Israel v Hamas

eaglesdare said:
If it's wrong or incorrect feel free show the evidence. Happy to be proven wrong if that's the case that's why I asked the question.
Click to expand...
The releasing of their information is a starting point for journalists to start their own investigation the journalists.

My initial guess is that it will align like previous Israeli claims:
- 10% verified false
- 80% unverifiable
- 10% who were caught on camera being terrorists

You can also expect a significant amount of stories about the 80% from Western journalists who once at a Holiday Inn Express with them declaring how there is no chance that their buddy Akmed was involved with Hamas despite all of his brothers, his father and every cousin being confirmed Hamas members.
 
Mark B said:
The releasing of their information is a starting point for journalists to start their own investigation the journalists.

My initial guess is that it will align like previous Israeli claims:
- 10% verified false
- 80% unverifiable
- 10% who were caught on camera being terrorists

You can also expect a significant amount of stories about the 80% from Western journalists who once at a Holiday Inn Express with them declaring how there is no chance that their buddy Akmed was involved with Hamas despite all of his brothers, his father and every cousin being confirmed Hamas members.
Click to expand...

Yes I think you are probably correct. And hopefully it will give a kick to real journalists to actually do their job and look into it.

But if the findings from the IDF are correct it brings into question a lot of the past reporting that has been published.

I am also open minded about it to someone disproving the claims. We shall see.
 
eaglesdare said:
Yes I think you are probably correct. And hopefully it will give a kick to real journalists to actually do their job and look into it.

But if the findings from the IDF are correct it brings into question a lot of the past reporting that has been published.

I am also open minded about it to someone disproving the claims. We shall see.
Click to expand...
It will also come quicker then it has in the past. The utility of AI when it comes to research makes it relatively easy to do a deep dive on them.

What has been shared so far: 118 were active in Hamas, 49 in PIJ, and others in smaller factions, with 17 allegedly involved in the October 7 attacks.

Just doing my own research on the topic before this came out, a significant number of the media members were killed by airstrikes. The strange part about that to me is that airstrikes are very deliberate and are not cheap, so they knew who they were going after and that it was worth $30,000 to kill them. fair number of them are also Al-Quds network who the Israelis designated as a terrorist organization back in 2018.
 
Last edited:
Why is there so much debate around the use of the word genocide?

It's simple , the jew hating pro Hamas side of the argument believe it gives them some kind of moral validation of their position.

It's the same idea that calling anyone concerned about migration a right wing nazi fascist makes them lesser in any debate.

Never going to change
 
HKOwen said:
Why is there so much debate around the use of the word genocide?

It's simple , the jew hating pro Hamas side of the argument believe it gives them some kind of moral validation of their position.

It's the same idea that calling anyone concerned about migration a right wing nazi fascist makes them lesser in any debate.

Never going to change
Click to expand...
The issue with the debate around the word genocide is that there are multiple different definitions that exist for the word that vary greatly.

The most common legal definition of genocide comes from Article II of the UN 1948 Convention on Genocide.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. (a) Killing members of the group;
  2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If this is the definition that you judge Genocide by, then basically every armed conflict would meet at least one of these. While terrorist groups had existed for thousands of years, they were usually nation internal problems so organizations like Hamas were not really considered when they put it together.
 
Mark B said:
The issue with the debate around the word genocide is that there are multiple different definitions that exist for the word that vary greatly.

The most common legal definition of genocide comes from Article II of the UN 1948 Convention on Genocide.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. (a) Killing members of the group;
  2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If this is the definition that you judge Genocide by, then basically every armed conflict would meet at least one of these. While terrorist groups had existed for thousands of years, they were usually nation internal problems so organizations like Hamas were not really considered when they put it together.
Click to expand...
Hamas has met some of these these definitions, in fact, 3 ( c ) is enshrined in their political aims
 
HKOwen said:
Hamas has met some of these these definitions, in fact, 3 ( c ) is enshrined in their political aims
Click to expand...
Hamas is straight up evil with no redeeming quality at all. At the Nazis expanded out awesome roads and Mussolini made the trains run on time. That Hamas would slaughter the majority of its white Western supporters if they had the chance always makes me giggle as I see things like Gays for Gaza.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Again, that you think it's for you or I to determine it a genocide or not is just so delusional and dumb.

I have cited dozens and dozens of times the volume of experts and bodies who have reached the same conclusion.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) are the ones who rule on State responsibility for Genocide and they have made no such current ruling against Israel.
 
HKOwen said:
Exactly, but the world should consider CPFC Saturn as a more authoritative voice, look at his list of " experts "
Click to expand...
Come on, be nice. CPFC Saturn's perspective seems to be a common perspective for many people in the West as well as the Middle East, so him presenting that perspective is useful for having an interesting informed dialogue in the forum.

This issue has lots of very bad people involved on both sides and there really isn't a solution for solving the problem as it has literally been going on since before Christ lived.
 
Mark B said:
Come on, be nice. CPFC Saturn's perspective seems to be a common perspective for many people in the West as well as the Middle East, so him presenting that perspective is useful for having an interesting informed dialogue in the forum.

This issue has lots of very bad people involved on both sides and there really isn't a solution for solving the problem as it has literally been going on since before Christ lived.
Click to expand...
The solution for some on here is to eradicate Israel, that is the problem.

His " perspective " is that he is right and anyone who questions or disagrees is a genocide supporter.

That is not informed dialogue, that is an ideological narrative

It's not a case of being " nice ", it's a case of filtering real from false.

Anyone who thinks Hamas deserves some kind of military force to fight Israel is pro Hamas , a banned terrorist organisation.

There are some on here who see some kind of tinted glasses view of the war, plucky brave Gazans bravely facing overwhelming odds etc etc

Anyone who thinks this is supporting the erasure of Israel and the Jews who live there.

This is not a grey concept.

Others will hold other views
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately Saturn won't be able to make it to Macklemore's Hamas Weapons Fund w*** off because the tour has sold out.

I heard that Steeley has tickets in the Stalls
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top