Looks like a new Gaza war has started

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

When it does, it's considered a war crime. And this was.

It’s actually not.

“ Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.”

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/#:~:text=Collateral%20damage%20is%20an%20accepted,of%20the%20principle%20of%20proportionality.

The bombing could only be condsidered proportional if you think Christian lives don't matter. To everyone else, this was a war crime.

That’s not what proportionality means.

Actually, it is. And the fact that you can't state what proportionality means, and can only say something isn't so you can justify innocent civilian deaths, shows you don't know what proportionality means. Or, maybe you just don't care about Christian lives.

DP.

You're making things up. Here's the definition of proportionality (spoiler: it bears no relationship whatsoever to your point):

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

Not makimg things up at all. What was the concrete and direct military advantage gained by bombing a church and killimg civilians taking shelter? Why couldn't Israel have attacked the command center with more precision? That bears a total relationship to my point. This was a war crime. To say otherwise is to say those Christian lives don't matter.

You have a strange rhetorical tic. You say things as though they must be true without giving any supporting facts.

You don’t know why they couldn’t be more precise in that moment. You don’t get to say it’s a war crime without more information. It’s just war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a very scary time to be a Jewish student on many college campuses. And antisemitism is up almost 400 percent from this time last year, per ADL.

This is so disingenuous.

Zero Jewish students have been killed in hate crimes in the United States. A 6 year old Palestinian boy from Chicago was murdered to preemptively “protect” Jews from antisemitism.

He was 6 years old.

It’s much more dangerous to be a Palestinian child in the United States than a Jewish one. Yet, nobody cares. His death doesn’t matter because he wasn’t Jewish, and you’re spreading more of the propaganda that got him killed.

I'm not sure it's a contest, but in the interest of accuracy, I'll play.

There are far, far more hate crimes against Jews every year than against Muslims (and obviously even few directly against Palestinians).

Don't believe me? Check out the FBI stats.

How many Jewish-American children were killed to preemptively protect Palestinians?

I’ll wait while you check those FBI statistics.

The fact remains that jewish students are very safe in the United States. Palestinian kindergartners, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

When it does, it's considered a war crime. And this was.

It’s actually not.

“ Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.”

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/#:~:text=Collateral%20damage%20is%20an%20accepted,of%20the%20principle%20of%20proportionality.

The bombing could only be condsidered proportional if you think Christian lives don't matter. To everyone else, this was a war crime.

That’s not what proportionality means.

Actually, it is. And the fact that you can't state what proportionality means, and can only say something isn't so you can justify innocent civilian deaths, shows you don't know what proportionality means. Or, maybe you just don't care about Christian lives.

DP.

You're making things up. Here's the definition of proportionality (spoiler: it bears no relationship whatsoever to your point):

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

Not makimg things up at all. What was the concrete and direct military advantage gained by bombing a church and killimg civilians taking shelter? Why couldn't Israel have attacked the command center with more precision? That bears a total relationship to my point. This was a war crime. To say otherwise is to say those Christian lives don't matter.

No offense, but your analysis is just wrong.

Here's how the analysis actually works:

The concrete and direct military advantage was destroying the command center.

The ONLY question is whether the loss of civilian life was "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".

We can't answer this question with any certainty b/c we don't have enough facts.

Based on what I know of how these rules are applied, however, I'd guess that this would not be considered a war crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a very scary time to be a Jewish student on many college campuses. And antisemitism is up almost 400 percent from this time last year, per ADL.

This is so disingenuous.

Zero Jewish students have been killed in hate crimes in the United States. A 6 year old Palestinian boy from Chicago was murdered to preemptively “protect” Jews from antisemitism.

He was 6 years old.

It’s much more dangerous to be a Palestinian child in the United States than a Jewish one. Yet, nobody cares. His death doesn’t matter because he wasn’t Jewish, and you’re spreading more of the propaganda that got him killed.

I'm not sure it's a contest, but in the interest of accuracy, I'll play.

There are far, far more hate crimes against Jews every year than against Muslims (and obviously even few directly against Palestinians).

Don't believe me? Check out the FBI stats.

How many Jewish-American children were killed to preemptively protect Palestinians?

I’ll wait while you check those FBI statistics.

The fact remains that jewish students are very safe in the United States. Palestinian kindergartners, not so much.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote above: "It’s much more dangerous to be a Palestinian child in the United States..."

Thanks for playing. Try again later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

When it does, it's considered a war crime. And this was.

It’s actually not.

“ Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.”

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/#:~:text=Collateral%20damage%20is%20an%20accepted,of%20the%20principle%20of%20proportionality.

The bombing could only be condsidered proportional if you think Christian lives don't matter. To everyone else, this was a war crime.

That’s not what proportionality means.

Actually, it is. And the fact that you can't state what proportionality means, and can only say something isn't so you can justify innocent civilian deaths, shows you don't know what proportionality means. Or, maybe you just don't care about Christian lives.

DP.

You're making things up. Here's the definition of proportionality (spoiler: it bears no relationship whatsoever to your point):

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

Not makimg things up at all. What was the concrete and direct military advantage gained by bombing a church and killimg civilians taking shelter? Why couldn't Israel have attacked the command center with more precision? That bears a total relationship to my point. This was a war crime. To say otherwise is to say those Christian lives don't matter.

No offense, but your analysis is just wrong.

Here's how the analysis actually works:

The concrete and direct military advantage was destroying the command center.

The ONLY question is whether the loss of civilian life was "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".

We can't answer this question with any certainty b/c we don't have enough facts.

Based on what I know of how these rules are applied, however, I'd guess that this would not be considered a war crime.

Was there a Hamas command center at every major journalist organization in Gaza?

Just want to make sure we get our talking points right.

The Associated was harboring Hamas in their Gaza headquarters and that’s why Israel bombed them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

When it does, it's considered a war crime. And this was.

It’s actually not.

“ Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.”

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/#:~:text=Collateral%20damage%20is%20an%20accepted,of%20the%20principle%20of%20proportionality.

The bombing could only be condsidered proportional if you think Christian lives don't matter. To everyone else, this was a war crime.

That’s not what proportionality means.

Actually, it is. And the fact that you can't state what proportionality means, and can only say something isn't so you can justify innocent civilian deaths, shows you don't know what proportionality means. Or, maybe you just don't care about Christian lives.

DP.

You're making things up. Here's the definition of proportionality (spoiler: it bears no relationship whatsoever to your point):

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

Not makimg things up at all. What was the concrete and direct military advantage gained by bombing a church and killimg civilians taking shelter? Why couldn't Israel have attacked the command center with more precision? That bears a total relationship to my point. This was a war crime. To say otherwise is to say those Christian lives don't matter.

No offense, but your analysis is just wrong.

Here's how the analysis actually works:

The concrete and direct military advantage was destroying the command center.

The ONLY question is whether the loss of civilian life was "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".

We can't answer this question with any certainty b/c we don't have enough facts.

Based on what I know of how these rules are applied, however, I'd guess that this would not be considered a war crime.

Was there a Hamas command center at every major journalist organization in Gaza?

Just want to make sure we get our talking points right.

The Associated was harboring Hamas in their Gaza headquarters and that’s why Israel bombed them?

Let's finish the church, then happy to move on. I take it you've concluded that strike was lawful?

Feel free to post details of every Israeli strike along with the pertinent facts, and we can discuss.

FWIW, I think it's quite likely that some Israeli strikes are violating Rule 14.

I'm not working off of talking points. I think that would be your issue.

[Anonymous]

It would be much, much easier to be an anti-Israel student on most college campuses than it would be to be a pro-Israel student. Aside from that, antisemitism is really on the rise in the US—the far right and the far left are the big sources of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A underground spider web of tunnels with electricity, lights, toilets, underground doctors/Medics, food and water? Probably television too.

These are bunkers/underground apartments not even tunnels . It’s obviously safe from the IDF bombing. The Israeli hostages there were safer than Gazans. The IDF military strategy does nothing to get rid of Hamas or free the hostages. It’s all about killing kids and families with 5,000 pound bombs . Yes- that is the way to get rid of Hamas, for sure.

Which is why Israel and Egypt are not allowing fuel into Gaza. Those tunnels are dependent on generators for ventilation. No fuel. No generators. And then Hamas will have to rise to the surface. If the hospitals need fuel for their generators, Hamas has plenty. But thy'd rather see Palestinians die then help.

Heck, it was reported that when Egypt wanted to eliminate the tunnels, it flooded them. Egypt is playing three dimensional chess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is happening all over the world -- at NYU at Columbia, and here in London. These are not simply pro-Palestinian protesters calling for peace, for statehood -- which I get and respect.

These people pulling down posters everywhere are AGAINST supporting kidnapped hostages. They are handmaidens of Hamas.

Completely undermines the argument that they are pro-peace and only want Palestinian suffering to end.

They are anti-civilization.

https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/status/1712527878774997234

More "pro-Palestinians" pulling posters down.

Where are the posters for the hundreds of Palestinian children who went missing during Israel’s bombing of Gaza?

Is it antisemitic to care about them?

Put some up. I’d be surprised if Jews take them down.

You would? Jews complained of 4 year old Gazans’ art work . You don’t think they’d be triggered by seeing dismembered and burned Gazan children? With their limbs crushed to smithereens?

Or maybe that’s an exciting sight who knows?

I think you aged Jews confused with pro-Hamas folks who called the 10/7 attack "exhilarating" and celebrated in the streets.

Who called it exhilarating and celebrated in the streets? If I remember correct demonstrations didn’t even break out on Oct 7. They started after the Gaza war began a few days later and there was no dancing in the streets. Demonstrations got intensified by the hospital and Rafah crossing bombings and President Bidens remarks.

A professor at Cornell called the attacks exhilarating.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/16/russell-rickford-says-hamas-terror-was-exhilarating-exciting/

Pp. Yes and that nut was rightly fired.

Which Palestinian called Oct 7 exhilarating?

I see many Israelis on Tiktok calling the Gaza war fun and exciting and mocking the dead and starving kids of Gaza by posting their faucets of clean water and one person joked about dressing up as a Gaza kid for Halloween .

Did any Palestinian mock the Israeli victims ? You know -pretend to be a hostage , laugh at reports of beheadings or rape on social media? I haven’t seen any

Are you serious here? There are so many examples. You must be deliberately trying not to see.

I have seen the despicable Israeli posts and the despicable Hamas posts. They are both there. If you don’t see them from one side only, you are deliberately averting your eyes. Some of them have made the news.

Where are the despicable posts or actions from the Palestinians? Did Palestinians in the West Bank dance in the streets as the settlers do when Israelis died on Oct 7?

I do not think you are asking remotely in good faith — a simple google search of “Palestinians celebrating Hamas attacks” yields pages and pages of links with all sorts of videos and photos. Same with searches of social media. But if you can’t access Google, or any social media platform for that matter, are you looking for celebrations from Palestinians only in Palestine/Israel? Or globally?

[Anonymous]

Ned fuel? Ask Hamas! But no, Hamas needs fuel to use the tunnels. As UN makes statements about Israel “asking for it”, perhaps at least also acknowledge that Hamas, the elected government in Gaza, is complicit in inflicting pain on its civilians by hogging fuel and food. But those tunnels won’t run themselves and those rockets flying into Israel won’t fuel themselves either.

[Anonymous]

It’s also worth noting that, because Hamas basically lives in the tunnels, that’s where Israel would have to fight them.

Despite having basically no knowledge of the tunnel layouts, what’s down there, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s also worth noting that, because Hamas basically lives in the tunnels, that’s where Israel would have to fight them.

Despite having basically no knowledge of the tunnel layouts, what’s down there, etc.

booby traps

[Anonymous]

Why can’t Egypt open the border and accept refugees again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ned fuel? Ask Hamas! But no, Hamas needs fuel to use the tunnels. As UN makes statements about Israel “asking for it”, perhaps at least also acknowledge that Hamas, the elected government in Gaza, is complicit in inflicting pain on its civilians by hogging fuel and food. But those tunnels won’t run themselves and those rockets flying into Israel won’t fuel themselves either.

Over 100,000 gallons that could be given to the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t Egypt open the border and accept refugees again?

Because Israel won't guarantee them a right of return.