Israel - A Rant

[sh#t waffle]

2 hours ago, Nelly-Matip said:

They could’ve done a better job than this..

 

[Bruce Spanner]

16 minutes ago, No2 said:

 

Never come across this guy before, I'll be searching him out.

Through sheer coincidence a friend of a friend organised a talk by him that I’m now going to on Monday.

 

Ill report back.

[clangers]

2 hours ago, Nelly-Matip said:

They could’ve done a better job than this..

True, no mention of the recent offside fiasco either.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just watched that full Piers Morgan interview. 
 

Bassem is a dude. But, it was sad to see him trying to be funny while you could see the sadness and helplessness in his eyes. 
 

They had Ben Shapiro’s boss on at the end and he made a point that you can question what a proportionate response is but there should be no moral equivalency between the Hamas killings and the killing of Palestinian civilians in any Israeli response. 
 

I don’t necessarily agree with that. The savagery of what Hamas did is off the scale. But, that’s not the issue. Morality is. The intentional killing of innocents by Hamas is bereft of any morals. There’s been outrage on here about comparing people to animals. But, that’s what Hamas acted like. Animalistic savagery. 
 

But….

 

I’m getting sick of hearing innocent Palestinians essentially being dehumanised and the sheer indifference to their deaths when they’re bundled into terms that we find easier to accept. Terms like “collateral damage.” 
 

Im getting sick of hearing claims that the death of innocent Palestinian civilians is tragic but an acceptable consequence of Israel’s response. And, I’m getting sick of hearing that these deaths are accidental and not intentional. It’s simply untrue. 
 

If you do something intentionally for the first time and it results in an unwanted secondary effect, that secondary effect is accidental. If you repeat this for a second time, trying to be more careful, but it results in an unwanted secondary effect, you can argue that that secondary effect is accidental too. 
 

But, if you’ve done something over a hundred or so times, for example, and it always produces that unwanted secondary effect, then you surely should know by that point that that secondary effect is virtually certain to happen. And if you keep on keeping on and constantly do something, not taking any careful steps to mitigate the chance of that unwanted secondary effect from happening, you’ve surely got to a stage where it can be shown that causing that secondary effect is intentional too? 
 

This applies to Israel’s bombing of buildings in which innocent civilians die. Israel have done this enough times to know that innocent people will die. There’s anecdotal evidence that they’ve abandoned their knock on the door warning tactic. So, it’s clear that Israel intend to kill innocent civilians too. Making any claims of their bring moral equivalency between the IDF response and the initial Hamas attack entirely legitimate. 

[Captain Turdseye]

45 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

On a completely unrelated note, that's an almost Joycean sentence. 

 

40 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

I make it 85 words. Strong contender for longest single sentence ever written on the GF

Not a chance. Dennis Tooth would double that regularly. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

14 minutes ago, clangers said:

True, no mention of the recent offside fiasco either.

I was thinking that last night when everyone was shouting RELEASE THE AUDIO! 

[Captain Willard]

2 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Just watched that full Piers Morgan interview. 
 

Bassem is a dude. But, it was sad to see him trying to be funny while you could see the sadness and helplessness in his eyes. 
 

They had Ben Shapiro’s boss on at the end and he made a point that you can question what a proportionate response is but there should be no moral equivalency between the Hamas killings and the killing of Palestinian civilians in any Israeli response. 
 

I don’t necessarily agree with that. The savagery of what Hamas did is off the scale. But, that’s not the issue. Morality is. The intentional killing of innocents by Hamas is bereft of any morals. There’s been outrage on here about comparing people to animals. But, that’s what Hamas acted like. Animalistic savagery. 
 

But….

 

I’m getting sick of hearing innocent Palestinians essentially being dehumanised and the sheer indifference to their deaths when they’re bundled into terms that we find easier to accept. Terms like “collateral damage.” 
 

Im getting sick of hearing claims that the death of innocent Palestinian civilians is tragic but an acceptable consequence of Israel’s response. And, I’m getting sick of hearing that these deaths are accidental and not intentional. It’s simply untrue. 
 

If you do something intentionally for the first time and it results in an unwanted secondary effect, that secondary effect is accidental. If you repeat this for a second time, trying to be more careful, but it results in an unwanted secondary effect, you can argue that that secondary effect is accidental too. 
 

But, if you’ve done something over a hundred or so times, for example, and it always produces that unwanted secondary effect, then you surely should know by that point that that secondary effect is virtually certain to happen. And if you keep on keeping on and constantly do something, not taking any careful steps to mitigate the chance of that unwanted secondary effect from happening, you’ve surely got to a stage where it can be shown that causing that secondary effect is intentional too? 
 

This applies to Israel’s bombing of buildings in which innocent civilians die. Israel have done this enough times to know that innocent people will die. There’s anecdotal evidence that they’ve abandoned their knock on the door warning tactic. So, it’s clear that Israel intend to kill innocent civilians too. Making any claims of their bring moral equivalency between the IDF response and the initial Hamas attack entirely legitimate. 

If you follow your logic, the allied bombing of German cities was on morally on a par with the Holocaust. Do you believe that ? 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

4 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

If you follow your logic, the allied bombing of German cities was on morally on a par with the Holocaust. Do you believe that ? 

Any intentional killing of an innocent person is of equal moral equivalency even if the scale differs. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

8 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

I was thinking that last night when everyone was shouting RELEASE THE AUDIO! 

 

[No2]

7 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Just watched that full Piers Morgan interview. 
 

Bassem is a dude. But, it was sad to see him trying to be funny while you could see the sadness and helplessness in his eyes. 
 

They had Ben Shapiro’s boss on at the end and he made a point that you can question what a proportionate response is but there should be no moral equivalency between the Hamas killings and the killing of Palestinian civilians in any Israeli response. 
 

I don’t necessarily agree with that. The savagery of what Hamas did is off the scale. But, that’s not the issue. Morality is. The intentional killing of innocents by Hamas is bereft of any morals. There’s been outrage on here about comparing people to animals. But, that’s what Hamas acted like. Animalistic savagery. 
 

But….

 

I’m getting sick of hearing innocent Palestinians essentially being dehumanised and the sheer indifference to their deaths when they’re bundled into terms that we find easier to accept. Terms like “collateral damage.” 
 

Im getting sick of hearing claims that the death of innocent Palestinian civilians is tragic but an acceptable consequence of Israel’s response. And, I’m getting sick of hearing that these deaths are accidental and not intentional. It’s simply untrue. 
 

If you do something intentionally for the first time and it results in an unwanted secondary effect, that secondary effect is accidental. If you repeat this for a second time, trying to be more careful, but it results in an unwanted secondary effect, you can argue that that secondary effect is accidental too. 
 

But, if you’ve done something over a hundred or so times, for example, and it always produces that unwanted secondary effect, then you surely should know by that point that that secondary effect is virtually certain to happen. And if you keep on keeping on and constantly do something, not taking any careful steps to mitigate the chance of that unwanted secondary effect from happening, you’ve surely got to a stage where it can be shown that causing that secondary effect is intentional too? 
 

This applies to Israel’s bombing of buildings in which innocent civilians die. Israel have done this enough times to know that innocent people will die. There’s anecdotal evidence that they’ve abandoned their knock on the door warning tactic. So, it’s clear that Israel intend to kill innocent civilians too. Making any claims of their bring moral equivalency between the IDF response and the initial Hamas attack entirely legitimate. 

I think you're making the mistake of thinking Israel cares if it's kills civilians. They only care when it creates a particularly bad headline for them and they need to invent a story, be it for a hospital or a journalist. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 minute ago, No2 said:

I think you're making the mistake of thinking Israel cares if it's kills civilians. They only care when it creates a particularly bad headline for them and they need to invent a story, be it for a hospital or a journalist. 

Nope. I think I’m making the opposite point. That Israel has full knowledge that their bombings will kill vast amounts of innocent civilians and they just plough on with them anyway. 

[Section_31]

[No2]

2 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Nope. I think I’m making the opposite point. That Israel has full knowledge that their bombings will kill vast amounts of innocent civilians and they just plough on with them anyway. 

That's what I'm saying, they plough on because they don't care, 100 babies is fine if there was 1 terrorist near by, even if there wasn't a terrorist that's OK because one of those babies could grow up to be one. 

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain Willard]

6 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Any intentional killing of an innocent person is of equal moral equivalency even if the scale differs. 

I think that’s a yes then. It is estimated that 500,000 German civilians died as a result of allied bombing campaigns. The allies knew this would happen becuase they were bombing densely populated cities but carried on regardless for years. Do you think they should have stopped and what should they have done instead ? 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 minute ago, Captain Willard said:

I think that’s a yes then. It is estimated that 500,000 German civilians died as a result of allied bombing campaigns. The allies knew this would happen becuase they were bombing densely populated cities but carried on regardless for years. Do you think they should have stopped and what should they have done instead ? 

I’m not a military strategist. 
 

I’m a humanitarian. Who sees any intentional killing of innocent people as being wrong. Morals are a question of right or wrong. Scale, savagery and barbarity are separate issues. 

[Arniepie]

3 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

I think that’s a yes then. It is estimated that 500,000 German civilians died as a result of allied bombing campaigns. The allies knew this would happen becuase they were bombing densely populated cities but carried on regardless for years. Do you think they should have stopped and what should they have done instead ? 

didnt the bombing of german cities only begin near the end of the war?

[TD_LFC]

The Holocaust had a singular aim of processing and then eradicating Jews that required the creation and running of an entire infrastructure set up for that sole purpose.

 

That's what makes something like the Holocaust different. 

 

 

[Edit] Not to mention that while a horrible practice that should never have been allowed when compared to current attitudes the bombing of civilians irrespective of military objectives, was added to the Geneva convention, partly as a result of but, many years later.

[Bjornebye]

This fucking thread 

 

What Israel are doing is genocidal. There’s your Holocaust comparison. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Let’s not get sidetracked by the holocaust. 
 

This thread is about the modern day genocide that’s taking place in Gaza. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/

[Arniepie]

31 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Just watched that full Piers Morgan interview. 
 

Bassem is a dude. But, it was sad to see him trying to be funny while you could see the sadness and helplessness in his eyes. 
 

They had Ben Shapiro’s boss on at the end and he made a point that you can question what a proportionate response is but there should be no moral equivalency between the Hamas killings and the killing of Palestinian civilians in any Israeli response. 
 

I don’t necessarily agree with that. The savagery of what Hamas did is off the scale. But, that’s not the issue. Morality is. The intentional killing of innocents by Hamas is bereft of any morals. There’s been outrage on here about comparing people to animals. But, that’s what Hamas acted like. Animalistic savagery. 
 

But….

 

I’m getting sick of hearing innocent Palestinians essentially being dehumanised and the sheer indifference to their deaths when they’re bundled into terms that we find easier to accept. Terms like “collateral damage.” 
 

Im getting sick of hearing claims that the death of innocent Palestinian civilians is tragic but an acceptable consequence of Israel’s response. And, I’m getting sick of hearing that these deaths are accidental and not intentional. It’s simply untrue. 
 

If you do something intentionally for the first time and it results in an unwanted secondary effect, that secondary effect is accidental. If you repeat this for a second time, trying to be more careful, but it results in an unwanted secondary effect, you can argue that that secondary effect is accidental too. 
 

But, if you’ve done something over a hundred or so times, for example, and it always produces that unwanted secondary effect, then you surely should know by that point that that secondary effect is virtually certain to happen. And if you keep on keeping on and constantly do something, not taking any careful steps to mitigate the chance of that unwanted secondary effect from happening, you’ve surely got to a stage where it can be shown that causing that secondary effect is intentional too? 
 

This applies to Israel’s bombing of buildings in which innocent civilians die. Israel have done this enough times to know that innocent people will die. There’s anecdotal evidence that they’ve abandoned their knock on the door warning tactic. So, it’s clear that Israel intend to kill innocent civilians too. Making any claims of their bring moral equivalency between the IDF response and the initial Hamas attack entirely legitimate. 

what I can’t get my head around, is this tendency to look at last Saturdays events in isolation. This has been going on for years and the Palestinian loss of life is massively higher than that of Israel.

That’s not to excuse the barbaric actions of hamas but surely that context is important.

[Creator Supreme]

For days I've had a headache that just won't shift, and I think it's because I'm thinking of this shit amongst other things.

 

We're a barbaric species, and everything that's gone on in the last few weeks is just adds fuel to this idea.

 

Stop killing people you cunts!

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just now, Arniepie said:

what I can’t get my head around, is this tendency to look at last Saturdays events in isolation. This has been going on for years and the Palestinian loss of life is massively higher than that of Israel.

That’s not to excuse the barbaric actions of hamas but surely they context is important.

I think it’s because “Palestinians Don’t Matter.”

[TD_LFC]

3 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

what I can’t get my head around, is this tendency to look at last Saturdays events in isolation. This has been going on for years and the Palestinian loss of life is massively higher than that of Israel.

That’s not to excuse the barbaric actions of hamas but surely they context is important.

 

Because then you can treat it as a terrorist attack and not a horrific escalation of innocent death that has been massively one sided, and largely ignored, until now.