War Declared in Israel

[baxus]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

People (of course not saying you are) are using this idea that Hamas is the governing power to justify the slaughter of all Palestinians in Gaza.

A lot of people in "the West" have trouble understanding how someone could just usurp power, even if getting it for the first time in regular elections, and I really doubt elections that included Hamas were regular and fair.

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Here are some charming examples I found from YouTube.

"They got what they're asking for....they made a Big mistake....they chose Hamas as their representatives and their leaders...enough of the victim card..." (From a Channel 4 News video).

"When you associate with enemies, it should not surprise you when you are dealt with accordingly." (BBC News clip)

"I hope they get to see their creator soon. All 2million of them" (different BBC news clip)

I have also seen various comments about how Israel should 'kill all the animals', 'bomb Gaza harder', 'end the conflict once and for all' (clear what they meant here). I haven't seen any about how Hamas should do this to the Israelis, though that might be more prevalent on other videos.

Come on, now. You can't base any conclusions on what people think based on Youtube comments. They are the bottom of the pit when it comes to internet as proven by these comments you posted.

[Ran]

32 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

You have Israeli ministers calling for a second Nakba

That was a random member of the Knesset, not a government minister.

 

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

People (of course not saying you are) are using this idea that Hamas is the governing power to justify the slaughter of all Palestinians in Gaza.

Terrible behavior.

That said, trying to draw a distinction between Hamas and Israel on the basis of Hamas not being a government i, as I said, wrong. They have been running Gaza for the last 16 years. So my point stands that Hamas has been on the dehumanizing kick for a long time, and the danger is if Israel decides to return the inhumanity.

10 minutes ago, Relic said:

Collateral damage seems to be something the West is also comfortable with

The problem is, what is the alternative when the enemy deliberately hides itself in and among the civilian population? Just say, fine, Hamas, continue to rocket attack from apartment buildings with impunity?

[Relic]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

 

The problem is, what is the alternative when the enemy deliberately hides itself in and among the civilian population? Just say, fine, Hamas, continue to rocket attack from apartment buildings with impunity?

Space lasers. 

Yeah, I don't know. I don't have an answer. But playing wack-a-mole with artillery in a densely populated urban environment won't benefit anyone in the long run. And that's aside from it being illegal and immoral. 

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, baxus said:

You can't base any conclusions on what people think based on Youtube comments. They are the bottom of the pit when it comes to internet as proven by these comments you posted.

I am not saying everyone thinks like this, but it is sad anyone thinks like this.

People rightfully condemn the Hamas attacks, but where were they when Israeli was killing innocent Palestinians? Or when Saudi Arabia blew up Yemeni schoolchildren? Or when those poor students in Nigeria were killed by Boko Haram? Or with regards to China's treatment of the Uighur people?

[baxus]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

The problem is, what is the alternative when the enemy deliberately hides itself in and among the civilian population? Just say, fine, Hamas, continue to rocket attack from apartment buildings with impunity?

Maybe tackle issues of walls, barbed wire fences, 80% unemployment rate, trying to actually integrate Palestinians into Israeli society, giving them a chance to educate themselves etc. so that they can actually be equal members of society instead of being seen as Orcs on the other side of the wall?

Sure, it will take A LOT of time, money and effort but first it would take will to actually do it. It's not an easy fix, by any means but it is the only one other than one side basically exterminating the other.

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

That was a random member of the Knesset, not a government minister.

The previous deputy defence minster did so, as I already pointed out (he's also a homophobe):

https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-deputy-defense-minister-called-palestinians-animals/amp/

Quote

“To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.”

“The Palestinians aren’t educated towards peace, nor to they want it,” he said.

Plus what the current one said, although I have seen discussion that he may have been referring specifically to Hamas and not all Palestinians.

[baxus]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I am not saying everyone thinks like this, but it is sad anyone thinks like this.

People rightfully condemn the Hamas attacks, but where were they when Israeli was killing innocent Palestinians? Or when Saudi Arabia blew up Yemeni schoolchildren? Or when those poor students in Nigeria were killed by Boko Haram? Or with regards to China's treatment of the Uighur people?

Well, here's the thing. Culturally, Israeli people are closer to people in "the West" than Palestinians are so we are more likely to feel "connected" to Israelis rather than Palestinians. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around in Iran, Egypt, Jordan etc. and that news reports focus more on Palestinian casualties and injustices Palestine has suffered from Israelis.

[KingAerys_II]

16 minutes ago, baxus said:

Maybe tackle issues of walls, barbed wire fences, 80% unemployment rate, trying to actually integrate Palestinians into Israeli society, giving them a chance to educate themselves etc. so that they can actually be equal members of society instead of being seen as Orcs on the other side of the wall?

Sure, it will take A LOT of time, money and effort but first it would take will to actually do it. It's not an easy fix, by any means but it is the only one other than one side basically exterminating the other.

They don't want Arabs to be the majority, the Israeli government wants Israel to be the country where ethnic jews live 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The remark from Yoav Gallant came as part of an explicit meeting on the response to Hamas. He has been quite clear that Hamas is the target of Israel's response. Such as here.

It's a huge leap to go from his talking about Hamas to then suggest the "human animals" that Israel is "fighting" are not actually Hamas.

I agree that context is important, but... even apart from the 'human animals' remark and who he was referencing there, he also said to those troops that he has 'released all the restraints' on them, and that 'Hamas wanted a change in Gaza; it will change 180 degrees from what it thought. They will regret this moment, Gaza will never go back to what it was'. That is rhetoric that could very easily be understood by those troops as blurring the lines between Gaza residents in general and Hamas in particular. It was, as I say, at the very least not taking care to make that distinction clear. 

ETA - when I say that, though, to be clear, I'm not making a 'moral equivalence' argument to the rhetoric quoted earlier from Hamas. It's not on the same level, at all. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by mormont

[Craving Peaches]

Now a member of the Knesset is calling for nuclear bombs to be dropped on Gaza...

Israeli Lawmaker Urged Government to Use Nuclear Weapons Against Hamas (businessinsider.com)

[Ran]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Maybe tackle issues

None of that stuff can be done during open hostilities.

Hamas is happy to maintain that status quo because any improvement in material conditions for residents of Gaza weakens Hamas’s grip. And, yes, Netanyahu has a good portion of the blame over Hamas’s grasp on power, having propped them up to divide Palestinian solidarity. But that recognition doesn’t solve the immediate problem, which remain Hamas. To what degree the people of Gaza can themselves rid themselves of these Islamist terrorists, I don’t know, but it would probably help their cause if they could.

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

None of that stuff can be done during open hostilities.

True, but if it had been done before things probably wouldn't have reached this point in the first place.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

I am not saying everyone thinks like this, but it is sad anyone thinks like this.

People rightfully condemn the Hamas attacks, but where were they when Israeli was killing innocent Palestinians? Or when Saudi Arabia blew up Yemeni schoolchildren? Or when those poor students in Nigeria were killed by Boko Haram? Or with regards to China's treatment of the Uighur people?

The Tu Quoque fallacy isn’t a valid argument.  There will always be hypocrisy in what draws people’s attention.  That doesn’t make what people are paying attention to invalid or unworthy of concern.  

There has been a fair bit of discussion of Boko Haram, the Uighur, and other terrible things that happen.  At the end of the day who remembers the Russian genocide against the Cirrcasians?  

Acting and speaking out about an issue of note is not invalid because you haven’t done the same for every such issue that has ever happened in history.

[Craving Peaches]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

At the end of the day who remembers the Russian genocide against the Cirrcasians?  

I do...

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 That doesn’t make what people are paying attention to invalid or unworthy of concern.  

No one is saying this? I literally said 'People rightfully condemn Hamas'...

The argument was that people should condemn other bad things as well, not that people should say nothing...

Edited October 11, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

No one is saying this? I literally said 'People rightfully condemn Hamas'...

The argument was that people should condemn other bad things as well, not that people should say nothing...

You are implying that if everything isn’t also condemned then there is something improper about the condemnation of Hamas.  That is the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Condemning Hamas is proper whether or not the Russian genocide against the Circassians is also condemned.  The two are both bad and unrelated to each other.

[Craving Peaches]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are implying that if everything isn’t also condemned then there is something improper about the condemnation of Hamas.  That is the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Condemning Hamas is proper whether or not the Russian genocide against the Circassians is also condemned.  The two are both bad and unrelated to each other.

I'm saying that the condemnation of Hamas is rightful, i.e. proper. I do not understand how you interpret 'People rightfully condemn Hamas' as anything else. I mentioned the other things that I thought were under-reported, but I do not understand where you are making the connection that this means I don't think their condemnation of Hamas is somehow not proper when I explicitly say it is. It was a wish that people would be vocal about those things as they were about the Hamas attack.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are implying that if everything isn’t also condemned then there is something improper about the condemnation of Hamas.  That is the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Condemning Hamas is proper whether or not the Russian genocide against the Circassians is also condemned.  The two are both bad and unrelated to each other.

Just because the way you're framing it is as a logical fallacy doesn't make it so and doesn't mean it's worthy of dismissal. 

I have no issue, for example, pointing out the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life but don't give a fuck about life once it exists outside of the womb, and it's not a logical fallacy on my part to question their ethics, reasoning, intentions or logic.

If there's a violent conflict with some blame on both sides, and someone is only recognizing one group's culpability, that blinded thinking is open for discussion.  There's no need to jam every post into some kind of fallacy bingo card or assume because there's a named fallacy that has superficial resemblance to someone's post that it is somehow a bogus argument.  

That said, YouTube comments are probably not much of a foundation for an argument.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm saying that the condemnation of Hamas is rightful, i.e. proper. I do not understand how you interpret 'People rightfully condemn Hamas' as anything else. I mentioned the other things that I thought were under-reported, but I do not understand where you are making the connection that this means I don't think their condemnation of Hamas is somehow not proper when I explicitly say it is. It was a wish that people would be vocal about those things as they were about the Hamas attack.

If the condemnation of Hamas is just why mention other events at all?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Just because the way you're framing it is as a logical fallacy doesn't make it so and doesn't mean it's worthy of dismissal. 

I have no issue, for example, pointing out the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life but don't give a fuck about life once it exists outside of the womb, and it's not a logical fallacy on my part to question their ethics, reasoning, intentions or logic.

If there's a violent conflict with some blame on both sides, and someone is only recognizing one group's culpability, that blinded thinking is open for discussion.  There's no need to jam every post into some kind of fallacy bingo card or assume because there's a named fallacy that has superficial resemblance to someone's post that it is somehow a bogus argument.  

That said, YouTube comments are probably not much of a foundation for an argument.  

 

But that is the very nature of the Tu Quoque fallacy.  It is distraction from the ongoing discussion with the implication of hypocrisy claiming that such hypocrisy invalidates the argument of someone pointing a bad thing because they aren’t also pointing out all the other bad things.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Answering the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians with the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is an awful idea, does not solve the issue and only leads to more bloodshed. It will only perpetuate the cycle of violence, unless, God forbid, all of one side is completely wiped out. 

And yet not responding just invites more indiscriminate slaughter of civilians from the people who did it first, especially when their stated goal is to destroy the people they attacked. The cycle only ends with new leadership on both sides.