Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
i fly airplanes
Sep 6, 2010


I STOLE A PIE FROM ESTELLE GETTY

Ringo Roadagain posted:

before hamas took over the gaza strip, there were israeli settlements in the gaza strip. the plan has always been to drive the palestinians out of the west bank and gaza strip, not just the west bank and leave the gaza strip alone.

The Gaza Strip was formed from the Oslo Peace Accords which gave up Israeli control and put it under Palestinian Authority. The Israelis were removed as part of the Accords: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

Hamas did not "take over" anything.

Can you reference what "the plan has always been" and by whom to drive Palestinians from the Gaza Strip?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

i fly airplanes posted:

Can you explain a bit by what you mean by blood libel?

I do believe that successive Israeli governments and the settlers/far right in Israel is engaging in the long-term displacement/forced relocation of Palestinians in the West Bank, but it's my understanding up until this war, they had very little interest in occupying the Gaza Strip.

The lack of good faith is how some reasoned that Israel deserved the terrorist attack.

Are you unfamiliar with the term? Because it seems like you shouldn't be if you're posting in an I/P thread. If you're aware of it, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'd invoke it here - nothing else really conveys "lurid but unsubstantiated claims of child murder that are ethnically/religiously motivated, often as prelude to pogroms and/or other forms of ethnic cleansing." It is of course historically specifically antisemitic, but parallels don't get much clearer than leaders citing 40 mythical beheaded babies as a prelude to mass violence.

Also, not knowing what "good faith" actually means is another pretty good reason for people not to put much stock in your interpretation of that term. ;)

Ringo Roadagain
Mar 27, 2010

i fly airplanes posted:

The Gaza Strip was formed from the Oslo Peace Accords which gave up Israeli control and put it under Palestinian Authority. The Israelis were removed as part of the Accords: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

Hamas did not "take over" anything.

Can you reference what "the plan has always been" and by whom to drive Palestinians from the Gaza Strip?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)

quote:

The Battle of Gaza, also referred to as Hamas's takeover of Gaza

my reference is that israel was settling gaza until 2005

i fly airplanes
Sep 6, 2010


I STOLE A PIE FROM ESTELLE GETTY

Ringo Roadagain posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)

my reference is that israel was settling gaza until 2005

My point is that the Israeli settlements being removed had nothing to do to the credit of Hamas, and instead was part of an internationally celebrated peace agreement.

Your 'reference' of Israelis settling in Gaza Strip before the Peace Accords does not indicate an Israeli government plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza after them.

LGD posted:

40 mythical beheaded babies as a prelude to mass violence.
I haven't kept up with the baby story but I'd rather not debate on whether shooting up a youth music festival is sufficient "blood libel" in your eyes.

i fly airplanes fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 19, 2023

Ringo Roadagain
Mar 27, 2010

i fly airplanes posted:

My point is that the Israeli settlements being removed had nothing to do to the credit of Hamas, and instead was part of an internationally celebrated peace agreement.

Your 'reference' of Israelis settling in Gaza Strip before the Peace Accords does not indicate an Israeli government plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza after them.

I just said that before hamas took over, there were settlers in gaza. not that they were removed because of hamas.

considering that after these "Peace Accords" (which peace accords btw?) the settlement of the west bank has continued, its not ridiculous to believe that eventually israel plans to start settling gaza again.

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

i fly airplanes posted:

I haven't kept up with the baby story but I'd rather not debate on whether shooting up a youth music festival is sufficient "blood libel" in your eyes.

That's fine, because like I said, the opinions of people demanding uncritical acceptance of blood libel as a precondition for conversation deserve no respect whatsoever, a stance that shouldn't be controversial. And I certainly don't have much interest in discussing a strawman thrown up as a transparent deflection.

But, genuinely, real world, asking you sincerely: take a moment and truly consider the fact that you repeated actual blood libel that has been withdrawn by every official source because it couldn't be sustained in the face of the mildest scrutiny, and then attempted to simply wash your hands of it because you "haven't kept up."

Shouldn't such a thing make you question how you're getting information? How can you expect anyone to treat you like a reasonable interlocutor?

LGD fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Oct 19, 2023

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

LGD posted:

That's fine, because like I said, the opinions of people demanding uncritical acceptance of blood libel as a precondition for conversation deserve no respect whatsoever, a stance that shouldn't be controversial. And I certainly don't have much interest in discussing a strawman thrown up as a transparent deflection.

But, genuinely, real world, asking you sincerely: take a moment and truly consider the fact that you repeated actual blood libel that has been withdrawn by every official source because it couldn't be sustained in the face of the mildest scrutiny, and then attempted to simply wash your hands of it because you "haven't kept up."

Shouldn't such a thing make you question how you're getting information? How can you expect anyone to treat you like a reasonable interlocutor?

Please define how you are using the term blood libel. I find your usage really confusing.

My understanding of the term is that it refers specifically to an antisemitic belief that Jews would kill Christian children for their blood to be used in religious rituals.

That is also what I see in a very quick Google search.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Rubellavator posted:

I can't find any indication he's quit since January.

And he's a social media guy but I'd have expected him to be in the loop to the point of not getting his information from reuters like he claimed.

As a general rule of thumb, social media guys aren't particularly in the loop. That's doubly true during an active war; no one's giving the intern with the Twitter account hourly updates on which buildings have been destroyed. I suspect they were just given a general guideline of "if someone starts yelling about atrocities that aren't wildly implausible, use this playbook to defend, justify, and distract from the atrocities".

mannerup posted:

looks like Rep Omar got reprimanded by dem leadership according to this Twitter thread from her office

expecting similar pressure to Rep Tlaib who accused Biden of sharing part of the blame for genocide.

Where does that say she got reprimanded? I don't see anything about it in that thread. Did you link to the wrong tweet?

Mr. Pickles
Mar 19, 2014



DeadlyMuffin posted:

Please define how you are using the term blood libel. I find your usage really confusing.

My understanding of the term is that it refers specifically to an antisemitic belief that Jews would kill Christian children for their blood to be used in religious rituals.

That is also what I see in a very quick Google search.

As far as I understand poster LGB came here to speak on Blood Libel. So make a school circle and let them elaborate on this extremely important and relevant subject using high octane vocabulary. The other kids in the school debate club stand no chance against him, and I always side with the strong. Go libel!

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Please define how you are using the term blood libel. I find your usage really confusing.

My understanding of the term is that it refers specifically to an antisemitic belief that Jews would kill Christian children for their blood to be used in religious rituals.

That is also what I see in a very quick Google search.

Already did:

LGD posted:

If you're aware of it, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'd invoke it here - nothing else really conveys "lurid but unsubstantiated claims of child murder that are ethnically/religiously motivated, often as prelude to pogroms and/or other forms of ethnic cleansing." It is of course historically specifically antisemitic, but parallels don't get much clearer than leaders citing 40 mythical beheaded babies as a prelude to mass violence.

This isn't a private definition. My use of the term is slightly provocative, but we're talking about what appears to be an entirely false and dehumanizing story where a numerologically significant number of babies were alleged to have been slain in a lurid and semi-ritualistic fashion that was widely spread and repeated by official and semi-official sources in the aftermath of an attack in an ethnic/religious conflict as that side geared up to conduct retaliatory violence (both via the state and pogroms). If you've got another reasonably succinct term that captures the essence of that I'm happy to use it instead, but "blood libel" seems to fit just fine.

Homeless Friend
Jul 16, 2007

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Please define how you are using the term blood libel. I find your usage really confusing.

My understanding of the term is that it refers specifically to an antisemitic belief that Jews would kill Christian children for their blood to be used in religious rituals.

That is also what I see in a very quick Google search.

I think the blood libel label is simply for ease of understanding, You could call it beheading libel. The important bit in that the killing is conveyed to be in a way that's almost alien in nature.

brain smoothie
Sep 28, 2023

i fly airplanes posted:

Israel gains nothing by bombing a hospital, and if they wanted to target hospitals and schools and civilians intentionally, they would have been able to wipe out the entire Gaza Strip in hours. That doesn't excuse the outcome or their actions and what happened, but if they truly had the intent of mass genocide it would have been accomplished already.

I don’t think any serious people would argue that Israel actually wants to kill every Palestinian in Gaza. Not that they wouldn’t like to, but there are lines that even Israel couldn’t cross without losing all international support. And certainly killing all, or a significant portion of, Gaza’s 2 million residents would cross those lines.

Everything Israel has done in the past two weeks has clearly been calculated to make conditions in Gaza as unbearable as possible. Cutting off food, water, fuel and electricity, dropping 6000 bombs (I’m sure the number is much higher now), bombing hospitals, schools, bombing people on the routes that they were told to evacuate on to avoid being bombed in their homes. “Israel is evil and is trying to kill them all” is a facile argument and one that I have mostly seen used as a straw man. The goal is obviously to make conditions so horrific that Egypt will open its border to Gazans as refugees, of course “temporarily” (they will never be let back in). Bombing a hospital absolutely helps to achieve this objective as it helps to further degrade conditions in Gaza by removing access to treatment and reinforcing that there is no area where civilians are safe.

By the way if you think Israel is not currently doing genocide… might want to check with the International Criminal Court:

“Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "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 (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”

Luckily under the Rules Based International Order™ if you’re a US client state you can usually get away with a couple of small genocides, or maybe one medium sized.

Mr. Pickles
Mar 19, 2014



brain smoothie posted:

I don’t think any serious people would argue that Israel actually wants to kill every Palestinian in Gaza. Not that they wouldn’t like to, but there are lines that even Israel couldn’t cross without losing all international support. And certainly killing all, or a significant portion of, Gaza’s 2 million residents would cross those lines.

Everything Israel has done in the past two weeks has clearly been calculated to make conditions in Gaza as unbearable as possible. Cutting off food, water, fuel and electricity, dropping 6000 bombs (I’m sure the number is much higher now), bombing hospitals, schools, bombing people on the routes that they were told to evacuate on to avoid being bombed in their homes. “Israel is evil and is trying to kill them all” is a facile argument and one that I have mostly seen used as a straw man. The goal is obviously to make conditions so horrific that Egypt will open its border to Gazans as refugees, of course “temporarily” (they will never be let back in). Bombing a hospital absolutely helps to achieve this objective as it helps to further degrade conditions in Gaza by removing access to treatment and reinforcing that there is no area where civilians are safe.

By the way if you think Israel is not currently doing genocide… might want to check with the International Criminal Court:

“Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "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 (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”

Luckily under the Rules Based International Order™ if you’re a US client state you can usually get away with a couple of small genocides, or maybe one medium sized.

These are valid arguments, and I thank you for presenting them, but you cannot possibly think yourself a worthy interlocuror now can you? The immediate geopolitical goals of Israel are a matter of minor import. What is important now is to discern whether leaders post on X in a way which premeditates their intent to commit mass violence (not genocide) by referencing blood libel. An exercise in futility, of course, since this notion cannot even be sustained in the face of mildest scrutiny

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

LGD posted:

Already did:

This isn't a private definition. My use of the term is slightly provocative, but we're talking about what appears to be an entirely false and dehumanizing story where a numerologically significant number of babies were alleged to have been slain in a lurid and semi-ritualistic fashion that was widely spread and repeated by official and semi-official sources in the aftermath of an attack in an ethnic/religious conflict as that side geared up to conduct retaliatory violence (both via the state and pogroms). If you've got another reasonably succinct term that captures the essence of that I'm happy to use it instead, but "blood libel" seems to fit just fine.

Repurposing a term that is used to describe a specific antisemitic belief that has persisted for many hundreds of years to describe something different comes across to me as confusing as best, and antisemitic at worst.

If you're looking for suggestions, "beheading lies" would capture the dishonesty you're trying to convey, more clearly relate it to the incident in question, and avoid the appearance of trying to repurpose a specific existing term.

It does appear to be a private definition. The links below are what I get searching for "blood libel". They aren't cherry picked, they're the first results, and they refer to the antisemitic belief.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/blood-libel-false-incendiary-claim-against-jews
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-libel https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-origins-of-blood-libel/tnamp/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/blood-libel

Homeless Friend posted:

I think the blood libel label is simply for ease of understanding, You could call it beheading libel. The important bit in that the killing is conveyed to be in a way that's almost alien in nature.

I have been accused of being hung up on definitions, but I find it far more confusing than helpful.

golden bubble
Jun 3, 2011

yospos

https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1714654108538310727

Remember Israeli bombed the Gaza Egypt border four times already and demanded Egypt let nothing in.

Here's a machine translation of Bibi's stuff

quote:


Office of the Prime Minister

In light of the resounding and essential American support to the war cause and US President Biden's request for basic humanitarian aid, the limited cabinet decided unanimously:

1. Israel will not allow humanitarian aid from its territory to Gaza while hostages are not returned

2. Israel demands that red cross be allowed to visit the hostages and is looking for international support to do so

3. In light of Biden's request, Israel will not interfere/stop humanitarian aid from Egypt as long as it is solely food, water, and medicine for the civilian population in southern Gaza or those evacuating there, and as long as the aid reaching Hamas will be thwarted

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Repurposing a term that is used to describe a specific antisemitic belief that has persisted for many hundreds of years to describe something different comes across to me as confusing as best, and antisemitic at worst.

If you're looking for suggestions, "beheading lies" would capture the dishonesty you're trying to convey, more clearly relate it to the incident in question, and avoid the appearance of trying to repurpose a specific existing term.

It does appear to be a private definition. The links below are what I get searching for "blood libel". They aren't cherry picked, they're the first results, and they refer to the antisemitic belief.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/blood-libel-false-incendiary-claim-against-jews
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-libel https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-origins-of-blood-libel/tnamp/
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/blood-libel

I have been accused of being hung up on definitions, but I find it far more confusing than helpful.

Sorry it confused you, but given your inability to find a definition I posted on the very same page, the professed lack of subject knowledge (and incongruously zealous subject-pedantry) that has led to a reliance on top google results to tell me things I'm well aware of, and apparent inability to read the third paragraph of the first source you cited or its associated links noting the long history of far less precise uses of the term, I'm unconvinced that you're who I should be pitching my arguments toward, or the superiority of your own bland and toothless neologism (and its necessary explanations).

The context of this conversation was someone repeating debunked propaganda that was circulated as part of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign - my invocation of the historical baggage and weight of the phrase was quite deliberate. And I think we've discussed this at enough length that there shouldn't be any more possible confusion on your end about my meaning, so unless someone else is inclined to go to bat for these "beheading lies" you shouldn't need to worry about it.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Autisanal Cheese
Nov 29, 2010

Aertuun posted:

Very interesting article from Bellingcat, and some other information coming out from Channel 4 news (a UK news organisation with a decent reputation).

The number of dead does unfortunately seem to be (approximately) confirmed. Various western governments and other independent organisations claim to have independently verified (with various degrees of uncertainty) the number of dead and injured, and it is close to the original figures that were reported.

Channel 4 news have reported that the voice recording released by the IDF is a fake.

The IDF news conference unfortunately has been shown to make a number of false claims:

* The IDF claimed the number of casualties was inflated. Unfortunately, it seems it wasn't.
* The IDF claimed there were no craters identified at the site. Their own image, and subsequent videos, have shown an impact crater.
* The IDF released a voice recording. Channel 4 News is now reporting that this is faked.

This video provides an overall summary (it's appropriately censored):

https://www.channel4.com/news/who-was-behind-the-gaza-hospital-blast-visual-investigation

And here's the article from Bellingcat:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2023/10/18/identifying-possible-crater-from-gaza-hospital-blast/

If the IDF is responsible, it's unclear what kind of munition was used.

If the IDF isn't responsible, they've now been shown to have repeatedly released misleading and contradictory information. They've made claims that have been shown to be false. And now they have been accused of fabricating evidence.

It's also worth mentioning that (I'm told) one of the primary goals of US government at this time is to prevent regional escalation of the conflict. It's worth viewing US government statements (and statements attributed to US government sources) with that in mind.

This is an excellent reading of the situation and the Channel 4 video in particular is probably the most even-handed laying out of the evidence so far I've ever seen.

However, I have a question about this part of your analysis:

Aertuun posted:

The number of dead does unfortunately seem to be (approximately) confirmed. Various western governments and other independent organisations claim to have independently verified (with various degrees of uncertainty) the number of dead and injured, and it is close to the original figures that were reported.

Which sources in particular do you draw on for this claim, as they're not in the Bellingcat article or the Channel 4 vid (unless I missed them). I'd like some hard confirmation on this because people are really starting to deny the ~500 dead figure.

Ms Adequate
Oct 30, 2011

Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling



golden bubble posted:

https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1714654108538310727

Remember Israeli bombed the Gaza Egypt border four times already and demanded Egypt let nothing in.

Here's a machine translation of Bibi's stuff

Yeah this is worthless, it lets them interfere with anything they want and just say that Egypt wasn't upholding their end.

Biden does seem to have a degree of sincere care about the situation (Frankly this reads more than anything like he gave the entire Israeli cabinet a serious reaming and are giving an insincere apology like a chastised schoolboy), but he is far far too deep in the well of regarding Israel as an ally of unbreakable importance, and general liberalism, to actually apply even the least bit of the pressure America could apply. At absolute best Israel will let a trickle of aid through from Egypt and maybe, if we're incredibly lucky, cut back on any major atrocities for a day or two.

7c Nickel
Apr 27, 2008

LGD posted:

Sorry it confused you, but given your inability to find a definition I posted on the very same page, the professed lack of subject knowledge (and incongruously zealous subject-pedantry) that has led to a reliance on top google results to tell me things I'm well aware of, and apparent inability to read the third paragraph of the first source you cited or its associated links noting the long history of far less precise uses of the term, I'm unconvinced that you're who I should be pitching my arguments toward, or the superiority of your own bland and toothless neologism (and its necessary explanations).

The context of this conversation was someone repeating debunked propaganda that was circulated as part of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign - my invocation of the historical baggage and weight of the phrase was quite deliberate. And I think we've discussed this at enough length that there shouldn't be any more possible confusion on your end about my meaning, so unless someone else is inclined to go to bat for these "beheading lies" you shouldn't need to worry about it.

Are you really trying to claim that "Only some of the children were beheaded, others were shot or set on fire." is a "debunking" or are you actually trying to claim that Hamas didn't actually commit any atrocities at all?

Aertuun
Dec 18, 2012

Aertuun posted:

The number of dead does unfortunately seem to be (approximately) confirmed. Various western governments and other independent organisations claim to have independently verified (with various degrees of uncertainty) the number of dead and injured, and it is close to the original figures that were reported.

Autisanal Cheese posted:

I have a question about this part of your analysis:

Which sources in particular do you draw on for this claim, as they're not in the Bellingcat article or the Channel 4 vid (unless I missed them). I'd like some hard confirmation on this because people are really starting to deny the ~500 dead figure.

I'd read different statements throughout the day from US government officials, various European politicians, and organisations such as MSF (or Doctors without Borders, as they're known in the US). Some are on Twitter, others I'd seen referenced in news reports. They all mentioned "hundreds of casualties". My understanding is that each of those different bodies organisations will have their own way of figuring out how many might have been killed or injured. Some will be more rigorous than others.

Putting an exact figure on it is going to be very hard, if not impossible. Remembering back to the September 11th attacks, it took months to establish any exact number.

In terms of your search for evidence; I (personally) wouldn't worry about arguing with someone who starts to quibble about the exact amount. A bomb/missile exploded in a hospital courtyard and killed sleeping families. Many of them reportedly burned to death. How many families need to have been killed before it becomes a significant number?

Aertuun fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Oct 19, 2023

Jakabite
Jul 31, 2010

7c Nickel posted:

Are you really trying to claim that "Only some of the children were beheaded, others were shot or set on fire." is a "debunking" or are you actually trying to claim that Hamas didn't actually commit any atrocities at all?

I think it’s more to the point that the scale of Palestinian atrocities is a barely a few molecules in a drop in the ocean of horrific crimes they’ve had done to them by the Israeli State.

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

7c Nickel posted:

Are you really trying to claim that "Only some of the children were beheaded, others were shot or set on fire." is a "debunking" or are you actually trying to claim that Hamas didn't actually commit any atrocities at all?

Given that both the US and Israeli governments officially acknowledge no such thing ever happened, which required backing down from a claim Biden made in a public speech about having seen non-existant photographic evidence, I feel complete confidence in using the term "debunked" to describe that particular lie.

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself, but don't expect me to respond in regards to things I haven't written.

quote:

When replying, respond only to what the poster said. Doing otherwise leads to posters talking past each other.
    a. Don't misrepresent or strawman what someone said. A good rule of thumb is if they would object to your characterization, it is probably a strawman.
    b. Don't respond to premises that are not explicitly or necessarily contained in the post.

7c Nickel
Apr 27, 2008

LGD posted:

Given that both the US and Israeli governments officially acknowledge no such thing ever happened, which required backing down from a claim Biden made in a public speech about having seen non-existant photographic evidence, I feel complete confidence in using the term "debunked" to describe that particular lie.

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself, but don't expect me to respond in regards to things I haven't written.

This is literally complete bullshit. Despite my best efforts to avoid it, I've still seen images of an infant reduced to a charcoal briquette. You don't have to deny atrocities to be opposed to what Israel is doing.

Darth Walrus
Feb 13, 2012
https://x.com/ghassanabusitt1/status/1714922021358886969?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q

Dude's a hero for just knuckling down and getting back to work after al-Ahli, but... jesus.

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

7c Nickel posted:

This is literally complete bullshit. Despite my best efforts to avoid it, I've still seen images of an infant reduced to a charcoal briquette. You don't have to deny atrocities to be opposed to what Israel is doing.

Yes, the story about the 40 beheaded babies is indeed complete bullshit. Specifically fake atrocities like that are the exact kind of complete bullshit that is used to dehumanize groups of people and produce many, many, many more actual dead babies in the real world.

Brucolac
Jun 14, 2012

LGD posted:

Yes, the story about the 40 beheaded babies is indeed complete bullshit. Specifically fake atrocities like that are the exact kind of complete bullshit that is used to dehumanize groups of people and produce many, many, many more actual dead babies in the real world.
To hopefully save some grief: You agree the massacre of Israeli citizens including infants did occur but take issue specifically with the '40 beheaded babies' claim?

ummel
Jun 17, 2002

<3 Lowtax

Fun Shoe

Darth Walrus posted:

https://x.com/ghassanabusitt1/status/1714922021358886969?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q

Dude's a hero for just knuckling down and getting back to work after al-Ahli, but... jesus.

This doctor is a hero and a saint, and I'm not trying to infer anything in particular. Sterile, medical grade vinegar is always preferred for the sterility, but vinegar and bleach are commonly used in wound care procedures (not together lol) when the infection isn't deep and you're getting regular treatment/debridement of the wound. I've seen posts from orgs about them running out of antibiotics and supplies, so this is probably all they have left, regardless of how deep the wound is. Even if supplies will now come in from Egypt, will they even be able to make it all the way north to the hospitals he's at? I can't imagine a truck convoy not being bombed by drones, assuming the roads are even clear enough.

Edit- https://www.dermatologytimes.com/view/acetic-acid-and-wound-healing

ummel fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Oct 19, 2023

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

Brucolac posted:

To hopefully save some grief: You agree the massacre of Israeli citizens including infants did occur but are take issue specifically with the '40 beheaded babies' claim?

Yes, that is in fact the specific, and specifically debunked, claim I've been responding to the entire time, and not whatever made up nonsense people seem to want to attribute to me because I object to people spreading genocidal propaganda.

Do I think Hamas killed a bunch of Israeli citizens? Yeah, duh. They went after military targets and there are plenty of conflicting accounts about what exactly happened where (not aided by the deliberate spread of this sort of incendiary nonsense), but a lot of angry young men with guns got loose and a lot of Bad Stuff undoubtedly went down. Do I have any particular interest in playing the "justify yourself to me!" game with the sort of people who push back on my objections to the spread of genocidal propaganda? Absolutely not.

Darth Walrus
Feb 13, 2012

ummel posted:

This doctor is a hero and a saint, and I'm not trying to infer anything in particular. Sterile, medical grade vinegar is always preferred for the sterility, but vinegar and bleach are commonly used in wound care procedures (not together lol) when the infection isn't deep and you're getting regular treatment/debridement of the wound. I've seen posts from orgs about them running out of antibiotics and supplies, so this is probably all they have left, regardless of how deep the wound is. Even if supplies will now come in from Egypt, will they even be able to make it all the way north to the hospitals he's at? I can't imagine a truck convoy not being bombed by drones, assuming the roads are even clear enough.

That was exactly my point, yes. The job of doctors in Gaza is rapidly becoming impossible regardless of their enthusiasm, ingenuity and professionalism.

CeeJee
Dec 4, 2001
Oven Wrangler

LGD posted:

Yes, that is in fact the specific, and specifically debunked, claim I've been responding to the entire time, and not whatever made up nonsense people seem to want to attribute to me because I object to people spreading genocidal propaganda.

Do I think Hamas killed a bunch of Israeli citizens? Yeah, duh. They went after military targets and there are plenty of conflicting accounts about what exactly happened where (not aided by the deliberate spread of this sort of incendiary nonsense), but a lot of angry young men with guns got loose and a lot of Bad Stuff undoubtedly went down. Do I have any particular interest in playing the "justify yourself to me!" game with the sort of people who push back on my objections to the spread of genocidal propaganda? Absolutely not.

What kind of evidence would be needed to prove the Hamas plan was always to kill every person they could except for the one to be dragged back to Gaza as trophies?

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

CeeJee posted:

What kind of evidence would be needed to prove the Hamas plan was always to kill every person they could except for the one to be dragged back to Gaza as trophies?

a psychic dream featuring a wise owl

LGD posted:

Yes, that is in fact the specific, and specifically debunked, claim I've been responding to the entire time, and not whatever made up nonsense people seem to want to attribute to me because I object to people spreading genocidal propaganda.

Do I think Hamas killed a bunch of Israeli citizens? Yeah, duh. They went after military targets and there are plenty of conflicting accounts about what exactly happened where (not aided by the deliberate spread of this sort of incendiary nonsense), but a lot of angry young men with guns got loose and a lot of Bad Stuff undoubtedly went down. Do I have any particular interest in playing the "justify yourself to me!" game with the sort of people who push back on my objections to the spread of genocidal propaganda? Absolutely not.

Mid-Life Crisis
Jun 13, 2023

by Fluffdaddy
I’m not sure how a cease fire is actually beneficial to the complicated situation at hand. These are two militaries at war. Hamas wants to hide and just restart again.

Hamas is unapologetically hiding in hospitals and schools and behind civilians. Always has been. Israel has made the intent to wipe out this network in northern Gaza by making it untenable for all civilians before the clean up operation. Hospitals are defying this under a shroud of righteousness, but can also be interpreted as effectively a form of defiance and protection for Hamas since they are known bad actors. You can’t claim a creed when you know your actions are delaying what the other party has made clear is an inevitable. ‘Do no harm’ doesn’t mean knowingly put hundreds people at exponential risk to have a slight increased chance save a couple.

The WHO can put out statements all they want, but they aren’t helping the situation. Israel clearly wants civilians gone so they can access the hidden networks and shoot anything that moves on sight. Hamas is doubling down on taking advantage of the situation at the expense of Palestinians.

The difference between other wars and this one is the overt willingness to use it’s own citizens as fodder to advance the war effort that Hamas employs. Armies that actually defend the will of the people wouldn’t stoop that low on such a large scale.


Now whether Israel knowingly let the yon kippur attack ‘surprise’ them and used their own citizens as fodder to reignite the conflict and this not be a story of incompetence is a whole other conspiracy chat. But that’s attributing incompetence to covert malice, which is rarely true. Hamas using citizens as shields is a strategy, not incompetence, hence the simpler argument to make.

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

I’m not sure how a cease fire is actually beneficial to the complicated situation at hand. These are two militaries at war.

One modern military, one entrenched street gang.

Nail Rat
Dec 29, 2000

You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!!
Logically then, Israel needs to kill all the Palestinians to make sure they get Hamas, is what I'm getting from that.

I somehow doubt every hospital and school is knowingly harboring Hamas and MSF and the UN are in on it and Israel magically knows. That Hamas has and does do that does not mean they can just blow up every ambulance because there could be hamas there. I feel like if they really know where Hamas is, by this point, with what must certainly be over 8000 bombs, Hamas should be pretty well disabled, but they're not, which means they actually have not much of an idea or don't really care one way or another.

A cease fire could allow for the civilians to not just all die of lack of water in the coming weeks, and maybe Israel to actually figure out where Hamas is instead of just leveling everything. They can go in and establish safe zones for civilians and then yes there will be urban warfare but then they could not level every building as was their stated goal at the onset. If you do that and you don't kill everyone*, you're guaranteeing another hamas.

A ceasefire would also make it painfully obvious where Hamas is as they launch their crappy rocket attacks.

*Of course, this is actually the goal.

Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Oct 19, 2023

Mid-Life Crisis
Jun 13, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

Nail Rat posted:

Logically then, Israel needs to kill all the Palestinians to make sure they get Hamas, is what I'm getting from that.

No, there are underground networks they can’t really get to without land invasion. Getting the civilians out is the primer to going in there to get to the networks and dismantle this.

Civilians staying behind in hospital parking lots is only delaying this.

Ograbme
Jul 26, 2003

D--n it, how he nicks 'em

i fly airplanes posted:

Israel gains nothing by bombing a hospital,
Israel allegedly gains nothing by strafing a US navy ship, vaporizing entire city blocks, gunning down paramedics and journalists, bulldozing olive orchards, sending civilians to live in what is supposed to be a defensive buffer zone, or slaughtering international aid workers bringing in humanitarian supplies either, and yet

Nail Rat
Dec 29, 2000

You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!!

quote:

No, there are underground networks they can’t really get to without land invasion. Getting the civilians out is the primer to going in there to get to the networks and dismantle this.

Civilians staying behind in hospital parking lots is only delaying this.

Where are they supposed to go? Egypt won't let them in and if they DO, Israel will *never* let them back in. They'll have been gifted a decades long goal immediately.

Even the foreign national citizens like 500-600 Americans are just piled up at the rafah border, hoping Israel doesn't decide to bomb them and go "it was a Hamas rocket ."

Gucci Loafers
May 20, 2006

Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?


Mid-Life Crisis posted:

No, there are underground networks they can’t really get to without land invasion. Getting the civilians out is the primer to going in there to get to the networks and dismantle this.

Do they have to blow up the tunnels from the inside out? Is there no way to somehow detect these through other means then drop some kind of bunker buster bomb? Or are they that good of tunnels?

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Oct 19, 2023

BadOptics
Sep 11, 2012

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

I’m not sure how a cease fire is actually beneficial to the complicated situation at hand. These are two militaries at war. Hamas wants to hide and just restart again.

Hamas is unapologetically hiding in hospitals and schools and behind civilians. Always has been. Israel has made the intent to wipe out this network in northern Gaza by making it untenable for all civilians before the clean up operation. Hospitals are defying this under a shroud of righteousness, but can also be interpreted as effectively a form of defiance and protection for Hamas since they are known bad actors. You can’t claim a creed when you know your actions are delaying what the other party has made clear is an inevitable. ‘Do no harm’ doesn’t mean knowingly put hundreds people at exponential risk to have a slight increased chance save a couple.

The WHO can put out statements all they want, but they aren’t helping the situation. Israel clearly wants civilians gone so they can access the hidden networks and shoot anything that moves on sight. Hamas is doubling down on taking advantage of the situation at the expense of Palestinians.

The difference between other wars and this one is the overt willingness to use it’s own citizens as fodder to advance the war effort that Hamas employs. Armies that actually defend the will of the people wouldn’t stoop that low on such a large scale.


Now whether Israel knowingly let the yon kippur attack ‘surprise’ them and used their own citizens as fodder to reignite the conflict and this not be a story of incompetence is a whole other conspiracy chat. But that’s attributing incompetence to covert malice, which is rarely true. Hamas using citizens as shields is a strategy, not incompetence, hence the simpler argument to make.

Yeah man, why don't they just up and move with all their equipment and medical supplies when there's no electricity or water. And *obviously* if they can't evict Hamas from their location with their own armed forces then the simplest explanation is that they are all willing foot soldiers for the Hamas "military".

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Rigged Death Trap
Feb 13, 2012

BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

No, there are underground networks they can’t really get to without land invasion. Getting the civilians out is the primer to going in there to get to the networks and dismantle this.

Civilians staying behind in hospital parking lots is only delaying this.

gently caress you you grotesque fascist bootlick.

You are blaming Civillians sheltering in a hospital because their homes are being bombed, everywhere else is being bombed and they have no actual escape routes because those are also all being bombed for being the reason this is continuing.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply