UN: Israel committed "Complete Massacre" and "the worst ever" in Gaza

[Sherlock Holmes]

Shrapnel is novel?

That's hilarious.

No, shrapnel isn't novel but a weapon designed to produce shrapnel by design, to maximize its production and used against children is.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Question for those who have brought up new weapons technologies. Are you opposed, generally speaking, to developing new technologies which are more accurate, more intentional and intended to reduce or eliminate incidental harm to non-combatants?

Yes, because despite the claims these weapons can be and are still used indiscriminately thus eliminating any purported harm reduction, just take a look at Gaza, every day we see babies, children, women and men killed and maimed.

Furthermore a shrapnel bomb like the M328 is being used, a perfect terrorist weapon.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lie-"Including individuals and officers from the Civil Defense"...truth-including Hamas.

Lie-"The criminal outlaw Israeli army had previously classified the targeted area as ‘safe’, directing displaced people to seek refuge there"...truth-so Hamas thought they could safely hide there.

Lie-"Palestinian and international organizations say that the majority of those killed and wounded are women and children"...truth-Hamas say that the majority of the killed and wounded Hamas fighters are women and children.

Using this reasoning one could argue for the Holocaust, the ends justifies the means argument.

Answer this hypothetical question for me please, if Hamas did get eliminated from Gaza but every man woman and child in Gaza was killed, would you approve of the operation?

This is ever present hypocrisy in the Israel defenders, that the ends justifies the means and if so then if the ends are legitimate the consequences of striving for them, are morally acceptable.

One can adopt that but then so too can Hamas or Al Qaeda, or Russia, the Nazis gave clear reasons for their policies, they perceived an existential threat and that was their justification for the war and the extermination of Jews.

So those who make these kinds of arguments are - morally - not superior to the worst regimes in history so why keep pretending your moral at all?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I was asked a few months ago to "condemn Hamas" I refused. The reason I refused is I did not see any reason to single out the Oct 7th attack for condemnation and I still don't. If we are to condemn such events and there are lots of them, then the question arises, which of them should we condemn first? how should a list of them be sorted, what are the criteria that we use to say if one event is "worse" than some other, without such criteria it is not possible for me to arbitrarily condemn Hamas for Oct 7th.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, because despite the claims these weapons can be and are still used indiscriminately thus eliminating any purported harm reduction, just take a look at Gaza, every day we see babies, children, women and men killed and maimed.

Furthermore a shrapnel bomb like the M328 is being used, a perfect terrorist weapon.

So, to be clear, you would be opposed to Israel developing a weapon so incredibly precise it could take out only the target with zero incidental harm. What do you suggest as an alternative to improved technology?

 

[Shusha]

I was asked a few months ago to "condemn Hamas" I refused. The reason I refused is I did not see any reason to single out the Oct 7th attack for condemnation and I still don't. If we are to condemn such events and there are lots of them, then the question arises, which of them should we condemn first? how should a list of them be sorted, what are the criteria that we use to say if one event is "worse" than some other, without such criteria it is not possible for me to arbitrarily condemn Hamas for Oct 7th.

And yet you have no problem with "arbitrarily" condemning Israel. That is an interesting double standard.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So, to be clear, you would be opposed to Israel developing a weapon so incredibly precise it could take out only the target with zero incidental harm.

Yes, that's my position on this. There are many facets to this, one is how is "the target" even decided, it's all well and good having an accurate weapon but all one need do is simply state that X is a legitimate "target" and then fire. Recall the xenophobe Smotrich or one of the neo-Nazis, saying everyone in Gaza was to blame?

What do you suggest as an alternative to improved technology?

Law abiding governments. I think it is far better to resolve conflicts using laws.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And yet you have no problem with "arbitrarily" condemning Israel. That is an interesting double standard.

No I disagree. I have my own means of ranking such events and ordering them and condemning them, in an order that's largely consistent with those rules. When I do that with respect to the actors in Palestine/Israel then Israel is at the top of that list, by far with the US being a close second.

When someone else asks me to condemn Hamas I simply ask them to give me their criteria, their ranking so I can see why the Oct 7th terrorist attack is so important to them, I never get a clear answer, some even claim my question to be offensive.

 

[Shusha]

No I disagree. I have my own means of ranking such events and ordering them and condemning them in an order that's largely consistent with those rules. When I do that with respect to the actors in Palestine/Israel then Israel is at the top of that list, by far.

When someone else asks me to condemn Hamas I simply ask them to give me their criteria, their ranking so I can see why the Oct 7th terrorist attack is so important to them, I never get a clear answer, some even claim my question to be offensive.

Since you have repeatedly condemned things such as the targeting and/or indiscriminate killing of civilians, especially women and children, it should be easy to condemn the perpetrators of October 7 on that basis alone.

 

[Shusha]

Law abiding governments. I think it is far better to resolve conflicts using laws.

Of course, I agree. But Gaza is not a law-abiding government and is using violence against civilians. What legal conflict resolution strategies SHOULD Gaza be using instead?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Since you have repeatedly condemned things such as the targeting and/or indiscriminate killing of civilians, especially women and children, it should be easy to condemn the perpetrators of October 7 on that basis alone.

Yes I totally agree, my position isn't that the Hamas attack is not worthy of condemnation, it's why is that being singled out? why am I being arbitrarily asked to condemn that particular act of terrorism, that's my question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On a map?

On a fake map.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course, I agree. But Gaza is not a law-abiding government and is using violence against civilians.

Yes I know it's not a law abiding government, that's not being contested. It was my answer as to what is a better alternative that weapons.

What legal conflict resolution strategies SHOULD Gaza be using instead?

Other than complete capitulation and acceptance of their plight I don't think there are any left. They've tried pretty much everything else, even the UN has tried but the US makes that approach fruitless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, shrapnel isn't novel but a weapon designed to produce shrapnel by design, to maximize its production and used against children is.

Weapons have been designed to produce shrapnel for hundreds of years, moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Using this reasoning one could argue for the Holocaust, the ends justifies the means argument.

Answer this hypothetical question for me please, if Hamas did get eliminated from Gaza but every man woman and child in Gaza was killed, would you approve of the operation?

This is ever present hypocrisy in the Israel defenders, that the ends justifies the means and if so then if the ends are legitimate the consequences of striving for them, are morally acceptable.

One can adopt that but then so too can Hamas or Al Qaeda, or Russia, the Nazis gave clear reasons for their policies, they perceived an existential threat and that was their justification for the war and the extermination of Jews.

So those who make these kinds of arguments are - morally - not superior to the worst regimes in history so why keep pretending your moral at all?

Using this reasoning one could argue for the Holocaust, the ends justifies the means argument.

Liar.

Answer this hypothetical question for me please, if Hamas did get eliminated from Gaza but every man woman and child in Gaza was killed, would you approve of the operation?

No.

Answer this hypothetical question for me please, if Israel intended to kill every Gazan, why are so few dead?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Weapons have been designed to produce shrapnel for hundreds of years, moron.

And used against babies and children?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was asked a few months ago to "condemn Hamas" I refused. The reason I refused is I did not see any reason to single out the Oct 7th attack for condemnation and I still don't. If we are to condemn such events and there are lots of them, then the question arises, which of them should we condemn first? how should a list of them be sorted, what are the criteria that we use to say if one event is "worse" than some other, without such criteria it is not possible for me to arbitrarily condemn Hamas for Oct 7th.

I was asked a few months ago to "condemn Hamas" I refused. The reason I refused is....

You support Muslim terrorists, especially when they kill Jews.

 

[Shusha]

And used against babies and children?

Wait, are you trying to argue that these weapons were deliberately designed for use against babies and children?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes I totally agree, my position isn't that the Hamas attack is not worthy of condemnation, it's why is that being singled out? why am I being arbitrarily asked to condemn that particular act of terrorism, that's my question.

We could ask you to condemn an Arab terrorist attack from the 1970s. Would that be ok?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And used against babies and children?

Muslim terrorist supporters are suddenly against harming babies and children?