Israel declares war on Hamas

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by SebC

Should Palestinians and supporters who chant "from the river to the sea", who celebrate Oct 7, who vandalize property be beaten? Please try to express a view that is consistent with your views on the Maccabi supporters and England fans.

I'll answer this separately because you're another one that appears to be of the mindset that to be of an anti genocidal viewpoint and criticize the actions of Israel and its genocidal behaviour equates to support for Hamas and the evilness of Oct 7.

Answer is yes. Absolutely.

Why wouldn't my views be consistent? What are you trying to imply? That because you appear to think that singing and celebrating about the mass murder of children isn't a big deal that I should be of the same viewpoint?

Celebrating Oct 7th and the mass murder of children are BOTH equally disgusting.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

Seems to align with Bagor's viewpoint too. Doesn't like violence, unless those pesky Jews are asking for it, then let em have it.

Where did I say that?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bagor

LOL! That's it. First you're scrambling to deny there is any mention of "attacks" on "people" then when it is pointed out to you your response is I don't believe him!


Is that a serious question? Are you implying that Israel had no choice but to commit Genocide?

No choice but to snipe at young children? (waits for rebuttal saying multiple health care workers can't be trusted).
No choice but to hover over children lying on the ground hand shoot them?
No choice but to starve them?
No choice but to completely destroy their health care facilities, their places of worship, universities, etc....
No choice but to bomb so caller safe areas?
No choice but to mass murder tens of thousands of civilians?

Took you a while but you finally crawled out of your hole.


You're trying to justify it. Shift the blame completely onto one side.

I have not said or implied any of that. If you continue to actively misrepresent me I will report it and see what the moderation team thinks. It is, at a minimum, obnoxious.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'll answer this separately because you're another one that appears to be of the mindset that to be of an anti genocidal viewpoint and criticize the actions of Israel and its genocidal behaviour equates to support for Hamas and the evilness of Oct 7.

Answer is yes. Absolutely.

Why wouldn't my views be consistent? What are you trying to imply? That because you appear to think that singing and celebrating about the mass murder of children isn't a big deal that I should be of the same viewpoint?

Celebrating Oct 7th and the mass murder of children are BOTH equally disgusting.

I will admit it, I didn't think you'd say that. I'm glad you did.

I agree both are disgusting, yes. And I do think hate speech is a serious problem to be dealt with, even hate speech that does not explicitly call for violence, as demonization and dehumanization of a group almost inevitably leads to oppression and violence against that group. But I still disagree that extralegal assaults are the right remedy. Ideally you would deal with it through education, with suppression reserved for the intractable. The use of force is reserved for the state so long as the state is willing and capable of discharging its responsibilities.

Escalation leads to fear.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

And there's already too much suffering.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by SebC

I have not said or implied any of that. If you continue to actively misrepresent me I will report it and see what the moderation team thinks. It is, at a minimum, obnoxious.

What are you crying about?

Spare me your moderator public bs drama.
Just report the post and let them decide if it's an unfair interpretation of your question.

But go on. Explain yourself then.

Why would you ask a question such as

Originally Posted by SebC

what viable choice did Isreal have that would not have resulted in Palestinian civilian deaths,?

unless you're trying to imply that the results that we see today (genocide) was the only viable option they had?

Explain your question.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by SebC

I will admit it, I didn't think you'd say that. I'm glad you did.

Why tf would I or any other poster opposed to the genocide not say that? Why wouldn't you think I wouldn't respond like that? Who's implying what now?

Unless that is Mr I'm being misrepresented you were trying to misrepresent me, and imply that I would have no issues with people celebrating the evilness of October 7.

Given this has had to be said and repeated NUMEROUS times throughout this thread why would you continue to ask such a question?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What are you crying about?

Spare me your moderator public bs drama.
Just report the post and let them decide if it's an unfair interpretation of your question.

But go on. Explain yourself then.

Why would you ask a question such as


unless you're trying to imply that the results that we see today (genocide) was the only viable option they had?

Explain your question.

Don't need to report, I'll call you out myself and give you the chance to change the behaviour.

I feel like I've already explained, but I'll try again.

Originally Posted by SebC

What viable choice did Isreal have that would not have resulted in Palestinian civilian deaths,?

Meaning:

After Oct 7, Israel must respond. To not respond, or too respond too weakly, is both politically untenable for Israeli decision-makers, and encourages further Hamas attacks.

Limiting the question to "viable" choices means I'm asking for a course of action that will not result in the collapse of the government or be insufficient to prevent another Oct. 7 or similar event.

The legitimate targets for an Israeli response are Hamas militants and leaders. Given that these people hide amongst civilians, what response would you suggest for Israel?

I don't believe that there was any viable choice for Israel that would not result in Palestinian civilian deaths given the nature of the provocation and of how Hamas uses human shields.

Thus, Hamas bears responsibility for at least that minimum amount of death. And they opened the door for more, though the responsibility for excess deaths falls to Israel.

Israel could prioritize ground action over airstrikes, but even that's a pretty big ask for a country to sacrifice its own soldiers for the civilians of an entity that elected a government that wants to eradicate you.

For the record, I condemn any attacks without a military target, but I accept that there will be civilian collateral damage when military targets embed themselves in the population. If Hamas doesn't like it they should stop using human shields, and if Palestinian civilians don't like it they should reject Hamas (admittedly easier said than done).

I'm not saying that the Israeli actions were the only viable path. In fact you will find that I had previously called them an overreaction. What I'm saying is that even the minimum Israeli actions would create Palestinian civilian deaths and suffering.

I realize that this is a cold and brutal analysis, but that's what understanding a cold and brutal world requires.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by SebC

Don't need to report, I'll call you out myself and give you the chance to change the behaviour.

In that case stop being so dramatic and leave the moderation team out of it.

You asked a stupid question implying that the only viable option for Israel is genocide?

Originally Posted by SebC

After Oct 7, Israel must respond. To not respond, or too respond too weakly, is both politically untenable for Israeli decision-makers, and encourages further Hamas attacks.

Limiting the question to "viable" choices means I'm asking for a course of action that will not result in the collapse of the government or be insufficient to prevent another Oct. 7 or similar event.

You just can't help yourself can you.
You're basically implying Genocide was the only viable choice they had to prevent another attack and government collapse.

Genocide is a necessity to maintain the tennability of Israeli decision makers?

Originally Posted by SebC

The legitimate targets for an Israeli response are Hamas militants and leaders. Given that these people hide amongst civilians, what response would you suggest for Israel?

What response? That's already been answered.
A response that doesn't include the deliberate murder of children.
The deliberate murder of health care workers, press....
Destruction of hospitals, universities, etc

All stuff that you seem to be implying is unavoidable and Israel's only viable choice.

They had no viable alternatives but to deliberately murder all those children?

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't believe that there was any viable choice for Israel that would not result in Palestinian civilian deaths given the nature of the provocation and of how Hamas uses human shields.

No one was ever expecting zero civilian deaths.
Again you need to explain how there is no viable choice other than (give one example) shooting a child out in the open?

It's necessary to deliberately murder children to prevent the collapse of the Israeli government? Do explain.

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm not saying that the Israeli actions were the only viable path. In fact you will find that I had previously called them an overreaction. What I'm saying is that even the minimum Israeli actions would create Palestinian civilian deaths and suffering.

It's the MAGNITUDE and the deliberate murder that's got people a bit riled up.
Oh and that they're committing Gen-o-cide.

But it's all necessary to prevent the collapse of the Israeli government.

Originally Posted by SebC

I realize that this is a cold and brutal analysis, but that's what understanding a cold and brutal world requires.

It's an attempt to defend genocide as something necessary and unavoidable.

[CalgaryKid12]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No one was ever expecting zero civilian deaths.
Again you need to explain how there is no viable choice other than (give one example) shooting a child out in the open?

You make these points/arguments in bad faith as you say "no one was ever expecting zero civilian deaths", but then refuse to quantify or provide your idea of what a "proportionate response" would have been so you can continually move the goal posts to better fit your argument.

In your mind, how should Israel have responded to Oct 7?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

You make these points/arguments in bad faith as you say "no one was ever expecting zero civilian deaths", but then refuse to quantify or provide your idea of what a "proportionate response" would have been so you can continually move the goal posts to better fit your argument.

Tactical warfare, in concert with facilitating humanitarian aid.

Isreal has the largest defense budget per capita and has one of the most modern militaries in the world. Moreover, they have an intimate knowledge of their enemy and their geography.

Their bombing campaign was chosen for its cruelty, not its effectiveness. Widespread bombing campaigns have proven to be extremely ineffective and destabilizing. It is also the best way to maximize casualties.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

You make these points/arguments in bad faith

You don't get to voice a credible bad faith opinion when all you're doing is running around making false accusations then slithering on when challenged on them.

Address and apologize for your lies first.

Re. ThePrince
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=10215
Re. Myself.
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=10222

[Bagor]

For beginners.

A proportional response is any response that doesn't include amongst many other things not mentioned the deliberate targetting of and murder of civilians including children.

[SebC]

Ignoring all your bad faith nonsense...

Originally Posted by Bagor

For beginners.

A proportional response is any response that doesn't include amongst many other things not mentioned the deliberate targetting of and murder of civilians including children.

Presumably you are not a beginner. Now that we've narrowed it down by saying they should not commit atrocities, what should Israel have done, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Bagor

A response that doesn't include the deliberate murder of children.
The deliberate murder of health care workers, press....
Destruction of hospitals, universities, etc

And, specifically, what should Israel do if it has credible intelligence that Hamas is hiding under a hospital, university, or orphanage/apartment building (structure that houses children)?

What does a justified and proportionate response mean to you, given that you feel that vandals and hate speakers should be assaulted? Please try to answer with what is permissible/just, rather than what isn't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

You make these points/arguments in bad faith as you say "no one was ever expecting zero civilian deaths", but then refuse to quantify or provide your idea of what a "proportionate response" would have been so you can continually move the goal posts to better fit your argument.

In your mind, how should Israel have responded to Oct 7?

Speaking of making points/arguments in bad faith and refusing to quantify or provide evidence of something, can you provide evidence of the following? I noticed you ignored it.

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

But it's also good to know where you stand on the issue. If it's Jews/Israelis getting beat up (in Amsterdam) or massacred (Oct 7) it's fair game. Maybe you're the one who should be ashamed? Seems to align with Bagor's viewpoint too. Doesn't like violence, unless those pesky Jews are asking for it, then let em have it.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by SebC

What does a justified and proportionate response mean to you, given that you feel that vandals and hate speakers should be assaulted? Please try to answer with what is permissible/just, rather than what isn't.

What does a justified and proportionate response mean to you, given that you feel that vandals and hate speakers should be assaulted? Please try to answer with what is permissible/just, rather than what isn't

No. I'll answer how I see fit.

You're actually trying to tie in a bunch of psychotic genocidal sickos singing about mass child murder getting a deserved slap in with the indiscriminate deliberate murder of blameless innocent civilians?

I'm really curious. How do you connect the two groups of people?

For starters and at the very minimum
a justified and proportional response should not include the act of genocide and multiple war crimes. Its amazing that that has to be said. Do you agree?

What should they have done? Refrained from committing genocide? Agreed? Refrained from committing multiple war crimes? Agreed?

Now why don't you explain why you're asking a silly question as in what viable choice did Israel have? What are you trying to say? Genocide was their only option? It is a necessity?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bagor

No. I'll answer how I see fit.

You're actually trying to tie in a bunch of psychotic genocidal sickos singing about mass child murder getting a deserved slap in with the indiscriminate deliberate murder of blameless innocent civilians?

I'm really curious. How do you connect the two groups of people?

My point is if you consider chanting to be cause for slaps, what about Palestinians who celebrated Oct 7? Who voted for Hamas?

With the soccer fans you support assaulting them and I don't, so your concept of proportionality at the low end of the scale actually justifies a higher response than for me. I'm curious if that stays consistent.

Originally Posted by Bagor

For starters and at the very minimum
a justified and proportional response should not include the act of genocide and multiple war crimes. Its amazing that that has to be said. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. Amazing that this has to be said.

Originally Posted by Bagor

What should they have done? Refrained from committing genocide? Agreed? Refrained from committing multiple war crimes? Agreed?

Obviously.

Originally Posted by Bagor

Now why don't you explain why you're asking a silly question as in what viable choice did Israel have? What are you trying to say? Genocide was their only option? It is a necessity?

That's not what I'm saying. My point is that if you can't positively define an acceptable, alternative response, then you're only viewing one side of the conflict. All you are doing is going in circles asking me to repeat my denunciations of targeting civilians. I denounce that. Now what?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by SebC

My point is if you consider chanting to be cause for slaps, what about Palestinians who celebrated Oct 7? Who voted for Hamas?

With the soccer fans you support assaulting them and I don't, so your concept of proportionality at the low end of the scale actually justifies a higher response than for me. I'm curious if that stays consistent.

Your use of words is telling regarding trying to minimize their behaviour and refusing to acknowledge what they did and who they are.

Chanting? They were singing a song of celebration at the mass murder of children, infants and babies. Not to mention their outright racism.

Can you name me a soccer "chant" ever that comes close in terms of vileness. Just one. They're in a league of their own when it comes to "chanting".

Soccer fans? Have you got a problem describing them for exactly what they are? They're a bunch of vile, racist, infanticide,genocide loving hooligans who went looking for trouble.

Assaulting? You're trying to imply they are some sort of blameless victim? You call it assault, I call it a well deserved slap. And that's all they got. A slap.

Why should there be consistency? The two groups aren't consistent. One is a group of trouble seeking genocide celebrating hooligans. The other is a group of blameless children.

Originally Posted by SebC

That's not what I'm saying. My point is that if you can't positively define an acceptable, alternative response, then you're only viewing one side of the conflict. All you are doing is going in circles asking me to repeat my denunciations of targeting civilians. I denounce that. Now what?

You're hyperfocused on some sort of definition of what an appropriate/proportional response is which I agree isn't an easy task to describe.

But for whatever reason you don't seem to want to acknowledge addressing the issue from another angle. You're hyperfocused on asking the question from only one angle when there are other ways to answer it.

Like, what are considered inappropriate, unacceptable, disproportional responses?

What should Israel NOT do and not have done? Isn't that what they're being judged on?

[CalgaryKid12]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You don't get to voice a credible bad faith opinion when all you're doing is running around making false accusations then slithering on when challenged on them.

Address and apologize for your lies first.

Re. ThePrince
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=10215
Re. Myself.
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=10222

You first

[CalgaryKid12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Speaking of making points/arguments in bad faith and refusing to quantify or provide evidence of something, can you provide evidence of the following? I noticed you ignored it.

Here:

A simple recap.
Israeli's arrived in Amsterdam. Beat taxi, drivers damaged property and walked around in large group carrying weapons shouting racist chants etc.

Basically they were looking for trouble.

Locals fought back and gave a few of them a good beating and a bath in the canal.

People like Manhattanboy jump all over it in their sad attempt to go look! Antisemitism! Can't you see how we are the victims? The ONLY victims?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

Here:

That doesn’t say what you say it does, doesn’t come close to suggesting Jews were “fair game” on October 7, and isn’t a quote by ThePrince.

Bad faith, or…?