How to Define GENOCIDE?

[sparky]

I’m going to hold off on this until conflict is over and and any potential war crimes investigated

Then let the world investigate

illing children and civilians is the act of a coward.

yes

4. As you brought up, the actions do not suggest an intent.

actions speak louder than words

~S~

 

[Coyote]

Some of the language used is horrific and dehumanizing. I do not support it.

A couple of points, though.

1. It matters who is speaking. A random veteran spewing vile hatred does not suggest a legally sound argument for the intent necessary to prove genocide. Nor does any "former" member of random government agency. If the charge of genocide is against the STATE of Israel, then you would have to prove a systematic, deliberate intent by those in the current government of the STATE.

Agree. But, when ranking members of Netanyahu’s cabinet are saying these sort of things and Netanyahu does little to muzzle or repudiate it, it isn’t a good look.

2. Some of those statements are reactionary, and understandably so, as the people and government of Israel were actively fighting in the first few days after the invasion and coming to understand the scale of the atrocities committed. Still not okay, and not something I would support, but understandable and not evidence of intent to commit genocide.

Agree, understandable

3. The Jewish, or at least my understanding of the Jewish, reference to Amalek is WAY more complicated than a simple and clear intent to commit genocide, especially as a legal argument. Yeah, I know that sounds like a shitty excuse, and yeah, I call people out when they try to excuse other religious terminology like "intifada" and "jihad". Still. Bibi's audience was a Jewish audience in that clip, and they would know the richer definition, especially the appeal to remember.

I’ll add, a lot of religious terms are more nuanced or complicated than people realize, particularly when there are also often metaphorical meanings or concepts that don’t adequately translate from one language to another. Jihad is also one of those.

4. As you brought up, the actions do not suggest an intent.

Agree. And even if there was intent, absent of action, it means absolutely nothing. Intent implies an attempt at some sort of action and that isn’t there.

 

[gipper]

Nope. No intent

Your fail is highly public here on this fairly tiny Board. Especially since the stupid thread is yours.

Cool.

STFU!

 

[GLASNOST]

The goal of Hamas is not freedom certainly not for the Palestinians who experience very LITTLE freedom under Hamas.

How many Allied civilians perished during WW II as reprisals for Allied operations? Were they seeking freedom or not – because what you are saying (without being courageous enough to actually admit it) is that the slaughter of Palestinian civilians at the hand of the NAZI Zionists is Hamas’ fault.

”Freedom fighters“ who attack, torture and slaughter innocent civilians at a music festival are not about freedom, but terrorism.

.. and your point is what? That gaining freedom by any means possible is not freedom? Should we have allowed Germany to bomb London without sending bombers over Hamburg and Düsseldorf? Maybe you haven't noticed that it was the NAZI Zionists who started this war?

We normally put people like that in jail… . Killing children and civilians is the act of a coward.

Really? I mean, did you actually say that?! There are less "people like that" in jail than WMDs found in Irak despite one million innocent men, women, and children who were murdered plus countless innocent men tortured at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. And then there is the NAZI Zionist practice of "attacking, torturing and slaughtering innocent civilians" in Palestine. So, please tell me again about what you "normally" do with "people like that". Could it be that I misunderstood you?

 

[BackAgain]

STFU!

Uhm. No. Gfy.



Genocide requires an intent. Scumsucking idiots such as you simply choose to ignore it.

Happy to annoy you with a shot of truth.

 

[gipper]

Like I said in my previous post to you, it depends on what you are believing. Keep in mind that in war, truth is the first casualty.

There have been conflicting reports on what has actually been happening there in the last 7 months. The MSM (which is controlled by the same people who want all these wars in the M.E) says one thing.... but there have been many times when independent media, individuals and various organizations who were actually there reported something very different. So who do you choose to believe?

I have been holding off on stating definitive conclusions one way or the other on things I may not be able to prove.

But I will say this... setting aside the "war" for now, when it comes to the event that started the whole thing, there is evidence it was a false flag. Evidence is not the same thing as proof, mind you. But there's enough evidence, in my view, to at the very least question what started this "war" in the first place and dig deeper.

Also keep in mind, historically, so many wars start based on lies and false pretenses.

I've posted this before, but here's something for you to watch:

Yes! The attack on 10/7 certainly has all the typical signs of a false flag. It also benefits Bibi big time, as he’s always wanted control of Gaza and the natural resources off shore. And he’s always wanted to mass murder the Palestinians.

 

[gipper]

Uhm. No. Gfy.



Genocide requires an intent. Scumsucking idiots such as you simply choose to ignore it.

Happy to annoy you with a shot of truth.

As always you know nothing. STFU!

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

 

[Coyote]

That is fair and reasonable. I will also be interested in seeing investigations and reports when all this is done. Israel didn't control the Rafah crossing until just recently, though, yes?

True, but I don’t think that is a good excuse. Rafah is one crossing in the far southern tip of Gaza. Multiple reasons for keeping it closed: Why Egypt refuses to open its border to Palestinians

There are 6 other crossings, by far, most of Gaza’s land border is with Israel. 1

 

[Coyote]

Like I said in my previous post to you, it depends on what you are believing. Keep in mind that in war, truth is the first casualty.

There have been conflicting reports on what has actually been happening there in the last 7 months. The MSM (which is controlled by the same people who want all these wars in the M.E) says one thing.... but there have been many times when independent media, individuals and various organizations who were actually there reported something very different. So who do you choose to believe?

I have been holding off on stating definitive conclusions one way or the other on things I may not be able to prove.

But I will say this... setting aside the "war" for now, when it comes to the event that started the whole thing, there is evidence it was a false flag. Evidence is not the same thing as proof, mind you. But there's enough evidence, in my view, to at the very least question what started this "war" in the first place and dig deeper.

Also keep in mind, historically, so many wars start based on lies and false pretenses.

I've posted this before, but here's something for you to watch:

There was no false flag Buttercup, this was well documented, including by the UN. Fact: Hamas screwed the pooch on this.

 

[BackAgain]

As always you know nothing. STFU!

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Suck a dick in some Gaza tunnel, fucktard.

As always, you offer no valid response.

Sucks to be you.

Intent matters — as does the LACK of it, you shitbag.

 

[buttercup]

Some of the language used is horrific and dehumanizing. I do not support it.

A couple of points, though.

1. It matters who is speaking. A random veteran spewing vile hatred does not suggest a legally sound argument for the intent necessary to prove genocide. Nor does any "former" member of random government agency. If the charge of genocide is against the STATE of Israel, then you would have to prove a systematic, deliberate intent by those in the current government of the STATE.

2. Some of those statements are reactionary, and understandably so, as the people and government of Israel were actively fighting in the first few days after the invasion and coming to understand the scale of the atrocities committed. Still not okay, and not something I would support, but understandable and not evidence of intent to commit genocide.

3. The Jewish, or at least my understanding of the Jewish, reference to Amalek is WAY more complicated than a simple and clear intent to commit genocide, especially as a legal argument. Yeah, I know that sounds like a shitty excuse, and yeah, I call people out when they try to excuse other religious terminology like "intifada" and "jihad". Still. Bibi's audience was a Jewish audience in that clip, and they would know the richer definition, especially the appeal to remember.

4. As you brought up, the actions do not suggest an intent.

Thanks for taking the time to bring up those points. Since Coyote replied to you and said one of the things I was going to say (about at least a couple of those people being in the current government) that's all I'm going to say in response right now.

 

[GLASNOST]

As of a couple of months ago, an estimated 1% of tbe population had been killed. Since then, the numbers have not increased enough (even given that many are likely still buried in the rubble) to alter that. Thus 99%.

Well, let's see now, shall we? 99% you say, huh? I'm willing to bet that from the time it takes for me to press the send button (and you reading this message) even less than 1% will have died. Is that right? Wonderful! Gosh, if that doesn't disprove the "genocide" accusation then what will?

 

[Shusha]

True, but I don’t think that is a good excuse. Rafah is one crossing in the far southern tip of Gaza. Multiple reasons for keeping it closed: Why Egypt refuses to open its border to Palestinians

There are 6 other crossings, by far, most of Gaza’s land border is with Israel. 1

I think it was a reasonable expectation within the very early days of the war that the Rafah crossing offered an alternative access to humanitarian aid. Within several days of the invasion, Israel had announced that it did not intend to prevent aid from crossing into Gaza from Egypt. So, to the topic of the thread, the claim that Israel was intentionally creating starvation conditions with intent to commit genocide in Gaza by preventing aid from entering seems unsustainable. But, as you have said before, there are other war crimes.

 

[gipper]

Suck a dick in some Gaza tunnel, fucktard.

As always, you offer no valid response.

Sucks to be you.

Intent matters — as does the LACK of it, you shitbag.

See? You know nothing. All you ever post is hate and ignorance. Go away again and never come back.

 

[Coyote]

How many Allied civilians perished during WW II as reprisals for Allied operations? Were they seeking freedom or not – because what you are saying (without being courageous enough to actually admit it) is that the slaughter of Palestinian civilians at the hand of the NAZI Zionists is Hamas’ fault.

I wasn’t even looking at that. Hamas does not care about civilians, whether its own or others. There was NO (as in NONE) military target when Hamas attacked civilians on z Oct 7. Kind of sounds cowardly to me.

Hamas is known to torture, murder or “disappear” dissenters and any competition to their rule.

Hamas does hide weaponry in protected civilian infrastructure: hospitals and schools. This has been independently confirmed…if they cared about their people…then WHY?

Hamas’ goals go well beyond the Palestinians, whose cause is simply a useful stepping stone to greater ambitions.

It has nothing to do with freedom.

.. and your point is what? That gaining freedom by any means possible is not freedom? Should we have allowed Germany to bomb London without sending bombers over Hamburg and Düsseldorf? Maybe you haven't noticed that it was the NAZI Zionists who started this war?

Ignoring the red flag language here….are you saying the end always justifies the means?

Really? I mean, did you actually say that?! There are less "people like that" in jail than WMDs found in Irak despite one million innocent men, women, and children who were murdered plus countless innocent men tortured at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. And then there is the NAZI Zionist practice of "attacking, torturing and slaughtering innocent civilians" in Palestine. So, please tell me again about what you "normally" do with "people like that". Could it be that I misunderstood you?

Yes. I did say that. People who deliberately target civilians (like Russia has in Ukraine or Hamas, who DID NOT choose anything REMOTELY close to a military target) belong in jail. They are abject cowards.

 

[Shusha]

Thanks for taking the time to bring up those points. Since Coyote replied to you and said one of the things I was going to say (about at least a couple of those people being in the current government) that's all I'm going to say in response right now.

No worries. Yes, what decision-makers in the current government say carries a good deal more weight. But can also be both reactionary and meant for a specific audience.

 

[GLASNOST]

Yes! The attack on 10/7 certainly has all the typical signs of a false flag. It also benefits Bibi big time, as he’s always wanted control of Gaza and the natural resources off shore. And he’s always wanted to mass murder the Palestinians.

This is definitely worth considering. It’s not as though equivalent “false flag” operations haven’t been employed in other instances so it cannot be deemed a wild, fanciful, and outrageous science fiction scenario.

 

[buttercup]

There was no false flag Buttercup, this was well documented, including by the UN. Fact: Hamas screwed the pooch on this.

I beg to differ. For numerous reasons. And I don't say things like this lightly. But I'm not here to try to prove that to you right now. If I wanted to, I could present a case.... but I think its too early for that. I make videos, so maybe at some point I will consider putting together a video, but if I do it, I want to do it in the right way, and that's going to take time and putting it all together.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... Go away again and never come back.

Wouldn't that be nice!

 

[gipper]

Wouldn't that be nice!

Absolutely!