat-free, Marxist-Leninist Islamic State in Britain by bloody revolution.

Fact.

And one of them had a cousin who visited a mosque on holiday in Istanbul - we'll have to disregard the whole thing.

 

[Mark B]

From child soldiers in Africa, to suicide "martyrs" in Middle East conflicts and to the routine rape of girls, children are always used very badly when everything breaks down.

Yup, there have been a couple of hundred different studies on this, looking primarily at child soldiers and gang members. The three core causes that they come up with are survival (lack of resources for themselves/families), belonging (fills the void left by fractured families/communities and gives a sense of identity) and coercion (manipulated into joining).

None of this is exactly new though, units like the Janissaries have existed throughout history because young physically fit males tend to be the ideal group if you want to efficiently cause problems for others.

 

[cryrst]

Unfortunately, this site is polluted by binary thinking like that.

If you do not 100% agree with Israel you are 100% a Jew hating supporter of Hamas.

It is simply not within their bandwidth to comprehend a hatred of mindless violence by either side.

What if you 100% don’t condemn the IDF or believe it’s a genocide ?

 

[Mark B]

The IDF will disregard it whatever the content. Sensible people would not take the same approach.

Already you see posters above pre-empting it - ready to dismiss the evidence before they've even seen it.

LOL, there are very few sensible people who are going to look at this documentary objectively as most have already picked a side and are simply validating what they already believe or disregarding the parts that go against what they currently believe.

Stephen Covey summed this up in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, "Most people do not listen to understand, they listen with the intent to reply."

 

[CPFCSaturn]

LOL, there are very few sensible people who are going to look at this documentary objectively as most have already picked a side and are simply validating what they already believe or disregarding the parts that go against what they currently believe.

Stephen Covey summed this up in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, "Most people do not listen to understand, they listen with the intent to reply."

Of course true objectivity is a fantasy, but there is still a scale within that.

I also don't understand your initial point around 'passing the smell test' in context with the above - if the pro-Israel audience will disregard everything anyway, why should the documentary makers water down their message to try and appease them..?