Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 2
Last scraped
Scraped on 14/07/2025, 06:30:15 UTC
Perhaps there's misunderstanding in definitions 
A rather very simple question for you: please define "proportionality of a response", and a "genocide". That is, what threshold must be crossed for you to say that the loss of innocent lives in Gaza would be considered a genocide? Or are you're claiming that there are no limits, numbers don't matter, and Israel can wipe out million of innocent women and children in Gaza and you would still consider it a proportional response as long as IDF draws a happy face and writes "only use on Hamas" on every bullet or some other justification?
A rather very simple question for you: please define "proportionality of a response", and a "genocide". That is, what threshold must be crossed for you to say that the loss of innocent lives in Gaza would be considered a genocide? Or are you're claiming that there are no limits, numbers don't matter, and Israel can wipe out million of innocent women and children in Gaza and you would still consider it a proportional response as long as IDF draws a happy face and writes "only use on Hamas" on every bullet or some other justification?Genocide is the intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
hamas are a extremist terror group not their own nation/race/ethnicity/religion.. so taking out hamas is not genocide
isreal is not trying to ethnically clense all palestinians. nor are the palestinians the intended targets. hamas are the targets. palestinians are the unintentional collateral damage due to how hamas control the area and people they dont want to leave the area(hamas use palestinians as human shields)
isreal is not trying to "wipe out millions of innocent women and children in Gaza" isreal continually give warnings to the innocent population that hamas have infiltrated their neighbourhood and turned it into a target zone and isreal give innocent people a warning to move out the area so isreal can deal with hamas..
hamas are the ones dictating that people should stay put and become human shields.
hamas wont even let some groups move out of temporary tents in winter to find more suitable shelter. yep hamas want people to freeze to death and not get aid
and with regards to aid, isreal are the ones trying to bring in aid supplies.. but its hamas that are using palestinians as cannon fodder by hamas dictating that innocent palestinians should blockade and ambush the supply trucks, and its then hamas that steal the food and hoard it. hamas rile up the innocent palestinians to turn them into rioters to cause conflict
hamas also use schools, churches and hospitals as their hiding places, hoping that the human shields of palestinians using that infrastructure would protect them from attack.. but when isreal send warnings that this area is now a warzone target and innocent people should move out the way, but again hamas dictate that innocent people should stay.. thus its hamas causing unneeded casualties/collateral damage
if hamas simply did not exist, palestinians and isreali's would have had peace deals done years ago
iran and hamas dont care about who they kill, especially when hamas are now even killing palestinians that are trying to get the food out of the hamas storage yards
iran dont hit only strategic military targets as a priority, they mass bomb random residential buildings with no political/intellectual/military personnel, thus no strategic purpose but to harm innocents
So it's not the actual results of an action but a claimed intent that makes all the difference for you? So, all Hitler had to do was to claim that final solution was not his intent and then there wouldn't be a genocide in your head? I think we found where the problem is here.
Quote from: Geneva convention Article 51(5) of Additional Protocol I
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Do you see how
But let's take a step back here, without laying blame of who's at fault, would you concede that a loss of civilian life of 24,818 men 9,126 women 17,121 children and 4,137 elderly is excessive in Gaza, regardless whether you believe it's Hamas or Israels to blame.
Version 1
Scraped on 14/07/2025, 06:05:28 UTC
Perhaps there's misunderstanding in definitions A rather very simple question for you: please define "proportionality of a response", and a "genocide". That is, what threshold must be crossed for you to say that the loss of innocent lives in Gaza would be considered a genocide? Or are you're claiming that there are no limits, numbers don't matter, and Israel can wipe out million of innocent women and children in Gaza and you would still consider it a proportional response as long as IDF draws a happy face and writes "only use on Hamas" on every bullet or some other justification?
A rather very simple question for you: please define "proportionality of a response", and a "genocide". That is, what threshold must be crossed for you to say that the loss of innocent lives in Gaza would be considered a genocide? Or are you're claiming that there are no limits, numbers don't matter, and Israel can wipe out million of innocent women and children in Gaza and you would still consider it a proportional response as long as IDF draws a happy face and writes "only use on Hamas" on every bullet or some other justification?Genocide is the intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
hamas are a extremist terror group not their own nation/race/ethnicity/religion.. so taking out hamas is not genocide
isreal is not trying to ethnically clense all palestinians. nor are the palestinians the intended targets. hamas are the targets. palestinians are the unintentional collateral damage due to how hamas control the area and people they dont want to leave the area(hamas use palestinians as human shields)
isreal is not trying to "wipe out millions of innocent women and children in Gaza" isreal continually give warnings to the innocent population that hamas have infiltrated their neighbourhood and turned it into a target zone and isreal give innocent people a warning to move out the area so isreal can deal with hamas..
hamas are the ones dictating that people should stay put and become human shields.
hamas wont even let some groups move out of temporary tents in winter to find more suitable shelter. yep hamas want people to freeze to death and not get aid
and with regards to aid, isreal are the ones trying to bring in aid supplies.. but its hamas that are using palestinians as cannon fodder by hamas dictating that innocent palestinians should blockade and ambush the supply trucks, and its then hamas that steal the food and hoard it. hamas rile up the innocent palestinians to turn them into rioters to cause conflict
hamas also use schools, churches and hospitals as their hiding places, hoping that the human shields of palestinians using that infrastructure would protect them from attack.. but when isreal send warnings that this area is now a warzone target and innocent people should move out the way, but again hamas dictate that innocent people should stay.. thus its hamas causing unneeded casualties/collateral damage
if hamas simply did not exist, palestinians and isreali's would have had peace deals done years ago
iran and hamas dont care about who they kill, especially when hamas are now even killing palestinians that are trying to get the food out of the hamas storage yards
iran dont hit only strategic military targets as a priority, they mass bomb random residential buildings with no political/intellectual/military personnel, thus no strategic purpose but to harm innocents
So it's not the actual results of an action but a claimed intent that makes all the difference for you? So, all Hitler had to do was to claim that final solution was not his intent and then there wouldn't be a genocide in your head? I think we found where the problem is here.
Quote from: Geneva convention Article 51(5) of Additional Protocol I
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Do you see how this article is indifferent to what anyone claims they're not trying to do?
But let's take a step back here, without laying blame of who's at fault, would you concede that a loss of civilian life
Original archived Re: July 24, 2024 shall henceforth be known as America's National Day of Shame
Scraped on 14/07/2025, 06:00:46 UTC
Perhaps there's misunderstanding in definitions A rather very simple question for you: please define "proportionality of a response", and a "genocide". That is, what threshold must be crossed for you to say that the loss of innocent lives in Gaza would be considered a genocide? Or are you're claiming that there are no limits, numbers don't matter, and Israel can wipe out million of innocent women and children in Gaza and you would still consider it a proportional response as long as IDF draws a happy face and writes "only use on Hamas" on every bullet or some other justification?
A rather very simple question for you: please define "proportionality of a response", and a "genocide". That is, what threshold must be crossed for you to say that the loss of innocent lives in Gaza would be considered a genocide? Or are you're claiming that there are no limits, numbers don't matter, and Israel can wipe out million of innocent women and children in Gaza and you would still consider it a proportional response as long as IDF draws a happy face and writes "only use on Hamas" on every bullet or some other justification?Genocide is the intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
hamas are a extremist terror group not their own nation/race/ethnicity/religion.. so taking out hamas is not genocide
isreal is not trying to ethnically clense all palestinians. nor are the palestinians the intended targets. hamas are the targets. palestinians are the unintentional collateral damage due to how hamas control the area and people they dont want to leave the area(hamas use palestinians as human shields)
isreal is not trying to "wipe out millions of innocent women and children in Gaza" isreal continually give warnings to the innocent population that hamas have infiltrated their neighbourhood and turned it into a target zone and isreal give innocent people a warning to move out the area so isreal can deal with hamas..
hamas are the ones dictating that people should stay put and become human shields.
hamas wont even let some groups move out of temporary tents in winter to find more suitable shelter. yep hamas want people to freeze to death and not get aid
and with regards to aid, isreal are the ones trying to bring in aid supplies.. but its hamas that are using palestinians as cannon fodder by hamas dictating that innocent palestinians should blockade and ambush the supply trucks, and its then hamas that steal the food and hoard it. hamas rile up the innocent palestinians to turn them into rioters to cause conflict
hamas also use schools, churches and hospitals as their hiding places, hoping that the human shields of palestinians using that infrastructure would protect them from attack.. but when isreal send warnings that this area is now a warzone target and innocent people should move out the way, but again hamas dictate that innocent people should stay.. thus its hamas causing unneeded casualties/collateral damage
if hamas simply did not exist, palestinians and isreali's would have had peace deals done years ago
iran and hamas dont care about who they kill, especially when hamas are now even killing palestinians that are trying to get the food out of the hamas storage yards
iran dont hit only strategic military targets as a priority, they mass bomb random residential buildings with no political/intellectual/military personnel, thus no strategic purpose but to harm innocents
So it's not the actual results of an action but a claimed intent that makes all the difference for you? So, all Hitler had to do was to claim that final solution was not his intent and then there wouldn't be a genocide in your head? I think we found where the problem is here.
Quote from: Geneva convention Article 51(5) of Additional Protocol I
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Do you see how this article is indifferent to what anyone claims they're not trying to do?
But let's take a step back here, without laying blame of who's at fault, would you concede that loss of civilian life (24,818 men 9,126 women 17,121 children and 4,137 elderly) is excessive in Gaza?