|
Also, if you're defending yourself in front of the ICC (or anybody, really), you obviously offer the most favorable framing of events possible. It's up to the court to figure out what actually flies. Hamas knows that the ICC will probably say they did some bad poo poo. They're hoping the ICC will say Israel did even worse. It's not a card you play when you have a good hand, but Hamas has an off-suit 247, the rules card, and a free delivery coupon for Chinese take out.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Kalit posted:Nope, it’s pretty much what you’d expect: Which of those are out right lies? Stumbling across the nova festival seems likely given it's location was close to a military target. People living near Gaza being armed I've seen confirmed by reports of some of them fighting back and successfully repelling Hamas on Oct 7. The last point I thought I saw confirmed in news articles prior. They didn't expect to take so many hostages or spend so long in Israel, it was the slow security response that allowed them the time to take back so many hostages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 09:12
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Looks like they’re going all in on trying to garner as much sympathy as possible by putting out this propaganda piece. Or maybe propaganda piece is the wrong phrase, as it seems to be filled with outright lies You're just deciding based on your personal biases that these are lies. Israel has refused allowing anyone other than themselves to investigate what happened on October 7th, have been preemptively raving about how any organization that might perform such an investigation (like the UN Human Rights Council or the ICJ) are antisemites, and were in a real hurry to literally bury the evidence of what happened at the festival. Esran fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 09:20
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:Oh I'm definitely going to have to read this. Wonder if they're willing to throw some of the people who went off mission under the bus. Israel claims to have killed anywhere between 1,000 and 3,000 militants on Oct 7th or in the immediate days afterwards within the borders of Israel, including 200 or so sufficiently charred to be indistinguishable from Israeli civilians who were also mysteriously killed in numbers unknown in exactly the same fashion. This suggests that the large majority of people directly involved were killed on or near the day. Israel further claims basically any dead male in Gaza as a militant but if you take their numbers for granted, they've killed between 9-12,000 out of 25,000-40,000 members of Hamas's military wing, which probably includes pretty much anyone indirectly involved in a military sense. What's left over is the leadership echelon, most of whom are ageing and under constant threat of being assassinated. A court case would be an easy ride. So, in short, the argument likely to be: "We had a bunch of military goals. Some of our men misbehaved. Other crimes committed by non-professionals who entered along side our guys. Investigate us and let the chips fall where they may". Because, even if the leadership found to have committed war crimes, the killing of several hundred Israeli civilians, the capture and hostage-taking of a couple hundred more, pale in comparison to a widely-televised (by the perpetrators themselves!) liquidation of Palestinian intelligentsia and media, the absolute erasure of Palestinian health and education, the pillaging of culture and the dead, the starvation and dehydration as tools of war etc etc resulting in 30,000 civilians violently murdered so far (close to 1.5% of Gaza's population), 100,000 or more directly injured, 200,000 or so subject to some horrible and dangerously transmissible infections and the infliction of absolute generational trauma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 09:44
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I mean Hamas' version of events is that they took civilian hostages, which is unambiguously a war crime. It's probably more that Hamas is confident Israel will not allow any such investigation to take place (although one wonders if the ICC could just issue warrants for Hamas' leadership given that they do not dispute their guilt). Everyone not living under a rock, including the ICC, already knows Hamas took civilian hostages. We know because it was covered extensively at the time, Hamas admitted to doing it and laid out why they did it (to exchange them for hostages Israel has taken), and then it was covered again when Hamas released a bunch of those hostages in exchange for hostages held by Israel. As you know, Israel has also taken civilian hostages, have murdered 25.000 people, of whom the vast majority are civilians (and a substantial fraction are children), and have starved and dehydrated hundreds of thousands. As Hamas is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the war crimes committed by Israel, it is perfectly reasonable for Hamas to assume Israel will come off worse at the ICC, and you don't need to invent some hidden motivation for Hamas to admit to something they've already previously admitted to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 10:07
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:If you look up the context of the Houthi slogan, on the Houthis wiki pages, their leaders have claimed that the slogan is intended to refer to the governments of Israel and the United States and not Jews or Americans generally. Regardless if you buy that or not, we just got done backing a genocide carried out against them so I expect their rhetoric to be extreme. Jews after the holocaust attempt to plan and said much worse against the Germans and I think it’s understandable. Uh, that seems to be the opposite of what he said, as I looked up his speech where he explains the motto and he says he deliberately means Jews and Christians, and that they are the enemy that must be known to be defeated. He even specifies that Jews and Israel are distinct but both enemies. In the speech, he talks about Israel less (not at all) than "Jews and Christians", which the entire speech is attacking. And yaknow, it doesn't make sense that he means Israel when he says "A Curse Upon The Jews!" when he already has a line decrying Israel as he does America... "It is the Holy Qur’an that told us about them, and how to work against them, so try to know well what the Jews and Christians are planning; In the end, to see where it reaches, and to know in the end what you can do." So his speech about the meaning of the slogan is about "Jews and Christians". Kchama fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:02
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Uh, that seems to be the opposite of what he said, as I looked up his speech where he explains the motto and he says he deliberately means Jews and Christians, and that they are the enemy that must be known to be defeated. He even specifies that Jews and Israel are distinct but both enemies. In the speech, he talks about Israel less (not at all) than "Jews and Christians", which the entire speech is attacking. Could you share your source please? E: wait, I think I found it (via the ADL  ). If we're looking at the same source, you missed or ignored the part where he said "from the point of Americans - Jews and Christians - [our slogan] poses an extreme danger to them." He was clarifying that Ansar Allah are against all American power structures, not just Jewish ones. That's the point of mentioning Christians - to include the American majority and not just single out Jewish Americans. He's also very explicitly talking about Jews involved in politics. American politics and Israeli politics. The speech is entirely consistent with the stated view that the slogan is not intended to be directed at Jewish people just for being Jewish. Here's my source if you'd like to confirm it's the same as yours and in case anyone else would like to read it. HazCat fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:27
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Could you share your source please? That's the one I quoted from, yes. "So we know that we can work, and that we have many works in our hands and reach, and this cry [God is Great / the cry of death to America / death to Israel / the curse on the Jews - because they are the ones who move this world and who corrupt this world - / victory for Islam] will be left behind. Its impact will leave a great impact on people's hearts. What is this effect? Discontent, the discontent that the Jews avoid in every possible way, the discontent that the Jews work to make others of the sons of Islam be the alternative that does the work for them in confronting the sons of Islam. They avoid having in ourselves discontent with them, to leave this leader and this president and that king and that official and that one. Parties - such as the opposition parties in the north of Afghanistan - receive estrangement and discontent, and let the Jews remain the ones who pay large sums of money to build schools and health centers and so on to erase discontent. They are paying billions in order to avoid discontent in our souls. They know how costly this discontent will be, how frightening this discontent will be for them, how important this discontent will be in uniting the Muslim community against them, how important this discontent will be in building the nation economically, culturally and scientifically. They are not stupid like us. They say, “What should we do?” They know everything." That doesn't read of someone who is talking about American politicians. If you only meant that America and Israel were the 'corrupters of the world' you wouldn't need to single out the Jews as well. But Jews are specifically added in as one of the three evils. And that is how it is formatted in the original language, with the -s in their proper places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:08
|
|
|
Kchama posted:That's the one I quoted from, yes. Nothing you just quoted in this post is about Christians. My point was that when Christians were mentioned, it was to clarify that when he spoke about Americans he was not only speaking of Jewish Americans. It's extremely clear when you include the part I quoted, because he very clearly says 'Americans - Christians and Jews - [...]'. Also, do you think your quote here which says that Jews are paying 'billions' supports your view that he means individual Jewish people, or my view that he means Jewish institutions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Nothing you just quoted in this post is about Christians. My point was that when Christians were mentioned, it was to clarify that when he spoke about Americans he was not only speaking of Jewish Americans. It's extremely clear when you include the part I quoted, because he very clearly says 'Americans - Christians and Jews - [...]'.  I was talking about how he was singling out Jews. Of course I was pointing out the parts where he does singles out the Jews. Outside of his one mention of "Americans" which could be read as him conflating Jews and Christians in general with America, he doesn't say anything specifically about Israel or America. It's "Jews" or "Jews and Christians". And when he brings them up together, it is in the context of him talking about them religiously. About how the Holy Qu'ran speaks of how to "work against the Jews and Christians", which I assume isn't talking about Israel or America for uh, obvious reasons. "Through them you can know what to do if you don't know the Holy Quran what to do against them. The Holy Qur'an is the one that told us about them, and how to work against them, so try to know well what the Jews and Christians are planning; in the latter to see where it reaches, and in the latter to know what you can do." I guess the Holy Qur'an could have been extremely foresighted and have known about America and Israel. Also, if you don't think that someone who claims that Jews are the movers are corruptors of the world wouldn't think that Jews are a monolith who can pay billions, then you are not very up on your antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:47
|
|
|
Reading the 17 page statement put out by Hamas. Some interesting points not already mentioned in the thread. They point to Netanyahu's address to the UN a month before the attack where he presented a map of the new middle east which showed Palestine as part of Israel, as a trigger for their attacks. Obviously given the operations name, Al-Aqsa was also mentioned as a triggering point. Further mentions to the growing extremist and far right Zionist groups. As well as the Palestinian detainees "under the direct supervision of the Israeli fascist minister Itamer Ben-Gvir." From their statement it seems they saw Netyanahus normalisation with Arab neighbours as isolating Palestinians from the peace process for a total annexation. Which people had mentioned prior to the attacks as an outcome his plans could lead to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Uh, that seems to be the opposite of what he said, as I looked up his speech where he explains the motto and he says he deliberately means Jews and Christians He does not say he 'deliberately means Jews and Christians'. He says 'Americans - Christians and Jews - [...]'. Again, he is clarifying there that when he speaks about Americans he does not just mean Jewish Americans. I'm not going to bother addressing you trying to shortcut this back to antisemitism if you aren't going to acknowledge that you either misread him or deliberately misquoted him and then neglected to provide the source so people couldn't see what you were doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:59
|
|
|
How about the part where he says "the curse on the Jews - because they are the ones who move this world and who corrupt this world"? It is honestly insane to me that anyone is trying to argue that this is anything other than proud and unapologetic antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:How about the part where he says "the curse on the Jews - because they are the ones who move this world and who corrupt this world"? It is honestly insane to me that anyone is trying to argue that this is anything other than proud and unapologetic antisemitism. I'd need to speak to an actual Arabic speaker, because in English that can easily mean 'a curse on the [subset of] Jews [who wield political power to seize power for themselves] because they are the ones who move this world and who corrupt this world'. Which is entirely in line with what Ansar Allah say that they mean. Honestly I don't think it's worth debating this at all since the argument seems to be 'if you assume Ansar Allah are lying about their slogan not being antisemitic then obviously it's antisemitic', and that is obviously not going to convince anyone who takes them at their word. It does beg the question of why a group you believe are 'proud and unapologetic antisemites' would put 'we hate all Jews just for being Jewish' in their slogan but then say 'we only hate the Jewish institutions that oppress other people' when asked directly what they think of Jewish people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:18
|
|
|
HazCat posted:I'd need to speak to an actual Arabic speaker, because in English that can easily mean 'a curse on the [subset of] Jews [who wield political power to seize power for themselves] because they are the ones who move this world and who corrupt this world'. I'm not sure what language you speak that can stuff so much meaning into a single word? In the plain Arabic he says "Jews", not "the Jewish Elite". If there's that much to be inferred, I don't think a non-Yemeni could divine it. It really comes across as you trying to shove your own meaning into what he says to try and protect him. I don't think he'd appreciate it. For example, where does he say that the slogan isn't antisemitic? The only person who has claimed that he did was SMEGMA_MAIL, citing the literal speech where he says that Jews are those who move the world and corrupt it. He doesn't even say he only hates Jewish institutes. He says that Jews are those who move and corrupt the world. That's pretty antisemitic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:24
|
|
|
It's past midnight here so I'm going to have to drop this, but you can search for members of Ansar Allah being asked about their slogan and find that they uniformly state it is not about Jewish people, it is about governments and institutions. One example: quote:"We do not really want death to anyone," said Ali al Bukhayti , the former spokesperson and official media face of the Houthis, during an interview last September. "The slogan is simply against the interference of those governments." From here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Was wondering if we could seek a humanitarian pause on the arguing, this seems pretty interesting, Hamas released a 17-page document summarizing (in their own narrative) what happened on Oct 7 & why they did it. most of it isn't shocking if you've followed the statements they've disseminated. This part's fairly interesting though: Or they're confident that this will never get in front of the ICC to begin with because Israel and other powers will never cooperate enough to make it happen, so this is a pretty harmless stance to take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
HazCat posted:It's past midnight here so I'm going to have to drop this, but you can search for members of Ansar Allah being asked about their slogan and find that they uniformly state it is not about Jewish people, it is about governments and institutions. That's not the guy who made the slogan saying that was his intent (he's dead, so he can't contribute right now), but a spokesperson trying to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:58
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I'm not sure what language you speak that can stuff so much meaning into a single word? In the plain Arabic he says "Jews", not "the Jewish Elite". If there's that much to be inferred, I don't think a non-Yemeni could divine it. It really comes across as you trying to shove your own meaning into what he says to try and protect him. I don't think he'd appreciate it. I don't speak Arabic, but I speak Japanese, and there are grammatical principals in Japanese where adding an inflection or the sound ん to the end of your word basically puts a whole sentence of context behind it so I wouldn't be so quick to be flippant about the idea of language packing a lot of meaning behind seemingly small, innocuous changes that don't show up on Google translate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I don't speak Arabic, but I speak Japanese, and there are grammatical principals in Japanese where adding an inflection or the sound ん to the end of your word basically puts a whole sentence of context behind it so I wouldn't be so quick to be flippant about the idea of language packing a lot of meaning behind seemingly small, innocuous changes that don't show up on Google translate. As someone who is well aware of that, it strikes me as something that you'd have heard an Arabic speaker propose first, as opposed to "W-Well, maybe they said something that nobody transcribed to make it super-obvious that they meant the opposite of what they said on its face!" coming from someone who admits they don't speak Arabic at all. It also means that you couldn't trust the rest of the speech to mean what it is written down to say. You'd expect the official website of the org whose founder made that speech would be able to note that, much like how Japanese has ways of making clear the way the characters should be spoken or if they mean something different than the kanji would suggest. The fact that the rallying cry is written in English by Houthis as "A Curse Upon The Jews" suggests that there is, in fact, no triple-buried meaning. Kchama fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:Which of those are out right lies? Esran posted:You're just deciding based on your personal biases that these are lies. Sorry, I didn't mean those points were outright lies. I had listed those points in response to Google Jeb Bush's musings about if Hamas would throw their personnel under the bus for violence against civilians, since these points were supportive of Hamas denying targeting any civilian at all. As far as the outright lies, I'll go through a few of them. A source I'll be using for a lot of them is https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html. And, as explicitly stated in the article for where they got the information: quote:A 10-week New York Times investigation into what happened at Be’eri, based on interviews with scores of survivors and witnesses as well as on videos, text messages and recordings of phone calls, revealed a nightmare that lasted from just after dawn until well into the next day. So for a few examples of, what seems to be, lies themselves: 1) quote:(from Hamas) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html quote:Hamas gunmen and their allies focused their attack on the western parts of the village, the area closest to Gaza. They ransacked those neighborhoods house by house, systematically setting fire to scores of homes, killing many of those they found inside and abducting others. Now, unless all of those people were armed (they weren't), that sounds like an outright lie. There are a lot of other examples in that story of unarmed civilians being targeted/murdered as well. 2) quote:(from Hamas) quote:(from Hamas) I put these two quotes in conjunction, since they both deal with hostages. I would say that it reads as if they didn't mean to take civilian hostages, and only did because of the choas from the "rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system". However, they were taking civilian hostages in Be'eri before any IDF response was there: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/22/world/europe/beeri-massacre.html quote:The two couples rested inside the Dagans’ safe room and spent the morning watching television reports about the music festival. 3) quote:(from Hamas) Once again, NYT had first hand interviewed/researched this and is an independent source. 4) quote:(from Hamas) Videos of civilians being targeted were confirmed. For an example, here's a human rights watch article: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified. I don't want to watch videos of civilians getting murdered, so that's why I'm not linking a direct video. Beyond that, there's a lot of propaganda style misleading statements too, of course. And a lot of "according to this news article" without seeming to say what actually occurred (as if they somehow don't know), what other news sources say, etc. Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
Israel/Palestine thread: a curse on the [subset of] Jews [who wield political power to seize power for themselves]
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Kchama posted:That's not the guy who made the slogan saying that was his intent (he's dead, so he can't contribute right now), but a spokesperson trying to defend it. the slogan means "the jews, the"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:the slogan means "the jews, the" No one who hates Israel could be an evil man! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:What an absolutely pointless and useless metric to use. "Better than the IDF" describes a massive portion of humanity, and does little to distinguish whether a group is responsible for illegal or reprehensible activity. Kchama posted:I'm not sure what language you speak that can stuff so much meaning into a single word? In the plain Arabic he says "Jews", not "the Jewish Elite". If there's that much to be inferred, I don't think a non-Yemeni could divine it. It really comes across as you trying to shove your own meaning into what he says to try and protect him. I don't think he'd appreciate it. If you freaks are going to call me out and re-litigate this after crying crocodile tears to get me banned once you can read the loving Wikipedia article on the slogan, which cities Houthi leaders explaining it. You were the one who cynically said that my seeing the obvious use of anti-Arab troupes like “they hate women” or “they do slavery” was “actually the real racism” and the idea that you’re deeply concerned about Yemeni people so much we have to bomb them, it is hard to believe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slo...31604;%D9%90%2C If Americans wanted the moral high ground in regards to Yemen, perhaps we should not have armed the Saudis to kill hundreds of thousands and enforce mass starvation. I’m willing to give them a little leeway because of that when it comes to them being strident or their rhetoric being bad. I don’t know if this is off topic but fascinating that neither of you found the “they have slaves” racist or an anti-Arab troupe when they have fewer slaves than the US per capita Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:If you freaks are going to call me out and re-litigate this after crying crocodile tears to get me banned once you can read the loving Wikipedia article on the slogan, which cities Houthi leaders explaining it. You were the one who cynically said that my seeing the obvious use of anti-Arab troupes like “they hate women” or “they do slavery” was “actually the real racism” and the idea that you’re deeply concerned about Yemeni people so much we have to bomb them, it is hard to believe. I didn’t mention this earlier, but you did not read your own Wikipedia link that you demanded everyone read to prove yourself correct. Wiki Article You Link posted:Houthi leadership has explained that the reason for chanting "Curse upon the Jews!" at their rallies is due to a deep-held belief that the Jews are secretely ruling the world.[3]
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Sorry, I didn't mean those points were outright lies. I had listed those points in response to Google Jeb Bush's musings about if Hamas would throw their personnel under the bus for violence against civilians, since these points were supportive of Hamas denying targeting any civilian at all. Thanks for the thoughtful and in-depth response. You have focused on Beeri so my reply will be isolated to that incident. I will mainly be referencing this New Yorker article https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-devastation-of-beeri which demonstrates some of the residents were armed and took part in self defence firing when it was attacked. quote:
quote:Members of the kibbutz’s security team, which numbered a dozen people, were the first line of defense when the militants attacked. So they did have an armed security team who took part in a firefight when Hamas first arrived. quote:On the day of the attack, Hand was home alone. Emily had slept over at a friend’s house, and Hand couldn’t reach her. He called his ex-wife. “Go into the safe room, and, if you hear them, hold the door handle with both hands,” he told her. Then he unscrewed the mosquito net of his kitchen window and grabbed his 9-millimetre pistol. “I put a bullet in the chamber, and took it off safety, which you never do,” he said. “I knew they’d get me, but at least I’ll take a few out.” Here is an Irish citizen Thomas Hand who lived in the kibbutz and was armed with a pistol and prepared to fight back. If non-israelis are armed it would indicate an atmosphere where civilians commonly carry weapons for armed defence. There's also the issue this is a statement from Hamas, while the Maoist DFLP were also involved in the Beeri attack and it's impossible to discern who killed who. It's possible Hamas are being entirely truthful and it was the other resistance groups who did the atrocities. That's not helped by Israeli and western media who treat Hamas as the sole group operating in this conflict when it has been a collective of groups with divergent ideologies, only united by the occupation by Israel. Most news from the event has been from the Israeli side, which has shown itself to lie to justify their genocidal counter-attack. This is the first in-depth response from Hamas since, and to my initial read it matches with what has come out in the months since the initial attack, re: the IDF attacking their own in the confusion, and to prevent successful hostage taking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I didn’t mention this earlier, but you did not read your own Wikipedia link that you demanded everyone read to prove yourself correct. Yes, much of their rhetoric is bad. However, the mountain the starved Yemeni child corpses you’re standing on, my fellow American current or former service member, is not the high ground. I don’t really want to litigate this poo poo until someone responds to my PMs about the earlier thing, you in particular called me out by name and you really leaned into the pearl clutching and cynical “it is you who are the real racist” during this same argument in GiP. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
'No-no, I only mean the bad [members of an ethnic/religious group] who are part of a shadowy cabal pulling strings behind the scenes, of course, and I don't even want them dead just to stop corrupting our glorious nation with their poisonous ideology' is in itself not even a dog whistle, it's a blaring fire alarm. I don't know why you would argue that it's a reasonable stance regardless of who the target is. Not to mention that the statements being defended are far more explicit than that, and you have to look for caveats in other places to find something resembling a veneer of deniability. The level of naiveté on display is truly staggering. I guess when Israel says they only target militants and try really hard to minimise civilian casualties, it's also completely true, despite them openly calling Gazans animals. The whole animal thing? Oh, you know, cats are animals and they are really nice, so maybe they didn't mean anything bad by it, who's to say? Plus, I don't even speak Hebrew, maybe they meant literally the opposite thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:'No-no, I only mean the bad [members of an ethnic/religious group] who are part of a shadowy cabal pulling strings behind the scenes, of course, and I don't even want them dead just to stop corrupting our glorious nation with their poisonous ideology' is in itself not even a dog whistle, it's a blaring fire alarm. I don't know why you would argue that it's a reasonable stance regardless of who the target is. Not to mention that the statements being defended are far more explicit than that, and you have to look for caveats in other places to find something resembling a veneer of deniability. The level of naiveté on display is truly staggering. I guess when Israel says they only target militants and try really hard to minimise civilian casualties, it's also completely true, despite them openly calling Gazans animals. The whole animal thing? Oh, you know, cats are animals and they are really nice, so maybe they didn't mean anything bad by it, who's to say? Plus, I don't even speak Hebrew, maybe they meant literally the opposite thing. The context is that problematic language is being used by people who just survived a genocide perpetrated with US backing claiming to be acting to stop another genocide with US, versus problematic language people using it to justify the genocide. This is every bit as ridiculous as claiming black power and white power are equivalently offensive slogans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:The context is that problematic language is being used by people who just survived a genocide perpetrated with US backing claiming to be acting to stop another genocide with US, versus problematic language people using it to justify the genocide. They adopted the slogan in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:Thanks for the thoughtful and in-depth response. You have focused on Beeri so my reply will be isolated to that incident. I will mainly be referencing this New Yorker article https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-devastation-of-beeri which demonstrates some of the residents were armed and took part in self defence firing when it was attacked. Oh yea, I 100% agree that there were many people armed in Be'eri, of course. But, Hamas' claim was that NO civilians were targeted. Which, as presented in this article, is not true. Even if you want to try to say "well, it might have been Maoist DFLP", the very first civilian was targeted and killed by a Hamas soldier before any other shooting had occurred. This was at 6:56 AM, which seems to be before Kraunik had been killed at ~7:11 AM, according to that New Yorker article. Once again, from that NYT article: quote:Surveillance footage shows the first Hamas militants emerging from the woods on the edge of Be’eri shortly after sunrise. There were two of them, clad in combat uniforms and carrying assault rifles. They crept cautiously toward the village entrance, one wearing a green Hamas bandanna and the other a back-to-front cap. E: Here's another article stating that Bitton's car were the first murders of Be'eri: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67105618 quote:CCTV footage verified by the BBC shows a small group of Hamas militants arriving at the gate of the kibbutz before 06:00. A car arrives, the gate opens, and the militants run inside after shooting dead the occupants of the vehicle. Video from a few minutes later shows the same two Hamas militants walking through a square, guns by their side. Weirdly enough, the time is off by an hour between this and the NYT article? I can't say for certain why that is, but it seems like it was still before Kraunik started shooting. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:The context is that problematic language is being used by people who just survived a genocide perpetrated with US backing claiming to be acting to stop another genocide with US, versus problematic language people using it to justify the genocide. The slogan came from the early 2000s. The guy who made it the Houthis slogan died in 2004. It predates this war by 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:18
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:The context is that problematic language is being used by people who just survived a genocide perpetrated with US backing claiming to be acting to stop another genocide with US, versus problematic language people using it to justify the genocide. So which is it? Do they actually not hate the Jews, or is their hatred is regrettable but understandable in the light of the hardships they had to go through?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:This is every bit as ridiculous as claiming black power and white power are equivalently offensive slogans. The difference is that White Americans aren't vulnerable to systemic or stochastic violence and persecution, while Yemeni Jews were, until the violence and persecution became so severe that the community was altogether driven into exile. And Yemeni Bahai - who are constantly targeted by Houthi propaganda as contemptible and suspicious - still are vulnerable to it, it happens regularly. If a Black American activist says "gently caress White people," that has basically 0 potential to incite actual violence against an innocent person, because White Americans have strength in numbers and privilege. When an official in the Houthi state says "gently caress Jewish and Bahai people," it obviously does have potential to incite violence against local minorities who have strength in neither numbers nor privilege - and in fact that's exactly what happens. Because they have international reach via social media, and now popularity because they're conducting a campaign against a genocidal state, they have a platform to spread the kind of racist propaganda that gets people killed. And other parts of their governing ideology, like "women shouldn't be permitted to go out without male supervision" and "deliberately depriving civilians of water is a fine way to conduct a war." I don't want Yemen bombed, it will cause much more suffering for some of the world's poorest people and won't solve anything. I want the Israeli genocide to halt immediately. The Houthis agree with me on both of these points. Where we disagree is that I want innocent people not to be attacked because of propaganda that their religious or racial cohorts are evil, while the Houthi state is a mass producer of that propaganda. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Oh yea, I 100% agree that there were many people armed in Be'eri, of course. But, Hamas' claim was that NO civilians were targeted. Which, as presented in this article, is not true. Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
But it does tie back to Hamas claim that they did not target civilians, and engaged with armed settlers who fought alongside the IDF. Per their statement. quote:It is also a matter of fact that a number of Israeli settlers in settlements around Gaza were
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
No that's completely circular logic. They had weapons for self-defence in case Hamas militants tried to murder them, that does not convert them into legitimate targets and it's a red herring to get you off the fact that Hamas murdered plenty of people who were completely unarmed. e: it's also hoping you skip over the fact that when you pick at it, Hamas's definition of 'settlers' is literally all Israeli Jews. Everyone in the area concerned was well inside the 67 lines. # e2: to be doubly clear, Hamas are trying to craft a narrative where civilians in settlements armed themselves and joined the fight between them and the IDF which would make them legitimate targets, but that's a reversal of the reality that the settlements were the target in the first place and it was IDF forces that arrived on the scene to intervene in battles between Hamas militants and the civilians they were trying to kill/kidnap. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No that's completely circular logic. They had weapons for self-defence in case Hamas militants tried to murder them, that does not convert them into legitimate targets The existence of guns doesn't make civilians legitimate targets, but if someone picks up a gun and starts shooting at you then they are 100% a combatant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The existence of guns doesn't make civilians legitimate targets, but if someone picks up a gun and starts shooting at you then they are 100% a combatant. If you shoot at civilians first they are allowed to shoot back in self-defense without being considered combatants (which they wouldn’t be anyways as they aren’t part of a combat organization).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 19:03
|
|