Why Has Israel Killed 40,000 Civilians In Gaza?

metis · Sep 18, 2024

ImmortalFlame said:
The fact that you characterise me criticising other people for war crime denial, and exposing their logic as identical to that of Hamas in justifying or outright denying mass death, as "complaints" suggests you're not exactly approaching this subject objectively.

I have not ever denied war crimes have being committed by both sides, so you are not telling the truth.

ImmortalFlame said:
I've said repeatedly that a reasonable military response to Hamas is appropriate, if not absolutely necessary, to deter future civilian deaths.

Were you attacked whereas you can decide for the country that was attacked what they supposedly must do? Was you family killed and was your country attacked? If the same thing that happened to the civilians in Israel happened in your country and your area and killed some members of your family, what would you do and propose your government do?

ImmortalFlame said:
Please explain to me why this justifies excusing, denying or justifying war crimes against civilians.

See my first response above, plus again you are being blatantly dishonest. On top of that, you just ignore answering what you think the endgame should be.

ImmortalFlame said:
Please tell me why that shouldn't be called out and criticised, and how what you're doing right now isn't just a desperate deflection from the obvious fact that your arguments downplay and justify war crimes.

Again, this is you being dishonest as I have not done that. Will you stoop to any low?

metis · Sep 18, 2024

ImmortalFlame said:
Blaming Hamas for the violence inflicted on civilians by the IDF is misguided at best and war crime apologia at worst. Countries don't get a free pass to use civilians for target practice just because it's in reaction to further injustices, and you shouldn't have to rely on the kind-heartedness of hardened militarist terrorists who don't care about civilian deaths to determine when enough war crimes is enough war crimes.

I DO care, as a Palestinian child killed is just as tragic imo as a Jewish or Christian child being killed.

So, again you are so willing to try and demean me even though I want nothing more for this conflict would come to an end. If Hamas surrendered to try and end the killing on both sides, it would end. But imagine if Israel laid down its arms and let Hamas have their way what would happen?

ImmortalFlame · Sep 18, 2024

metis said:
I have not ever denied war crimes have being committed by both sides, so you are not telling the truth.

I'm addressing another poster who engaged in war crime denial. Those are the things I was responding to.

metis said:
Were you attacked whereas you can decide for the country that was attacked what they supposedly must do?

Do you think it's okay for a country to decide to respond to an attack by killing civilians and committing war crimes?

If so, why do you criticise Hamas for doing the same thing?

metis said:
Was you family killed and was your country attacked?

Emotional appeals don't work when it comes to arguing in defence of, or to mitigate, war crimes. Stop doing it.

metis said:
If the same thing that happened to the civilians in Israel happened in your country and your area and killed some members of your family, what would you do and propose your government do?

I've already said repeatedly that a reasonable military response to the perpetrators is justified. Stop insinuating that my position is that Israel do nothing. My position is and always has been that military response is appropriate, but the degree of the response and the targets of it amount to multiple instances of war crimes.

metis said:
See my first response above, plus again you are being blatantly dishonest.

How am I being dishonest, exactly? Be specific.

metis said:
On top of that, you just ignore answering what you think the endgame should be.

Now you're being dishonest. I gave an answer.

metis said:
Again, this is you being dishonest as I have not done that.

Once again, I didn't say YOU did. I'm arguing with people who DO when YOU interjected on their behalf (and explicitly put "winner" on a post that explicitly DID justify and excuse war crimes - post 248).

metis said:
Will you stoop to any low?

Work on your comprehension, and stop pretending you have the moral high-ground while you defend people who argue to justify war crimes and upvote their posts.

ImmortalFlame · Sep 18, 2024

metis said:
I DO care, as a Palestinian child killed is just as tragic imo as a Jewish or Christian child being killed.

Coolio. So, what's your position on people who argue that Israel committing war crimes on Gazan civilians is either morally okay or a perfectly justified military strategy, given those were the very positions I was responding to and you defended?

metis said:
So, again you are so willing to try and demean me even though I want nothing more for this conflict would come to an end.

Good, then we agree. Now, what's your opinion on war crimes? Are we allowed to criticise them, and are we allowed to criticise people (on both sides) who attempt to dismiss, downplay, excuse or outright justify them? Yes or no?

metis said:
If Hamas surrendered to try and end the killing on both sides, it would end.

Perhaps. But they're not going to, because they obviously don't care about the killing. At least, not enough that their actions - which would always obviously lead to massive civilian fatalities - would be any different. But Israel does still have responsibility in how it chooses to respond to this kind of violence. You don't get a free pass to commit war crimes until the bad guys surrender.

metis said:
But imagine if Israel laid down its arms and let Hamas have their way what would happen?

Since I have never once suggested such a thing, and have explicitly stated the opposite - that a reasonable military response is justified and arguably necessary - this is a very stupid question to ask me.

metis · Sep 18, 2024

ImmortalFlame said:
You think it's okay for a country to decide to an attack by killing civilians and committing war crimes?

If so, why do you criticise Hamas for doing the same thing?

Ever hear of "cause & effect"? Doesn't a country have a right to defend itself when attacked?

ImmortalFlame said:
Emotional appeals don't work when it comes to arguing in defence of, or to mitigate, war crimes. Stop doing it.

I hate to say it but it's true, nowadays with the weapons of war countries now have and the effect of urban fighting, I can't imagine a non-war crimes response. Did the U.S. commit war crimes in our recent history? How can a 2000 pound bomb dropped just kill just enemy soldiers? That's so utterly naive!

ImmortalFlame said:
I've already said repeatedly that a reasonable military response to the perpetrators is justified. Stop insinuating that my position is that Israel do nothing. My position is and always has been that military response is appropriate, but the degree of the response and the targets of it amount to multiple instances of war crimes.

Since when were YOU attacked whereas YOU can determine what's "appropriate"? Maybe it's time to get over yourself.

ImmortalFlame said:
Now you're being dishonest. I gave an answer.

I keep asking you what the endgame should be and you keep avoiding it.

ImmortalFlame said:
Once again, I didn't say YOU did. I'm arguing with people who DO when YOU interjected on their behalf (and explicitly put "winner" on a post that explicitly DID justify and excuse war crimes - post 248).

That doesn't match what you have said in your last two posts directed at me.

Again, you offer no opinion on any endgame strategy but keep making up falsehoods about where I actually do stand. If you were an honest bloke, maybe ask me instead of assuming the worse.

Anyhow, I'm done with your games.

ImmortalFlame · Sep 18, 2024

metis said:
Ever hear of "cause & effect"? Doesn't a country have a right to defend itself when attacked?

You're equating "defending itself" with "committing war crimes"?

Does a country have a right to commit WAR CRIMES when attacked?

metis said:
I hate to say it but it's true, nowadays with the weapons of war countries now have and the effect of urban fighting, I can't imagine a non-war crimes response.

Are you serious? You genuinely believe that there is no way to conduct urban warfare without deliberately committing war crimes?

Seriously?

metis said:
Did the U.S. commit war crimes in our recent history?

Yes.

Did they do it to the same level and extent and over as short a period of time as the IDF are currently doing in Gaza?

metis said:
How can a 2000 pound bomb dropped just kill just enemy soldiers? That's so utterly naive!

Gee, almost as if it requires more thought than just dropping it wherever, including over civilian infrastructure.

And even if I were to grant you that this were this case, it hardly covers ALL the examples of war crimes, such as the mass execution of civilians, the targeting of journalists and aid workers, the rape, the use of human shields, the shooting of refugees, the further annexation of the west bank and the desecration of heritage sites and graveyards. If my argument were just "It's bad that civilians are dying from the bombs", you might have an argument. But I'm talking about ALL the war crimes.

metis said:
Since when were YOU attacked whereas YOU can determine what's "appropriate"? Maybe it's time to get over yourself.

How dare I determine that war crimes are bad and killing civilians is wrong. I do truly need to get over myself.

metis said:
I keep asking you what the endgame should be and you keep avoiding it.

I've answered that question. Stop spouting falsehoods.

metis said:
That doesn't match what you have said in your last two posts directed at me.

I'm talking about another poster. Re-read my posts.

metis said:
Again, you offer no opinion on any endgame strategy

Except I did.

Meanwhile, you offer no opinion as to the necessity for mass war crimes as valid IDF military strategy.

Why, exactly?

metis said:
but keep making up falsehoods about where I actually do stand.

Again, false. I've already explained this. Re-read my posts.

metis said:
If you were an honest bloke, maybe ask me instead of assuming the worse.

I assumed nothing. I've explained this.

Stop being dishonest.

Also, I have to point out the absurdity of the fact that here I am talking about how it's bad for people to justify or excuse war crimes, and you're desperately accusing me of being dishonest for implying that you do (even though I didn't and was VERY EXPLICITLY talking about another poster), when only a few sentences earlier YOU WERE ARGUING THAT COMMITTING WAR CRIMES IS UNAVOIDABLE BECAUSE IT'S IN AN URBAN AREA.

I can't make it up. Which is why I didn't. It really doesn't take much for the inner war-crime denier to peek out of people like you.

"I'M NOT A WAR CRIME DENIAR! I DON'T ARGUE TO JUSTIFY WAR CRIMES! HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST SUCH A THING ABOUT ME!! Now, let me explain to you why it's completely impossible to NOT commit war crimes..."

metis said:
Anyhow, I'm done with your games.

Ah yes, the old "war crime denial is bad" game.

Shame you don't play. Maybe if you did, you'd stop defending people who defend war crimes. Have fun extolling the military virtues of killing and raping civilians!

Revoltingest · Sep 18, 2024

metis said:
I have not ever denied war crimes have being committed by both sides, so you are not telling the truth.

Yet your posts defend Israel's committing genocide.
Your posts excuse mass murder & maiming it as self defense.
(When they aren't extolling your vaunted Christian peace & tolerance.)

Flankerl · Sep 19, 2024

Obligatory maths lesson

11 months
~45 000 dead
~2 141 643 total population

45 000 / 11 = 4 090
2 141 643 / 4 090 = 523
523 / 12 = 43

43 years at the current rate for Israel to kill the last Palestinian in the Gaza Strip, if not a single one makes new babies.

By comparison there were between 600 000 - 800 000 Tutsi in Rwanda in early 1994.
In 100 days, or a bit over 3 months, the Hutu militias murdered 500 000 - 1 000 000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu.
150 000 to 300 000 Tutsi survived, numbers are difficult because refugee Tutsi returned to Rwanda afterwards and were the main fighting force against the Hutu militias.

A few more weeks and the Hutu militias could've murdered every single Tutsi in the country.

A normal person sees the difference.
A radical does not.

Revoltingest · Sep 19, 2024

Another math lesson....
Israel kills Muslims indiscriminately out of vengeance.

Flankerl · Sep 19, 2024

You are using big words without understanding them again.

ImmortalFlame · Sep 20, 2024

Flankerl said:
Obligatory maths lesson

11 months
~45 000 dead
~2 141 643 total population

45 000 / 11 = 4 090
2 141 643 / 4 090 = 523
523 / 12 = 43

43 years at the current rate for Israel to kill the last Palestinian in the Gaza Strip, if not a single one makes new babies.

By comparison there were between 600 000 - 800 000 Tutsi in Rwanda in early 1994.
In 100 days, or a bit over 3 months, the Hutu militias murdered 500 000 - 1 000 000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu.
150 000 to 300 000 Tutsi survived, numbers are difficult because refugee Tutsi returned to Rwanda afterwards and were the main fighting force against the Hutu militias.

A few more weeks and the Hutu militias could've murdered every single Tutsi in the country.

A normal person sees the difference.
A radical does not.

Reducing the tragedy of mass murder to a pure numbers game, rather than the consequences of choices made by groups and completely ignoring why they are occurring, is the height of callousness. Mass civilian death doesn't have to be a rapid and efficient genocide in order to be morally reprehensible, and groups aren't justified in carrying out mass death just because it's smaller than other mass deaths by comparison.

I assume you'd use the exact same mathematical basis to demonstrate why Hamas' attack on October 7th wasn't that big a deal, either.

Yerda · Sep 20, 2024

The Israeli state can't be out-terrorised. For every innocent Israeli killed the Israelis will kill ten innocent Palestinians. I suppose that is the lesson here.

Flankerl · Sep 20, 2024

ImmortalFlame said:
Reducing the tragedy of mass murder to a pure numbers game, rather than the consequences of choices made by groups and completely ignoring why they are occurring, is the height of callousness. Mass civilian death doesn't have to be a rapid and efficient genocide in order to be morally reprehensible, and groups aren't justified in carrying out mass death just because it's smaller than other mass deaths by comparison.

tl;dr ignore facts, embrace feelings

So we can't even look at other genocides to decide whether the deaths in the Gaza Strip constitute a genocide.
What remains is "just believe it".

ImmortalFlame · Sep 20, 2024

Flankerl said:
tl;dr ignore facts, embrace feelings

Not what I said, or the implication of what I said, but fine if you choose to read it that way.

Flankerl said:
So we can't even look at other genocides to decide whether the deaths in the Gaza Strip constitute a genocide.

Also not what I said, nor was it what you were doing. You didn't even mention genocide, and nor did I.

Incidentally, if you believe genocide is just a numbers game, you don't understand what genocide is. Here is a list of historically recognised genocides that have a death toll lower than the current conflict in Gaza:

Flankerl said:
What remains is "just believe it".

Or maybe "It's about more than just numbers, and trying to draw comparisons just through death toll alone is a callous insult to both dead Israelis and Palestinians".

Do better.

Why Has Israel Killed 40,000 Civilians In Gaza?

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Woke gremlin

Woke gremlin

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Woke gremlin

Pragmatic Libertarian

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin