Gaza War, Part 3

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

And why is it that the UK and allies got in that position? It is because Palestine fought on the wrong side of the war in WWI and lost. Seems Palestinian Arabs have a long long history of continually getting into fights and being on the wrong side, then losing, and then still acting like they are the righteous who were wrongly aggrieved, despite having already lost that debate over and over and over again.

Really, that's what you have. It seems that the European Jewish population should have been provided with lands in Germany, Ukraine, Poland and Austria where they had lived for one-hundred plus years. And Palestine was a part of the British monarchy and many Palestinians like other British colonialist fought on behalf of GB in WW2. As a thank you, the Brits told them what they thought of their service, I mean servitude.

The Palestinian Arabs could have gone back to Arabia, where they lived for hundreds of years before coming to Palestine. So what's your point?

[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:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Probably for the same reason Israel got a country AFTER terrorist attacks.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

You missing gaps in your history lesson. Also, barely anyone is alive from that time. In addition, people groups are moved around unvoluntarily at times. Have the Arabs ever conqured any people groups.
Everyone wants American money. We can use it how we see fit.

Did Arabs every conquer anyone? Of course they did. They were ruthless and violently conquered and colonized everything across the north of Africa, into Spain and Sicily, and eastward to modern-day Pakistan, and northward to modern-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, extracting riches, enslaving people, oppressing, exploiting, and so on.

But for some weird reason we only ever talk about "the west" as being a colonizer.

English is the most spoken language in the world. I think the British, for such a tiny island, did the greatest job colonizing the world.

[Anonymous]

Amin al Husseini was the leader in Palestine at the time of WW2. He was a Nazi collaborator. In fact, some people think that he gave Hitler the idea of the “final solution”. Because of this, they were in a much weaker position after the war ended and so when Britain was negotiating for the division of the area with the Arabs and the Jews, they were not that sympathetic. Here’s the brief Wiki entry. So I wouldn’t exactly say that the British didn’t “thank them for their servitude.”

His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge successively in the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS (on the grounds that they shared four principles: family, order, the leader and faith).[13] On meeting Adolf Hitler, he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. Upon the end of the war, he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution for war crimes.

In the lead-up to the 1948 Palestine war, Husseini opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah's designs to annex the Arab part of British Mandatory Palestine to Jordan, and, failing to gain command of the "Arab rescue army" (jaysh al-inqadh al-'arabi) formed under the aegis of the Arab League, built his own militia, al-jihad al-muqaddas. In September 1948 he participated in the establishment of an All-Palestine Government. Seated in Egyptian-ruled Gaza, this government won limited recognition by Arab states but was eventually dissolved by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1959. After the war and the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, his claims to leadership were wholly discredited and he was eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization (established in 1964), losing most of his residual political influence.[14] He died in Beirut, Lebanon, in July 1974.

Husseini was and remains a highly controversial figure. Historians dispute whether his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism, or a combination of both. Opponents of Palestinian nationalism have pointed to Husseini's wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany to associate the Palestinian national movement with antisemitism in Europe.[b]

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

And why is it that the UK and allies got in that position? It is because Palestine fought on the wrong side of the war in WWI and lost. Seems Palestinian Arabs have a long long history of continually getting into fights and being on the wrong side, then losing, and then still acting like they are the righteous who were wrongly aggrieved, despite having already lost that debate over and over and over again.

Really, that's what you have. It seems that the European Jewish population should have been provided with lands in Germany, Ukraine, Poland and Austria where they had lived for one-hundred plus years. And Palestine was a part of the British monarchy and many Palestinians like other British colonialist fought on behalf of GB in WW2. As a thank you, the Brits told them what they thought of their service, I mean servitude.

The Palestinian Arabs could have gone back to Arabia, where they lived for hundreds of years before coming to Palestine. So what's your point?

What? Palestinians have always been in that land. I also admit that so has people of the Jewish faith. My issue, with the partition of Palestine by the Brits is tantamount to me coming to your house and telling you to get the 'ef out or I will forcefully remove you and put someone else in your home. I guess PP you can go live in the house you lived in 30 years ago, but you gotta get the heck out of the current house because I'm (UK) moving in somebody else

[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:I couldn't get through the NY Times article. The brutalization of women was planned and carried out in multiple locations on 10/7. Not only is Hamas and its supporters a death cult but it is filled with rapists.

Where were the protests, the signs, the marches for these women? Michelle "bring back our girls" Obama? Susan Sarandon? UN Women? It's like rape has become fashionable again when the victims are Jews.

The sexual abuse of women on 10/7 or on any other day is horrific and disgusting. I'm sure everyone here wishes none of that ever happened.

It's sad that the initial reports were met with guarded skepticism, but consider that we were also told that 40 babies were beheaded, a baby was baked in an oven, and dead babies were found hanging on a clothesline. These stories proved to be untrue. The more lurid and preposterous the claim, the less likely it was to be true, even though some assertions were allegedly based on "eyewitness testimonies" (which were later retracted). We also heard that Palestinian militants had burned many people alive. It turned out, and Israelis who observed the events of the day confirmed this, that in fact the IDF had done most, if not all, of the burning, including burning hundreds of Palestinian militants to death (as has been pointed out, they "did not burn themselves").

Unfortunately, Israel is currently led by some ethically challenged people. To put it bluntly, they lie. A lot. Given Israel's lack of credibility, it would be naive to unquestioningly accept any of its assertions. Israel's moral challenges also make it difficult to believe so-called confessions of rape by captured militants. Israel beats "confessions" out of its detainees, so these "admissions" cannot be assumed to be valid in every case.

Additionally, there is no available forensic evidence of rape. In a Times of Israel report, it is claimed that "physical evidence of sexual assault was not collected from corpses by Israel’s overtaxed morgue facilities." Additionally, "the government has not released explicit footage or pressed rape survivors to share their stories. Nor have the forensic services released formal reports on whether their findings were consistent with sexual abuse."
(https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-war-and-urgent-need-to-id-bodies-evidence-of-hamass-october-7-rapes-slips-away/amp/).

I think it likely that, sadly, women were raped on 10/7. I think it equally likely that some of the rape stories we have been told are fabricated. It would be entirely out of character for Israel not to lie about rape, given that it has lied about virtually everything else and is particularly prone to lying about being victimized.

Wow. To me, a non-Israeli and non-Jew, this just reads as horrific sexual rape and torture apologia. I find your entire screed genuinely chilling. You probably don’t even care how vicious you sound, but it’s awful.

You know what I did immediately after 10/7? I went to Hamas’ own telegram channels and watched their own videos, which they kept up until they realized how bad it made them look. You obviously did not and obviously don’t care anyhow, given that the victims were Jewish. I will never forget what I saw. Never.

Did you see any videos portraying rape on the Hamas channels? I am genuinely curious.

Your assessment of my sentiments is entirely incorrect. I have never apologized for rape or torture, and I clearly call sexual abuse "horrific and disgusting," so your conclusions are unfounded. When I point out that the claims of babies being beheaded and hung on clotheslines are false (as in, people lied), this does not mean I don't care about beheading babies or hanging them up with the laundry (in truth, I strenuously object to roasting children or pinning them, either dead or alive, to clotheslines.) It means I have a commitment to the truth. Similarly, I am not detracting from the severity of rape when I point out that Israel has very little credibility, so it would be naive to blindly believe everything it claims (I did acknowledge that I think some of the claims are probably accurate). Perhaps you could try to separate my disinclination to embrace lies as support for whatever is being lied about?

If someone tells you that they met Elvis last Monday and Bigfoot last Tuesday, you could be excused for being a little skeptical if they told you they met Justin Bieber on Wednesday. While it's possible the latest claim is true, one might wonder if this person is prone to hallucinating or is perhaps just plain telling porkie pies.

If I may say so, it seems to me people with an agenda are being rather theatrical and performative about some of Israel's claims. We were all expected to work ourselves into a lather, despise Palestinians, embrace Israel unconditionally, celebrate massacring children in Gaza, and fall about clutching our pearls and collapsing on the fainting couch because Hamas baked a baby in an oven and hung dead babies on a clothesline, except ... that didn't happen. Why would we be stupid enough to blindly believe anything else Israel claims after that? And why would proof of such extreme stupidity be "chilling" or "vicious"? And why would one's very well-founded skepticism indicate lack of sympathy for the victims in the unlikely event something Israel claims actually turns out to be true?

Terrible, cruel, and unjust things undoubtedly happened on 10/7. I don't think anyone denies that. However, the Israeli authorities lie so compulsively that one would have to be extremely dull-witted or childlike not to want some independent verification of anything they tell you.

That’s a lot of words to say “I’m a vicious anti-Semite who freely uses the most ancient of anti-Semitic tropes.”

Do you realize just how awful you sound to rational people who aren’t gleefully stewing in anti-Semitism day in and day out? I’m genuinely curious, to quote you.

- non-Jew, since obviously if I were Jewish you’d start going on about the protocols of Zion or whatever. And I feel dirty even talking to you, like I’m giving credence to someone who would have watched the Hamas videos for fun.

You may be surprised to learn that I am a secular Ashkenazi Jew, but that's neither here nor there. Many orthodox Jews oppose Zionism in general and the current Israeli government in particular. Don't let that get in the way of trying to win a cheap point by screeching about antisemitism (which is antisemitic in itself).

What is relevant is that nobody has answered my question about rape videos. Do they or don't they exist? And why do you throw up smokescreens of insults rather than trying to address my arguments? Well, we know why, but couldn't you at least try to be honest enough to address my actual statements instead of lying about them? When you so obviously lie about and misrepresent what I have said, why do you expect me to naively believe anything else you might say?

Nobody has addressed my point about the lying. Given that the 40 beheaded babies/baby baked in an oven/babies on clotheslines stories were, well, flat-out lies, why is is "antisemitic" to wonder how true similar stories might be? It's the lying, stupid. When someone lies and lies and then lies some more, you start to wonder about the credibility of every story they tell. Kind of like when someone screams "antisemitism" again and again and again some more, you start to wonder if maybe they're trying to bury the truth under all that faux indignation and hysteria. Prove me wrong. Show you have some integrity and explain to me why I should believe the chopped-off-breast story when so many other stories have turned out to be lies. What differentiates that story from the babies-on-clotheslines story? Why would it be unreasonable to want some sort of verification, given that so many of these stories turned out to be false?

And please don't tell me I'm "denying atrocities" because I "hate Jews" or any similar dishonest and evasive craziness. I acknowledge that atrocities occurred. I even said I think there were probably rapes and that rape is "horrific." I am not dismissing unverified claims. Some may very well be true. Under the circumstances, however, I would simply like to see some sort of authentication before I make up my mind one way or the other. What is your problem with that?

Since you’re so fixated about the lying, let’s start with your lies first. Give me hard and solid proof that Israel — specifically Israel, not an individual Jew unless you are taking the position that one Jew speaks for all of Israel — but that “Israel” (your words) said that there were specifically 40 beheaded babies, a baby baked in an oven, and a baby on a clothesline. Show me where “Israel” as a single entity lied repeatedly about every single one of these, because that’s your assertion: that “Israel,” not an individual, not an entity in Israel, not an individual Jewish reporter, not a Jewish extremist, not even the IDF, but that “Israel” itself lies. So show me that proof. Find me the evidence that singular Israel collectively and repeatedly lied. You say it happened as a fact and you’ve repeated that “fact” over and over. So show me your mountains of evidence.

Spoiler alert: you are lying.

And yes. I will call out antisemitism when I see it, and it’s profoundly antisemitic to repeatedly and chillingly talk about how “Israel” lies all the time. That is the most ancient of antisemitic tropes and your anger at being identified for using that trope is not my problem.

Well, that's easy. Poor, old Biden (of whom I am inordinately fond, but I think he needs to step down) shuffled home from Israel talking about beheaded babies after meeting with Netanyahu, who speaks for ... Israel. Netanyahu also showed Blinken photographs of the charred remains of a child, leading him to believe the child was burned by Hamas. We now know that those burned on 10/7 were almost certainly burned by the Israeli military. This article provides more details: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-07-28/ty-article/.highlight/in-a-perfect-storm-of-deceit-and-denial-netanyahus-lies-start-to-collide/00000189-98fa-d5eb-abcb-f9fe850c0000
And more of the same: https://hebhjamal.substack.com/p/a-list-of-israeli-lies-propaganda

Israel has discredited itself. Recent polls in Israel show that Israelis increasingly distrust Netanyahu. His ratings are plummeting and his nationalist base is beginning to desert him. There's a better than zero chance he may end up in jail on corruption charges, which might be the best thing to happen to Israel in a long time.

Why are you spreading false Hamas propaganda, and wild conspiracy theories that 10/7 was some kind of false flag staged by the IDF?

Now I'm truly puzzled. Where do I claim that 10/7 was staged by the IDF? This is (yawn) another straw man. Let me guess -- you will follow up with another ad hominem? Can I believe that 10/7 was NOT staged by the IDF AND also believe that the babies on a clothes line stories is untrue? Or are you insisting that IF I believe that 10/7 was NOT staged by the IDF, I must ALSO believe the babies-on-a-clothesline IS true? Do you understand that, as someone above just pointed out, two claims need not be mutually exclusive?

Wow. You really are a piece of work. Right above this,

"We now know that those burned on 10/7 were almost certainly burned by the Israeli military."

Unreal that anyone would try and claim that the 10/7 violence was Israeli military when we have HOURS AND HOURS of Hamas video showing it was in fact Hamas.

Stop playing dumb games here. You are really failing badly here.

She has no evidence that the IDF did any of the burning of Israel civilians just like she has no evidence that IDF stated “40 beheaded babies” anywhere. I hate calling her a she, because that would imply that she could potentially be a mother, and that would be the greatest tragedy.

There is ample evidence that “some” of the 10/7 damage caused by IDF. That evidence is witness reports of helicopter and tank fire, the damage that can only be caused by tank and helicopter shelling, and burned bodies of Hamas militants who most assuredly did not self immolate.

There is evidence that IDF will shoot and kill on-sight, no questions, unarmed men over the age of fifteen.

I am convinced. Israel is made up of evil incarnate. Palestinians, tell me what you want, I will see that the U.S. gives you all of it!
Happy now?

Just the government executing this war and some, not all, IDF soldiers. I mean the IDF shot and killed three unarmed, shirtless, former hostage, Israeli men holding up a white flag because the IDF thought they were Palestinian. Insane.

It's not that insane if you've already been ambushed by Hamas fighters posing as civilians waving a white flag. Which is a tactic that Hamas has been documented using despite it being a serious war crime.

Excuses, excuses, excuses and just plain lies and bull-manure. The men were shirtless to indicate they were not hiding anything under their shirts. If the soldiers were concerned about an ambush all they had to do was tell them to stop and lay down on the ground.

Stop and lay on the ground and then what? As soon as the IDF comes out from cover, walks over to them Hamas starts firing, or sets off an explosive, or whatever else. Again, these Hamas war crimes have been documented over and over again. It's not lies and bull manure, and you should stop defending Hamas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/hamas-booby-traps-gaza/

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

And why is it that the UK and allies got in that position? It is because Palestine fought on the wrong side of the war in WWI and lost. Seems Palestinian Arabs have a long long history of continually getting into fights and being on the wrong side, then losing, and then still acting like they are the righteous who were wrongly aggrieved, despite having already lost that debate over and over and over again.

Really, that's what you have. It seems that the European Jewish population should have been provided with lands in Germany, Ukraine, Poland and Austria where they had lived for one-hundred plus years. And Palestine was a part of the British monarchy and many Palestinians like other British colonialist fought on behalf of GB in WW2. As a thank you, the Brits told them what they thought of their service, I mean servitude.

The Palestinian Arabs could have gone back to Arabia, where they lived for hundreds of years before coming to Palestine. So what's your point?

What? Palestinians have always been in that land. I also admit that so has people of the Jewish faith. My issue, with the partition of Palestine by the Brits is tantamount to me coming to your house and telling you to get the 'ef out or I will forcefully remove you and put someone else in your home. I guess PP you can go live in the house you lived in 30 years ago, but you gotta get the heck out of the current house because I'm (UK) moving in somebody else

All of the Greeks left Turkey, should they go back now?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

You missing gaps in your history lesson. Also, barely anyone is alive from that time. In addition, people groups are moved around unvoluntarily at times. Have the Arabs ever conqured any people groups.
Everyone wants American money. We can use it how we see fit.

Did Arabs every conquer anyone? Of course they did. They were ruthless and violently conquered and colonized everything across the north of Africa, into Spain and Sicily, and eastward to modern-day Pakistan, and northward to modern-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, extracting riches, enslaving people, oppressing, exploiting, and so on.

But for some weird reason we only ever talk about "the west" as being a colonizer.

English is the most spoken language in the world. I think the British, for such a tiny island, did the greatest job colonizing the world.

The governments of many of the liberators have not been great to their people. Lots of history between the sunset of the British empire and now.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

And why is it that the UK and allies got in that position? It is because Palestine fought on the wrong side of the war in WWI and lost. Seems Palestinian Arabs have a long long history of continually getting into fights and being on the wrong side, then losing, and then still acting like they are the righteous who were wrongly aggrieved, despite having already lost that debate over and over and over again.

Really, that's what you have. It seems that the European Jewish population should have been provided with lands in Germany, Ukraine, Poland and Austria where they had lived for one-hundred plus years. And Palestine was a part of the British monarchy and many Palestinians like other British colonialist fought on behalf of GB in WW2. As a thank you, the Brits told them what they thought of their service, I mean servitude.

The Palestinian Arabs could have gone back to Arabia, where they lived for hundreds of years before coming to Palestine. So what's your point?

What? Palestinians have always been in that land. I also admit that so has people of the Jewish faith. My issue, with the partition of Palestine by the Brits is tantamount to me coming to your house and telling you to get the 'ef out or I will forcefully remove you and put someone else in your home. I guess PP you can go live in the house you lived in 30 years ago, but you gotta get the heck out of the current house because I'm (UK) moving in somebody else

No they haven't "always" been there. They colonized the area after Muslim conquest around 1500 years ago. After all, why is it they identify as "Arab" Palestinians? It's because their ancestors came from Arabia. https://books.google.com/books?id=q7RTdcvtO2sC&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Probably for the same reason Israel got a country AFTER terrorist attacks.

So the U.S. needs to hand money to the Palestinians to build a country? What role would we have in the government? What demands can we make? Or just money, hand it over?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Agree. The US doesn't owe Palestinians anything. The Palestinians need to lose Hamas and drop their notions about violent extremism, and to integrate with peaceful society.

I don't know about that. It was the US and the UK that initially displaced the Palestinians that were living on that land before WW2. The UK pushed those people around like chess pieces because Europe did not want the surviving European Jews to remain in Europe. Why, because most of the European Jews homes had been confiscated by their former neighbors and friends and Europe wanted to push their crimes on to others to deal with.

And why is it that the UK and allies got in that position? It is because Palestine fought on the wrong side of the war in WWI and lost. Seems Palestinian Arabs have a long long history of continually getting into fights and being on the wrong side, then losing, and then still acting like they are the righteous who were wrongly aggrieved, despite having already lost that debate over and over and over again.

Really, that's what you have. It seems that the European Jewish population should have been provided with lands in Germany, Ukraine, Poland and Austria where they had lived for one-hundred plus years. And Palestine was a part of the British monarchy and many Palestinians like other British colonialist fought on behalf of GB in WW2. As a thank you, the Brits told them what they thought of their service, I mean servitude.

The Palestinian Arabs could have gone back to Arabia, where they lived for hundreds of years before coming to Palestine. So what's your point?

What? Palestinians have always been in that land. I also admit that so has people of the Jewish faith. My issue, with the partition of Palestine by the Brits is tantamount to me coming to your house and telling you to get the 'ef out or I will forcefully remove you and put someone else in your home. I guess PP you can go live in the house you lived in 30 years ago, but you gotta get the heck out of the current house because I'm (UK) moving in somebody else

No they haven't "always" been there. They colonized the area after Muslim conquest around 1500 years ago. After all, why is it they identify as "Arab" Palestinians? It's because their ancestors came from Arabia. https://books.google.com/books?id=q7RTdcvtO2sC&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the theory is that the Ashkenazi Jews should "go back to" Germany or elsewhere in Europe then why shouldn't the same apply to Arab Palestinians and they "go back to Arabia?" And how exactly is it "back" to Germany? They aren't Germans. Ashkenazi DNA is heavily middle eastern. They got pushed into Germany and Poland and Lithuania from other countries. They have been getting chased from country to country for 2000 years. Judea is their original home, just as Arabia is the Palestinian Arabs' original home.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The victim mentality is really beyond what I even imagined.

Literally murdering thousands of kids and still screaming “everyone hates us for no reason!!”

It’s certifiable

It is certifiable that so many people hate Israelis and Jews, no?

It that every Jew is responsible for what Israeli policy is. Must mean every Muslim is pro Hamas / pro terrorist.

This is a good point. "If you don't support Hamas and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an Islamophobe who wants to genocide all Muslims" makes as much sense as "If you don't support Israel and believe everything it says unconditionally, you must be an antisemite who wants to genocide all Jews."

I suspect the previous poster(s) understands this, but they're backed into a corner and can only spew a smokescreen of insults. Which is a very dishonest practice.

DP

Everyone here is 100.00% anti-Hamas. What about that fact don't you get? Stop trying to gin up a defense for what Israel is doing by arguing that those opposed to those actions are supportive of Hamas. It's pathetic. Even you can do better.

Perhaps my post wasn't sufficiently clear? Of course everyone here is anti-Hamas and, more specifically, opposes its actions on 10/7. I was making a comparison between absurd conclusions. Nobody believes that opposing Hamas means you're a genocidal Islamophobe who hates Muslims. Similarly, nobody believes that opposing Israel means you're a genocidal antisemite who hates Jews. Well, almost nobody in both cases. Some people are deliberately obtuse or deceitful or too fanatical to think straight, and my post was aimed at these folk. I don't support either statement, which is ... kind of why I put them both in quotes.

That's objectively false. Can't be anti-Hamas and yet be their direct mouthpiece repeating their false claims and conspiracy theories.

Which I have done ... where, exactly? Another straw man. Sorry, but this is getting very boring.

Don't know if it was you or who, as posts are anonymous, but I'm definitely not the only one here who keeps seeing Hamas propaganda and false talking points popping up over and over again.

Which makes your role here what...? A confused person who doesn't know what's going on? Someone who is naive and lacks critical thinking skills? Clearly not, since you are also hyperfocused on rhetorical devices, like "ad hominem" and "strawman" which tells me you are here specifically to argue. Yet if that's the case, then why are you ignoring the instances where Hamas talking points are being used? Perhaps you overestimate the notion of plausible deniability?

The PP keeps throwing around the terms “ad hominem” and “strawman” as an attempt to discredit the detailed NYT reporting. She’s using those terms (incorrectly but whatever) to distract from the objectively horrific and meticulously detailed description of the vicious sexual torture used by Hamas on 10/7. If she can get people to mentally associate that detailed reporting with cheap rhetorical devices, it helps her cause. It’s a classic propagandist move, albeit an easily identifiable one. She’s a propagandist, just not a very skilled one.

DP

The NY Times account is horrifying. It would be impossible to look into the eyes of those parents and not feel tremendous sadness for them (and for the world, frankly, since what happened to their daughter is just horrific for our shared sense of humanity).

I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense. I don't think I have ever come across reporting related to severe trauma (and this reported trauma is probably as severe as one can imagine) where the eyewitness accounts are even 10% as vivid and detailed as the ones featured in the Times. I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.

You just did call everyone involved a liar.

I look forward to watching you say the same thing about the NYT’s meticulous reporting about the child deaths in Gaza and how those babies were killed and what their parents said they saw when their kids died in front of them. Are those parents, with their horrific details of watching their children bleed out and die in front them, also lying? Please do go on and tell me how the Palestinian parents who watched their children die in front of them are also lying.

DP. There is a mix of lies and truths. Yes, some Palestinian children have died, but there are also lies about how many died (such as the grossly exaggerated death count from Baptist Hospital). There are also lies about whose hands they died at. Yes, IDF killed some, but Hamas is also killing Palestinians, like when Hamas was trying to steal humanitarian aid for themselves rather than distribute it and they shot and killed hungry Palestinians who complained about it. Or when Hamas was trying to stop people from trying to evacuate. Or when civilians died because they were placed in harm's way by Hamas as human shields, or were killed because their home or shelter collapsed into Hamas tunnels when Hamas complexes were bombed.

Sure, but that’s not the point. The PP who is saying that the detailed eyewitness accounts of sexual torture must be lies because the shock and trauma should have prevented the creation of vivid and detailed memories of that torture needs to also then come out and say that the Palestinian parents who described watching their child bleed out in front of them in vivid detail are also lying because that level of shock and trauma should have prevented those parents from forming those memories. If she’s taking the position that the stories of sexual torture can’t be true because of “shock and trauma” then she needs to be consistent in how that theory is applied. Unless, of course, she’s taking the position that only Jewish women have this peculiar inability to remember unspeakable horrors, which is what I suspect she’s really getting at.

In any case, I look forward to reading her statements that the Palestinian parents who described the horrific and slow deaths of their dying children in front of their own eyes are also lying when they describe those deaths in excruciating and awful detail.

Exactly how mental are you???

The person used these exact words “I can't take the position that I'm sure the reporting is not true, but there is something about this reporting that doesn't seem to make much sense.“ and “ I'm not prepared to call anyone involved a liar, but I would just gently point out that shock and trauma, at least in my experience, just does not lend itself to a very vivid and detailed memory of the events in question - for most people, anyway.”

And from those two statements you walked away with an argument that the accounts “must be lies”? Must be lies? Are you literally deranged?

Right on. Carefully qualified statements from one poster. Complete misrepresentation of her position from the other.

Repeated misrepresentation. Brazenly going so far as to quote the actual words multiple times and, what, I guess hope that their shitty Jedi mind trick would prevent people from actually reading the goddamned words? The words couldn’t be more clear in establishing that the poster was NOT stating that the reporting MUST be based on lies, but I’m sure we’ll now hear from the “word salad” specialist and the “I’ll tell you what you REALLY mean!” thought crime experts to straighten all of this out. The “what do you want to do about your feelings?” poster from Ukraine or Poland or wherever is already on duty.

This is insane. The pro-Zionism part of this equation is absolutely, clinically deranged. And it should be lost on no one that this is an outcome that is perfectly acceptable to them. Show your deranged true colors, get people to throw their hands up and give up, and get the desired result of stopping the exchange of ideas that threatens to topple the status quo.

Absolutely disgusting human beings. And yes, I mean every last person who lies like these lunatics in furtherance of their desperate defense of Zionism. Still love anyone else Jewish or otherwise who recognizes the toxic insanity of Zionism.

you can present your ideas over and over, but people can still say "well, no thanks" over and over. Some might be ok with status quo. You are frustrating yourself by making changing the status quo a good or evil thing.

Feeling person, we get it.

I want a cessation of violence on both sides, consequences for parties that have previously engaged in violence, and a good faith plan to establish a two-state plan that guarantees the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, which will require compromise from both sides. And I want any further aid to the region conditioned upon the successful achievement of these goals. As far as I’m concerned, if Israel and the Palestinians can get across the finish lines, I’m supportive of INCREASING aid to both groups for a certain timeframe to position both states for long term success. I’d love to see them both flourish without the constant conflict, which both sides have earnestly contributed to.

That’s what I want. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok. None of that works for me. Palestinians can learn to live in peace where they are. Why does the United States need to give them a country and finance a country for them?
Also, why would any one agree to this AFTER a terrorist attack. Terrorize, then follow my demands? Change status quo, because of my terrorism? Nope.
Your wants are based on a both-sidesism approach that we don't have to accept as pretext. Palestinians have not accepted offers, have lost wars, etc over the years, so there is not reason now to just give them what they want. Why? Because you want it and Palestinians want it is not a reason that makes it a requirement.
If Palestinians want all of this, they will only get it by going to war.

Probably for the same reason Israel got a country AFTER terrorist attacks.

So the U.S. needs to hand money to the Palestinians to build a country? What role would we have in the government? What demands can we make? Or just money, hand it over?

Over the last 15 years, the US and EU gave billions to the Palestinians via UNRWA, USAID, Oslo Accords, Annapolis Conference, Paris Conference, and so on. And how do they repay us? With a violent and murderous rampage of rape, torture and murder of innocent Israeli civilians.

Don't tell me what the US "needs to do" for the Palestinians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not know enough about Hamas, and what little I do know is not good, but I do know that the Palestinian people need resistance fighters. They need a George Washington, ANC Nelson Mandela, young Fidel Castro, Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, Geronimo, John Brown, Tousaint Louverture, or a Robert the Bruce. I don't care. I don't care. The Palestinian people need true leaders to mount an uprising against the apartheid state of Israel.

+1

[Anonymous]

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — South Africa launched a case Friday at the United Nations’ top court accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and asking the court to order Israel to halt its attacks — the first such challenge made at the court over the current war.

[Anonymous]

The United Nations and South Africa are complicit Hamas partners according to Israel.

https://apnews.com/article/south-africa-israel-un-court-palestinians-genocide-ffe672c4eb3e14a30128542eaa537b21

"Israel also accused South Africa of cooperating with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group behind the deadly Oct. 7 attack in southern Israel that triggered the ongoing war."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-to-stop-automatically-granting-visas-to-un-workers-complicit-partners-in-hamas-tactics/

"Israel says it will no longer grant automatic visas to UN employees, accusing the United Nations of being “complicit partners” in Hamas’s tactics."