Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am surprised there is no thread discussing such big news. What do you think of the peace plan? Do you think it will work? If not, who do you think will break the ceasefire rules first?" I'm not surprised there is no thread about it. It's an active, in-progress and fluidic situation. I think most people would adopt a watch and wait stance before making comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It sounds like they want to spend a lot of money 'redeveloping' the area. It's doubtful the people living there will own much. Sounds sensible on the whole given their situation. That said, all it will take is a small group off crazies firing rockets to kick it all off again." That's my take too. The most difficult part of any peace plan was going to be how they were going to guarantee Israel's safety from Hamas. The proposal to demilitarise Gaza, having multinational troops there and setting up a temporary governing body seems to be a right step in that direction. But so many things could go wrong. Hopefully sanity prevails. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am surprised there is no thread discussing such big news. What do you think of the peace plan? Do you think it will work? If not, who do you think will break the ceasefire rules first?" It is at best a breathing space plan. Whilst religious doctrine defines either side’s political agenda there will never be peace. trump is exercising desperation influence for his own short term political career. None of what he says has legitimacy or long term consequence for the region which has always been defined by centuries of war. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly deluded and ignorant of the realities of religious zeal and cravings for revenge on both sides. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am surprised there is no thread discussing such big news. What do you think of the peace plan? Do you think it will work? If not, who do you think will break the ceasefire rules first? It is at best a breathing space plan. Whilst religious doctrine defines either side’s political agenda there will never be peace. trump is exercising desperation influence for his own short term political career. None of what he says has legitimacy or long term consequence for the region which has always been defined by centuries of war. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly deluded and ignorant of the realities of religious zeal and cravings for revenge on both sides." It does seem like a short term performance rather than a long term plan. Like the photo opportunity that was Trump in North Korea that didn't achieve anything long term. The release of the hostages is a concrete result, but in the medium to longer term there is little certainty. Though Trump is desperate for the Nobel Peace Prize, so maybe the US may want to enforce the peace for at least another year. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am surprised there is no thread discussing such big news. What do you think of the peace plan? Do you think it will work? If not, who do you think will break the ceasefire rules first? It is at best a breathing space plan. Whilst religious doctrine defines either side’s political agenda there will never be peace. trump is exercising desperation influence for his own short term political career. None of what he says has legitimacy or long term consequence for the region which has always been defined by centuries of war. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly deluded and ignorant of the realities of religious zeal and cravings for revenge on both sides." Very concise.. 
Praise of course for forcing Netanyahu into having to do what's been done with the hostages but the whole plan lacks details and by the time it falls apart which might scupper the nomination for the Nobel next year he'll have moved on to 'solve' another crisis..
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Egypt meeting where they signed a treaty was a bit odd. How do you all sign a peace treaty that doesn’t have Israelis or Palestinians present?" Apparently Netanyahu told the Egyptians he wouldn't be attending the meeting just before Trump got up to speak.. Giving Trump no notice or chance to speak to him about it before he lauded him to the heavens.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The hostages will be realesed and Israel will find a way to break the ceasefire; especially as people are returning to Gaza. The UN must put peacekeepers in Gaza; if Israel break the ceasefire, then Israel must be bombed" Does the same apply to Hamas? So if they break the ceasefire will the peacekeepers then have to bomb Gaza? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The hostages will be realesed and Israel will find a way to break the ceasefire; especially as people are returning to Gaza. The UN must put peacekeepers in Gaza; if Israel break the ceasefire, then Israel must be bombed" Palestinians need protecting from Palestinians Now they’ve stopped killing Jews, they are killing their own ‘Reports of masked Hamas gunmen executing eight Palestinians in public have triggered fear and outrage among residents of Gaza - a territory already exhausted by two years of war, displacement and destruction. The killings, which Hamas says targeted “criminals and collaborators with Israel”, come just days after violent clashes between Hamas fighters and members of the powerful Dughmush clan in Gaza City left more than 50 people dead - including 12 Hamas members’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Rafah crossing is reported to stay closed, affecting aid deliveries after Hamas has failed to hand over the bodies of hostages they’ve murdered " Have Hamas even got all those bodies or are they lying under bombed out buildings? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile the Israeli government have returned 45 Palestinian bodies. Estimates of the number of bodies held by the Israeli government as bargaining chips are around 630 with about 50 being the bodies of children. Some of these corpses are from the West Bank rather than Gaza and some of them have been held captive from well before October 7th 2023." For balance, why is msm not reporting this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For balance, why is msm not reporting this" A good question. Two basic reasons. The Israeli government's narrative has been accepted without question for decades by many in the "West". Criticism of Israel is seen as antisemitic, so it's too risky to probe into any detail. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Really! Regardless of the immediate shock of the situation right now, if anyone actually believes, exchanging hostages, prisoners, bodies and perhaps worst of all relying on trump is going to resolve centuries of mistrust, war and utterly embedded desire for revenge and destruction on both sides of the divide, then they are entirely deluded. The only mechanism that will deliver peace across the entire region is a revolution within all the affected governments (remember that includes Iran et al) to denounce their respective legislative frameworks currently founded on religious doctrine (whatever the persuasion) and rebuild each of the structures on enlightened and broadly humanistic principles. Clearly for the current generations the above is an entirely unrealistic goal, thus the default to repetition of a war footing being inevitable and completely predictable." The reality is that it's got very little to do with religion. Most of the founding fathers of Israel were secular (and on the left). Unfortunately extremists on both sides have resorted to using religion as cover for their atrocities but it's basically a land dispute quite similar to what happened in North America and other places. The solution is for everyone to have the same basic rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Really! Regardless of the immediate shock of the situation right now, if anyone actually believes, exchanging hostages, prisoners, bodies and perhaps worst of all relying on trump is going to resolve centuries of mistrust, war and utterly embedded desire for revenge and destruction on both sides of the divide, then they are entirely deluded. The only mechanism that will deliver peace across the entire region is a revolution within all the affected governments (remember that includes Iran et al) to denounce their respective legislative frameworks currently founded on religious doctrine (whatever the persuasion) and rebuild each of the structures on enlightened and broadly humanistic principles. Clearly for the current generations the above is an entirely unrealistic goal, thus the default to repetition of a war footing being inevitable and completely predictable. The reality is that it's got very little to do with religion. Most of the founding fathers of Israel were secular (and on the left). Unfortunately extremists on both sides have resorted to using religion as cover for their atrocities but it's basically a land dispute quite similar to what happened in North America and other places. The solution is for everyone to have the same basic rights." Religion is singularly the only reason there has been, there is now, and until it is sidelined from governments in the middle east will continue to fuel the warring parties. Hard line left, right or whatever is selected to describe political extremism is a relatively modern phenomena, and by that modern describes the past 80ish years in contrast to the 2000 years the states of religious founded unrest have existed in one form or another. That said equal rights for everyone is certainly the humanist and therefore the most effective solution for enduring peace. Unfortunately that particular solution is not going to be available to the generations living today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 3 days only gone by and people have been shot and killed today" Doubt they will ever stop killing each other, exactly why we should stop interfering and caring about what goes on in third world shithole counties, let them keep killing each other wash our hands of it and concentrate on sorting our own country out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 3 days only gone by and people have been shot and killed today" Down from an average of 92 deaths and 280 casualties per day over last two years. 41 gun murders in USA every day. We can only hope the ceasefire holds | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If both sides honours their part of the deal it should go fine at least until the next terror event. However I believe hamas has already broke the conditions and failed to return upto 20 bodies of the hostages taken. Israel have already released 2000 prisoners back to hamas and it opened the agreed aid channels. It declared they will close the vital channel leading into Egypt due to Hamas not fulfilling their part of the deal. " And on Hamas disarmament ? Trump asked by journalist; Q if they don’t disarm A we will disarm them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners released by the Israel government around 1,700 were people being held without charge. According to Amnesty International 11,040 Palestinians were held captive in September 2025 with about 57% of them held without charge. So after the recent releases roughly 4,500 Palestinians are still being held captive without charge or trial. If they were Israelis they'd be described by the media as hostages. " The Israelis were taken from their homes and at a concert, they weren't lobbing stones and the like at others. There's a difference but it doesn't suit the narrative that Israel is as bad as Hamas, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since Oct 7 2023 According to the UN Israeli children killed by Hamas: 37 Palestinian children killed by the IDF: 20,000+ As far as I am concerned the IDF isn't as bad as Hamas, they are exponentially worse" So by your logic the Allies were exponentially worse than the Nazis then? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since Oct 7 2023 According to the UN Israeli children killed by Hamas: 37 Palestinian children killed by the IDF: 20,000+ As far as I am concerned the IDF isn't as bad as Hamas, they are exponentially worse" Hamas took a flick knife to a gunfight Reap what you sow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hamas took a flick knife to a gunfight Reap what you sow. " ?Hamas used a flick knife, but the IDF used a wrecking ball that killed over 20,000 children. That's not "reaping what you sow;" that's an intentional and disproportionate act of destruction against an entire civilian population. ?The people of Gaza are not a collective, and the vast majority of them had no say in the actions of Hamas. The children who were killed did not "sow" anything. They are victims of a war crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hamas took a flick knife to a gunfight Reap what you sow. ?Hamas used a flick knife, but the IDF used a wrecking ball that killed over 20,000 children. That's not "reaping what you sow;" that's an intentional and disproportionate act of destruction against an entire civilian population. ?The people of Gaza are not a collective, and the vast majority of them had no say in the actions of Hamas. The children who were killed did not "sow" anything. They are victims of a war crime." Reported 75% of Palestinians supported the 7 October butchery. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile the Israeli government have returned 45 Palestinian bodies. Estimates of the number of bodies held by the Israeli government as bargaining chips are around 630 with about 50 being the bodies of children. Some of these corpses are from the West Bank rather than Gaza and some of them have been held captive from well before October 7th 2023. For balance, why is msm not reporting this " Because it's not true ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont know how you can draw those conclusions. The allies at most killed in the region of 1 million non combatants The axis however killed circa 50 million. Making the axis exponentially worse " You are right, my bad. I meant the Brits and the Yanks when I said Allies. So according to your logic, the Brits and the Yanks were exponentially worse than the Nazis, really? The Nazis killed substantially less of the civilian population of the UK and USA than they killed German civilians. If you start a war dont complain when the other side strikes you back harder, maybe they should have considered this before Oct 7th or at the very least built some bomb shelters, instead of tunnels, but they didnt did they. They probably guessed right that the Israelis wouldn't bomb the 5 star accomodation the Hamas leadership were living in, so fuck it, 'they' didnt need it and civilian casualties looked great for their terroristic propaganda aims. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Israelis were taken from their homes and at a concert, they weren't lobbing stones and the like at others. There's a difference but it doesn't suit the narrative that Israel is as bad as Hamas, Mrs x" The 4,500 Palestinians locked up without charge have not, by definition, been charged with doing anything. The minimum sentence for a Palestinian convicted in a military court of throwing stones is three years. The maximum sentence is 20 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Reported 75% of Palestinians supported the 7 October butchery. " So 75% allegedly ‘supported’ Hamas — does that make bombing schools, hospitals and homes okay? When did ‘support’ become a death sentence for children (who wouldn’t even be polled)? By that logic every citizen voter or not is responsible for every war their government starts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Israelis were taken from their homes and at a concert, they weren't lobbing stones and the like at others. There's a difference but it doesn't suit the narrative that Israel is as bad as Hamas, Mrs x The 4,500 Palestinians locked up without charge have not, by definition, been charged with doing anything. The minimum sentence for a Palestinian convicted in a military court of throwing stones is three years. The maximum sentence is 20 years. " So what are you, or Chat GPT, saying? That Israel just arbitrary are 'snatching' Palestinians and locking them up without reason? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 75% allegedly ‘supported’ Hamas — does that make bombing schools, hospitals and homes okay? When did ‘support’ become a death sentence for children (who wouldn’t even be polled)? By that logic every citizen voter or not is responsible for every war their government starts." Agreed. Plus the 75% support number is BS that this poster keeps repeating despite it being pointed out to him that it's completely inaccurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Reported 75% of Palestinians supported the 7 October butchery. So 75% allegedly ‘supported’ Hamas — does that make bombing schools, hospitals and homes okay? When did ‘support’ become a death sentence for children (who wouldn’t even be polled)? By that logic every citizen voter or not is responsible for every war their government starts." Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what are you, or Chat GPT, saying? That Israel just arbitrary are 'snatching' Palestinians and locking them up without reason? Mrs x" It looks that way. Anyone caught actually throwing stones gets put through the military court system, the rest are essentially arbitary arrests. Look up the reporting by Amnesty International, B'Tselem, HamMoked, Adalah and others. It's sometimes also covered by international news agencies but the stories very rarely make it into our popular media output. Much of the Israeli press call even peaceful protesters terrorists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x" The average age of people in Gaza is 20. The last election in Gaza was 19 years ago. I haven't mentioned any bombing locations. Your are just going off on one of your spirals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The average age of people in Gaza is 20. The last election in Gaza was 19 years ago. I haven't mentioned any bombing locations. Your are just going off on one of your spirals." I think that reply may have been for me! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x" So you’re saying it’s OK to kill innocent children for decisions they had no part in? That’s morally indefensible. Even if combatants hide among civilians, there are alternatives: targeted ground-level operations, intelligence-led arrests, precise strikes aimed only at fighters, and coordinated efforts to neutralize threats without harming civilians. Flattening schools, hospitals, and homes is never necessary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what are you, or Chat GPT, saying? That Israel just arbitrary are 'snatching' Palestinians and locking them up without reason? Mrs x It looks that way. Anyone caught actually throwing stones gets put through the military court system, the rest are essentially arbitary arrests. Look up the reporting by Amnesty International, B'Tselem, HamMoked, Adalah and others. It's sometimes also covered by international news agencies but the stories very rarely make it into our popular media output. Much of the Israeli press call even peaceful protesters terrorists." If a 'terrorist' does indeed attend a protest 'peacefully', does that automatically make him not a terrorist? You are talking about 'Administrative Detention', which I agree is not the best way to deal with this but the Israelis say that its used in incidents of National Security and they dont discuss it because of this reason. This practice is widely criticised but that doesn't mean its not utilised by the Israelis for the greater good of their people and state, in their eyes anyway. An example of this would be, if they knew the 7th October attack was imminent and they knew Sinwar was the mastermind behind any attack. If they had the chance to pick him up and detain him prior to it, would that be justified, given it may have saved over a thousand Jewish lives and the hostages may never have been taken. So maybe thats not enough of a reason for such a practice, after all it only concerns Jewish safety and Jewsish lives. But let's take it a step further. By doing this, by preventing this horrendous act, you remove Israels reasoning to retaliate against Gaza. Perversely, Israel may actually have saved tens of thousands of Gazan lives by detaining one man without charge. It's just a thought. I'm not saying I'm for this kind of thing but if that did happen, that way..... Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 75% allegedly ‘supported’ Hamas — does that make bombing schools, hospitals and homes okay? When did ‘support’ become a death sentence for children (who wouldn’t even be polled)? By that logic every citizen voter or not is responsible for every war their government starts. Agreed. Plus the “”75% support number is BS “”that this poster keeps repeating despite it being pointed out to him that it's completely inaccurate." Figs are The Palestinian Center for Policy Survey and Research (PCPSR) findings As posted by Reuters 7.12.2023 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Much of the Israeli press call even peaceful protesters terrorists." Uk going the same way; Palestine Action, attempted ban on Kneecap at Glastonbury and terror charges on vocalist (now dropped), extra police powers etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So 75% allegedly ‘supported’ Hamas — does that make bombing schools, hospitals and homes okay? When did ‘support’ become a death sentence for children (who wouldn’t even be polled)? By that logic every citizen voter or not is responsible for every war their government starts. Agreed. Plus the 75% support number is BS that this poster keeps repeating despite it being pointed out to him that it's completely inaccurate."
The lack of access to Palestine, by overseas media and others, highlights how much Israel controlled information and opinion outside of somewhere, including - presumably - alleged opinions of people who were being deliberately starved and killed by them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Reported 75% of Palestinians supported the 7 October butchery. So 75% allegedly ‘supported’ Hamas — does that make bombing schools, hospitals and homes okay? When did ‘support’ become a death sentence for children (who wouldn’t even be polled)? By that logic every citizen voter or not is responsible for every war their government starts." They did all roll out cheering on the Hamas ceremony to release Israeli children’s coffins on 20.02.2025. . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x So you’re saying it’s OK to kill innocent children for decisions they had no part in? That’s morally indefensible. Even if combatants hide among civilians, there are alternatives: targeted ground-level operations, intelligence-led arrests, precise strikes aimed only at fighters, and coordinated efforts to neutralize threats without harming civilians. Flattening schools, hospitals, and homes is never necessary." It is if those buildings, once attacked by the IDF were then subsequently 'weaponised' by Hamas by laying IEDs inside them, knowing that they'd have to be 'cleared' by the IDF. The death toll to the IDF would have been catastrophic, so a military decision to level these areas was taken. Lots of this was done with heavy machinery, designed to withstand the blasts from IEDs. As for the killing of innocents, I am against that obviously. But I dont believe that they IDF went after innocent civilians. You mention schools, hospitals and homes. The reason you do is because you've seen the footage, the footage from Hamas, showing destruction of such places. It's horrific to think such places could be attacked, schools, full of children, hospitals with patients, homes with families. But the IDF did not target these civilians for bombing, they targeted 'buildings' holding terrorists and weapons. If those inside these buildings needed the IDFs warnings and moved, then the schools wouldn't be full of kids, the hospital full of patients or the homes full with Palestinian families. They'd just be 'empty' buildings. But they weren't empty, they'd contain terrorists and weapons. The great tragedy is that the occupants didnt always leave and stayed. Whether thats through a misguided adherence to the religious doctrine of martyrdom or through the actually threats from Hamas, really makes no difference, innocent people still died. And the truly horrific thing is thats what Hamas wanted, needed in fact to further their propagandists aims. If you think that small, ground led attacks would not result in innocent lives being lost then you are mistaken. You only have to look at how Seal Team 6 performed their operation against Osama bin Laden. They actually shot through one of his wives to get to him, but what do you expect when the target themselves would pick up a family member and hide behind them. Thats whats happening in Gaza except its Hamas holding up, and hiding behind, their poor citizens. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x So you’re saying it’s OK to kill innocent children for decisions they had no part in? That’s morally indefensible. Even if combatants hide among civilians, there are alternatives: targeted ground-level operations, intelligence-led arrests, precise strikes aimed only at fighters, and coordinated efforts to neutralize threats without harming civilians. Flattening schools, hospitals, and homes is never necessary.It is if those buildings, once attacked by the IDF were then subsequently 'weaponised' by Hamas by laying IEDs inside them, knowing that they'd have to be 'cleared' by the IDF. The death toll to the IDF would have been catastrophic, so a military decision to level these areas was taken. Lots of this was done with heavy machinery, designed to withstand the blasts from IEDs. As for the killing of innocents, I am against that obviously. But I dont believe that they IDF went after innocent civilians. You mention schools, hospitals and homes. The reason you do is because you've seen the footage, the footage from Hamas, showing destruction of such places. It's horrific to think such places could be attacked, schools, full of children, hospitals with patients, homes with families. But the IDF did not target these civilians for bombing, they targeted 'buildings' holding terrorists and weapons. If those inside these buildings needed the IDFs warnings and moved, then the schools wouldn't be full of kids, the hospital full of patients or the homes full with Palestinian families. They'd just be 'empty' buildings. But they weren't empty, they'd contain terrorists and weapons. The great tragedy is that the occupants didnt always leave and stayed. Whether thats through a misguided adherence to the religious doctrine of martyrdom or through the actually threats from Hamas, really makes no difference, innocent people still died. And the truly horrific thing is thats what Hamas wanted, needed in fact to further their propagandists aims. If you think that small, ground led attacks would not result in innocent lives being lost then you are mistaken. You only have to look at how Seal Team 6 performed their operation against Osama bin Laden. They actually shot through one of his wives to get to him, but what do you expect when the target themselves would pick up a family member and hide behind them. Thats whats happening in Gaza except its Hamas holding up, and hiding behind, their poor citizens. Mrs x " I disagree Interviews with Israeli soldiers on the use of the lavender system revealed that the soldiers and forward ostentation operators were told by their commanders to blow everything and anything up, not to be concerned with collateral damage if there was remotely a Hamas target. This is why there are so many casualties. IDF even shot escaping Israelis holding white flags, shouting in Hebrew | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x The average age of people in Gaza is 20. The last election in Gaza was 19 years ago. I haven't mentioned any bombing locations. Your are just going off on one of your spirals." I never said you mentioned any locations because I wasn't responded ingrown to you but another poster. Before accessing anyone of anything, 'spiralling' whatever may I suggest you actually read whats been written, you are quite funny at times, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x The average age of people in Gaza is 20. The last election in Gaza was 19 years ago. I haven't mentioned any bombing locations. Your are just going off on one of your spirals.I never said you mentioned any locations because I wasn't responded ingrown to you but another poster. Before accessing anyone of anything, 'spiralling' whatever may I suggest you actually read whats been written, you are quite funny at times, Mrs x" Obviously predictive text changed what I meant to say but I cannot be bothered to correct it, it might give you something to do rather than 'attack' people, something I find strange form a guy saying they'd like to debate without becoming emotional haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The scale and tactics of the IDF in Gaza have resulted in an enormous loss of civilian life. By comparison, even in conflicts like the IRA in Northern Ireland, the British military did not pursue such indiscriminate destruction. If similar methods were used there—bombing neighborhoods and homes on such a scale—would that be considered acceptable? My point is not that the conflicts are identical, but that any military action that kills large numbers of civilians, especially children, cannot be justified as proportional or targeted, regardless of the context." Urban warfare incurs the largest number of civilian casualties. There's an agreed formula for how many is expected/acceptable. This formula has been posted on this forum a number of times and whilst the figures here are large, they are not considered unacceptable compared to other urban conflicts. You only have to look at the figures of Israels neighbours in the region to see examples far worse in terms of numbers. Both the conflicts in Syria and Yemen had 10 times the number of casualties. And your example of the IRA is not really relevant, in that they were never in charge of Ireland and as such Ireland didnt commit an act of war on the UK because of the IRAs terrorist attacks. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The scale and tactics of the IDF in Gaza have resulted in an enormous loss of civilian life. By comparison, even in conflicts like the IRA in Northern Ireland, the British military did not pursue such indiscriminate destruction. If similar methods were used there—bombing neighborhoods and homes on such a scale—would that be considered acceptable? My point is not that the conflicts are identical, but that any military action that kills large numbers of civilians, especially children, cannot be justified as proportional or targeted, regardless of the context." 2 million people, 90% of them displaced, 700 to one toilet reported last year in a ‘safe’ zone. Hard not to miss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You only have to look at the figures of Israels neighbours in the region to see examples far worse in terms of numbers. Both the conflicts in Syria and Yemen had 10 times the number of casualties. And your example of the IRA is not really relevant, in that they were never in charge of Ireland and as such Ireland didnt commit an act of war on the UK because of the IRAs terrorist attacks. Mrs x" Even if other conflicts have higher casualties, that doesn’t make it morally acceptable to kill civilians deliberately or recklessly. Human life isn’t a statistic to be justified by comparison. Essentially, your argument boils down to ‘the ends justify the means.’ Unfortunately, that’s a position that historically lands on the wrong side of every moral checklist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x So you’re saying it’s OK to kill innocent children for decisions they had no part in? That’s morally indefensible. Even if combatants hide among civilians, there are alternatives: targeted ground-level operations, intelligence-led arrests, precise strikes aimed only at fighters, and coordinated efforts to neutralize threats without harming civilians. Flattening schools, hospitals, and homes is never necessary.It is if those buildings, once attacked by the IDF were then subsequently 'weaponised' by Hamas by laying IEDs inside them, knowing that they'd have to be 'cleared' by the IDF. The death toll to the IDF would have been catastrophic, so a military decision to level these areas was taken. Lots of this was done with heavy machinery, designed to withstand the blasts from IEDs. As for the killing of innocents, I am against that obviously. But I dont believe that they IDF went after innocent civilians. You mention schools, hospitals and homes. The reason you do is because you've seen the footage, the footage from Hamas, showing destruction of such places. It's horrific to think such places could be attacked, schools, full of children, hospitals with patients, homes with families. But the IDF did not target these civilians for bombing, they targeted 'buildings' holding terrorists and weapons. If those inside these buildings needed the IDFs warnings and moved, then the schools wouldn't be full of kids, the hospital full of patients or the homes full with Palestinian families. They'd just be 'empty' buildings. But they weren't empty, they'd contain terrorists and weapons. The great tragedy is that the occupants didnt always leave and stayed. Whether thats through a misguided adherence to the religious doctrine of martyrdom or through the actually threats from Hamas, really makes no difference, innocent people still died. And the truly horrific thing is thats what Hamas wanted, needed in fact to further their propagandists aims. If you think that small, ground led attacks would not result in innocent lives being lost then you are mistaken. You only have to look at how Seal Team 6 performed their operation against Osama bin Laden. They actually shot through one of his wives to get to him, but what do you expect when the target themselves would pick up a family member and hide behind them. Thats whats happening in Gaza except its Hamas holding up, and hiding behind, their poor citizens. Mrs x I disagree Interviews with Israeli soldiers on the use of the lavender system revealed that the soldiers and forward ostentation operators were told by their commanders to blow everything and anything up, not to be concerned with collateral damage if there was remotely a Hamas target. This is why there are so many casualties. IDF even shot escaping Israelis holding white flags, shouting in Hebrew " You say you disagree yet you appear to contradict yourself when you say they did what they did '...if there was remotely a Hamas target'. Thats what I'm saying. If the Gazans took the warnings that were given to them by the IDF then they couldn't have been collateral damage, they'd have already gotten out of Dodge. As for them shooting Israelis speaking Hebrew im sure there has been an explanation given for that. Whilst its awful its not the only occurrence of blue on blue casualties during a conflict, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You only have to look at the figures of Israels neighbours in the region to see examples far worse in terms of numbers. Both the conflicts in Syria and Yemen had 10 times the number of casualties. And your example of the IRA is not really relevant, in that they were never in charge of Ireland and as such Ireland didnt commit an act of war on the UK because of the IRAs terrorist attacks. Mrs x Even if other conflicts have higher casualties, that doesn’t make it morally acceptable to kill civilians deliberately or recklessly. Human life isn’t a statistic to be justified by comparison. Essentially, your argument boils down to ‘the ends justify the means.’ Unfortunately, that’s a position that historically lands on the wrong side of every moral checklist." Im saying that sometimes war is justified, yes. Does that mean i have no morals? I dont believe thats true. Sometimes you have to stand up and fight for whats right. I think your argument is based on your personal emotions and thoughts relating to this issue. However you seem to be ignoring the reality that casualties will occur. The difference between us is that you appear to think that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately, whereas I believe that they arent. Of course I agree with you about killing innocents is morally wrong but you need to look at the context. The context here is that one side committed an horrendous act, which resulted in war being declared by the other side. Due to the nature of war innocents die, thats just a tragic fact. 1200 Israelis died that night, was that moral? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Figs are The Palestinian Center for Policy Survey and Research (PCPSR) findings As posted by Reuters 7.12.2023" I know, it's called poll 90 and we discussed this previously, so you already know my criticisms. The methodology of the poll was terrible. It didn't meet even basic polling standards. But if we take it at face value the number of people in Gaza who thought the attack was correct was 57%. What you don't say is that 85% of those polled said they hadn't seen any video showing the atrocities, 56% of them said they didn't have enough food or water to sustain them for more than a couple of days and 64% said a family member had recently been killed or wounded by the Israelis. There's also the notion of people being scared to speak out against Hamas. This wasn't like a would you vote for Reform poll. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x So you’re saying it’s OK to kill innocent children for decisions they had no part in? That’s morally indefensible. Even if combatants hide among civilians, there are alternatives: targeted ground-level operations, intelligence-led arrests, precise strikes aimed only at fighters, and coordinated efforts to neutralize threats without harming civilians. Flattening schools, hospitals, and homes is never necessary.It is if those buildings, once attacked by the IDF were then subsequently 'weaponised' by Hamas by laying IEDs inside them, knowing that they'd have to be 'cleared' by the IDF. The death toll to the IDF would have been catastrophic, so a military decision to level these areas was taken. Lots of this was done with heavy machinery, designed to withstand the blasts from IEDs. As for the killing of innocents, I am against that obviously. But I dont believe that they IDF went after innocent civilians. You mention schools, hospitals and homes. The reason you do is because you've seen the footage, the footage from Hamas, showing destruction of such places. It's horrific to think such places could be attacked, schools, full of children, hospitals with patients, homes with families. But the IDF did not target these civilians for bombing, they targeted 'buildings' holding terrorists and weapons. If those inside these buildings needed the IDFs warnings and moved, then the schools wouldn't be full of kids, the hospital full of patients or the homes full with Palestinian families. They'd just be 'empty' buildings. But they weren't empty, they'd contain terrorists and weapons. The great tragedy is that the occupants didnt always leave and stayed. Whether thats through a misguided adherence to the religious doctrine of martyrdom or through the actually threats from Hamas, really makes no difference, innocent people still died. And the truly horrific thing is thats what Hamas wanted, needed in fact to further their propagandists aims. If you think that small, ground led attacks would not result in innocent lives being lost then you are mistaken. You only have to look at how Seal Team 6 performed their operation against Osama bin Laden. They actually shot through one of his wives to get to him, but what do you expect when the target themselves would pick up a family member and hide behind them. Thats whats happening in Gaza except its Hamas holding up, and hiding behind, their poor citizens. Mrs x I disagree Interviews with Israeli soldiers on the use of the lavender system revealed that the soldiers and forward ostentation operators were told by their commanders to blow everything and anything up, not to be concerned with collateral damage if there was remotely a Hamas target. This is why there are so many casualties. IDF even shot escaping Israelis holding white flags, shouting in Hebrew You say you disagree yet you appear to contradict yourself when you say they did what they did '...if there was remotely a Hamas target'. Thats what I'm saying. If the Gazans took the warnings that were given to them by the IDF then they couldn't have been collateral damage, they'd have already gotten out of Dodge. As for them shooting Israelis speaking Hebrew im sure there has been an explanation given for that. Whilst its awful its not the only occurrence of blue on blue casualties during a conflict, Mrs x" 67,000 dead including 20,000+ kids, 280,000 casualties, 90% buildings destroyed by ordnance All in 365km2, halved by displacement. A turkey shoot | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think your argument is based on your personal emotions and thoughts relating to this issue. However you seem to be ignoring the reality that casualties will occur. The difference between us is that you appear to think that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately, whereas I believe that they arent. Of course I agree with you about killing innocents is morally wrong but you need to look at the context. The context here is that one side committed an horrendous act, which resulted in war being declared by the other side. Due to the nature of war innocents die, thats just a tragic fact. 1200 Israelis died that night, was that moral? Mrs x" War requires military action, but the moral test is proportionality: minimizing harm to civilians must be central. Evidence from multiple credible sources shows that Israel is not doing this. Civilians—including children—are being deliberately or recklessly targeted. No context or justification changes the fact that harming innocents in this way is never acceptable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely the 'voters' are responsible to a degree here because they voted in a group who's aim is the total genocide of the Jews as a race and the destruction of the Jewish nation. As for bombing the locations you mention then maybe Hamas shouldn't hide personal and weapons there. Hamas unfortunately want children to die, thats why they order parents to keep them in harms way even after they've been informed that Israel will attack a certain location ahead of time. Mrs x So you’re saying it’s OK to kill innocent children for decisions they had no part in? That’s morally indefensible. Even if combatants hide among civilians, there are alternatives: targeted ground-level operations, intelligence-led arrests, precise strikes aimed only at fighters, and coordinated efforts to neutralize threats without harming civilians. Flattening schools, hospitals, and homes is never necessary.It is if those buildings, once attacked by the IDF were then subsequently 'weaponised' by Hamas by laying IEDs inside them, knowing that they'd have to be 'cleared' by the IDF. The death toll to the IDF would have been catastrophic, so a military decision to level these areas was taken. Lots of this was done with heavy machinery, designed to withstand the blasts from IEDs. As for the killing of innocents, I am against that obviously. But I dont believe that they IDF went after innocent civilians. You mention schools, hospitals and homes. The reason you do is because you've seen the footage, the footage from Hamas, showing destruction of such places. It's horrific to think such places could be attacked, schools, full of children, hospitals with patients, homes with families. But the IDF did not target these civilians for bombing, they targeted 'buildings' holding terrorists and weapons. If those inside these buildings needed the IDFs warnings and moved, then the schools wouldn't be full of kids, the hospital full of patients or the homes full with Palestinian families. They'd just be 'empty' buildings. But they weren't empty, they'd contain terrorists and weapons. The great tragedy is that the occupants didnt always leave and stayed. Whether thats through a misguided adherence to the religious doctrine of martyrdom or through the actually threats from Hamas, really makes no difference, innocent people still died. And the truly horrific thing is thats what Hamas wanted, needed in fact to further their propagandists aims. If you think that small, ground led attacks would not result in innocent lives being lost then you are mistaken. You only have to look at how Seal Team 6 performed their operation against Osama bin Laden. They actually shot through one of his wives to get to him, but what do you expect when the target themselves would pick up a family member and hide behind them. Thats whats happening in Gaza except its Hamas holding up, and hiding behind, their poor citizens. Mrs x I disagree Interviews with Israeli soldiers on the use of the lavender system revealed that the soldiers and forward ostentation operators were told by their commanders to blow everything and anything up, not to be concerned with collateral damage if there was remotely a Hamas target. This is why there are so many casualties. IDF even shot escaping Israelis holding white flags, shouting in Hebrew You say you disagree yet you appear to contradict yourself when you say they did what they did '...if there was remotely a Hamas target'. Thats what I'm saying. If the Gazans took the warnings that were given to them by the IDF then they couldn't have been collateral damage, they'd have already gotten out of Dodge. As for them shooting Israelis speaking Hebrew im sure there has been an explanation given for that. Whilst its awful its not the only occurrence of blue on blue casualties during a conflict, Mrs x 67,000 dead including 20,000+ kids, 280,000 casualties, 90% buildings destroyed by ordnance All in 365km2, halved by displacement. A turkey shoot " Im not saying its not bad, all war is but if Israel really wanted to have a 'Turkey shoot', like you say the numbers would be considerably higher. You only have to look at the amount of bombs dropped and work out the tonnage required to kill one person. It's probably the least effective bombing campaign if killing civilians was there aim. But look at the infrastructure, thats a different matter. So maybe Israel is telling the truth when it said it was targeting buildings. Not a 'Turkey Shoot" Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never said you mentioned any locations because I wasn't responded ingrown to you but another poster. Before accessing anyone of anything, 'spiralling' whatever may I suggest you actually read whats been written, you are quite funny at times, Mrs x" I'm human so I sometimes make mistakes. But my main point was to your suggestion that the civilians killed by the IDF were responsible because they voted for Hamas when the median age is 20 and the election was 19 years ago. You do spiral - everything is the Palestinian's fault including 20,000 dead children. Nothing you write is ever amusing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think your argument is based on your personal emotions and thoughts relating to this issue. However you seem to be ignoring the reality that casualties will occur. The difference between us is that you appear to think that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately, whereas I believe that they arent. Of course I agree with you about killing innocents is morally wrong but you need to look at the context. The context here is that one side committed an horrendous act, which resulted in war being declared by the other side. Due to the nature of war innocents die, thats just a tragic fact. 1200 Israelis died that night, was that moral? Mrs x War requires military action, but the moral test is proportionality: minimizing harm to civilians must be central. Evidence from multiple credible sources shows that Israel is not doing this. Civilians—including children—are being deliberately or recklessly targeted. No context or justification changes the fact that harming innocents in this way is never acceptable." Name one other war where a legitimate target was given warning by an attacker. Israel has done this since the war started and continues to do so. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Name one other war where a legitimate target was given warning by an attacker. Israel has done this since the war started and continues to do so. Mrs x" Warnings alone don’t make an attack morally or legally acceptable. When civilians have nowhere safe to go, are trapped by the conflict, or are forced to stay by threats or infrastructure collapse, the warnings are meaningless. The sheer scale of civilian deaths—20,000+ children among 67,000 dead—shows that the IDF’s approach is disproportionate. Giving a warning does not absolve responsibility for indiscriminate destruction. Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never said you mentioned any locations because I wasn't responded ingrown to you but another poster. Before accessing anyone of anything, 'spiralling' whatever may I suggest you actually read whats been written, you are quite funny at times, Mrs x I'm human so I sometimes make mistakes. But my main point was to your suggestion that the civilians killed by the IDF were responsible because they voted for Hamas when the median age is 20 and the election was 19 years ago. You do spiral - everything is the Palestinian's fault including 20,000 dead children. Nothing you write is ever amusing." You want to laugh about this? Strange. I specifically said 'voters', this means those that voted for this murderous regime. It really does help if you take time to read posts that are written. As for those too young to have voted, then you can assume that they are either apathetic to the murderous aims of Hamas or actually agree with them. I say this because there has been a long time since an election and yet there has been no real civil uprising in Gaza in opposition to Hamas. I know this may be difficult but its not impossible, there are tonnes of examples where this has happened all over the globe. And im aware that there will be some who say that you can't fight guns with sticks and stones, which is a little bit ironic considering you see exactly that when watching the brave young Hamas supporters, throwing such stones at the IDF. But what I find strange is that when there is any mass support for Hamas, every man and his dog in Gaza is pointing an AK47 in the air firing round after round. So someone's got some weapons. Come on... Hamas came to power because Gazans switched sides from Fatah to Hamas, so why havent they switched back, do they really want to? And you ignore what I do write. I've never said its all the Palestinians fault. I have stated time after time that all innocent lives lost is a tragedy. I have stated that innocent lives lost is a requirement of Hamas, that those lost could have been mitigated by the actions of parents but instead of debating me as to why I believe this you just deflect with personal asides. You didnt answer me about Administrative Detention and whether the holding without charge of one individual may have been preferable to the loss of 1200 lives initially and 67000 lives subsequently. It's the old 'Hitler' argument, if you could stop Hitler prior to the Munich Beer Hall, would you do it to save the millions of lives that were lost due to his twisted, evil ideology. But crack on, im sure you are going to attack the poster and not the post... again, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts." By proportionality, if you mean that Israel is supposed to kill the exact number of people that Hamas killed, it doesn't matter in war or self defence. From Israel's perspective, Hamas are a threat to the lives of their people. They went after Hamas. They do their best to give warnings. From their perspective, their own lives are more valuable than the lives of the others. This is how every war in the history worked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Name one other war where a legitimate target was given warning by an attacker. Israel has done this since the war started and continues to do so. Mrs x Warnings alone don’t make an attack morally or legally acceptable. When civilians have nowhere safe to go, are trapped by the conflict, or are forced to stay by threats or infrastructure collapse, the warnings are meaningless. The sheer scale of civilian deaths—20,000+ children among 67,000 dead—shows that the IDF’s approach is disproportionate. Giving a warning does not absolve responsibility for indiscriminate destruction. Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts." But it shows intent. The intent is not to kill civilians, the intent is to minimise civilian deaths. Other than to send transport in and bus them out, what more could they do? I noticed you didnt name another conflict were warnings such as these have taken place. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts. By proportionality, if you mean that Israel is supposed to kill the exact number of people that Hamas killed, it doesn't matter in war or self defence. From Israel's perspective, Hamas are a threat to the lives of their people. They went after Hamas. They do their best to give warnings. From their perspective, their own lives are more valuable than the lives of the others. This is how every war in the history worked." Please dont post things that are truthful, common sense based, you'll ruin it for some who dont like this approach, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Name one other war where a legitimate target was given warning by an attacker. Israel has done this since the war started and continues to do so. Mrs x Warnings alone don’t make an attack morally or legally acceptable. When civilians have nowhere safe to go, are trapped by the conflict, or are forced to stay by threats or infrastructure collapse, the warnings are meaningless. The sheer scale of civilian deaths—20,000+ children among 67,000 dead—shows that the IDF’s approach is disproportionate. Giving a warning does not absolve responsibility for indiscriminate destruction. Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts." Proportionality? How is that measured, who measures it and how is the balance of 1 action weighed against another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts. By proportionality, if you mean that Israel is supposed to kill the exact number of people that Hamas killed, it doesn't matter in war or self defence. From Israel's perspective, Hamas are a threat to the lives of their people. They went after Hamas. They do their best to give warnings. From their perspective, their own lives are more valuable than the lives of the others. This is how every war in the history worked." By proportionality, I mean that military actions should reflect ethical limits. The scale of civilian deaths in Gaza—including thousands of children—demonstrates a disregard for non-combatant life that goes far beyond what could be justified as self-defense. Warnings alone do not absolve responsibility when the methods used result in mass civilian casualties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But it shows intent. The intent is not to kill civilians, the intent is to minimise civilian deaths. Other than to send transport in and bus them out, what more could they do? I noticed you didnt name another conflict were warnings such as these have taken place. Mrs x" The intent to minimize civilian deaths doesn’t erase the reality: giving warnings cannot justify the sheer scale of destruction or the staggering loss of innocent life. Even in conflicts where militaries have tried to warn civilians—like U.S. strikes in Iraq or NATO operations in the Balkans—the goal was to limit harm, and nowhere near the level of indiscriminate devastation we see here occurred. Flattening entire neighborhoods, hitting hospitals and schools, and displacing millions in a tiny area is not mitigated by warnings; it highlights a fundamental disregard for human life. Impact matters more than Intent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hamas weren’t fussy about proportionality they butchered foreign non Jew nationals from 41 countries. " Actually, that’s a strawman. I never argued that Hamas was justified. My point was about proportionality and civilian harm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One has to ask what would count as disproportionate for those cheering on the IDF? " Exactly — what would count as disproportionate for those cheering the IDF? At what point do civilian deaths, especially children, become unacceptable even in a war? And to be direct: is there any piece of verified evidence or statistic that could make them conclude the IDF’s actions are unjustified — or are they beyond critique no matter the facts?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts. By proportionality, if you mean that Israel is supposed to kill the exact number of people that Hamas killed, it doesn't matter in war or self defence. From Israel's perspective, Hamas are a threat to the lives of their people. They went after Hamas. They do their best to give warnings. From their perspective, their own lives are more valuable than the lives of the others. This is how every war in the history worked. By proportionality, I mean that military actions should reflect ethical limits. The scale of civilian deaths in Gaza—including thousands of children—demonstrates a disregard for non-combatant life that goes far beyond what could be justified as self-defense. Warnings alone do not absolve responsibility when the methods used result in mass civilian casualties." But in two recent conflicts, in the same area you are talking about millions killed. Now im not saying that that comparison justifies anything, im just pointing g out examples of the scale of casualties in urban conflict. The number of casualties is not exceptional here, no matter what we think, what morals we hold but purely from an objective, non emotional examination of the figures. Does that make it any less devastating for those loved ones who have lost someone? No of course not but its predictable and as such, why does nobody ask why Hamas did nothing to protect its civilians? They built more tunnels, a system thats larger than the London Underground. They built rockets and missiles in huge numbers, enough that they fired around 2000 of them on the day that Israel actually handed Gaza over to Hamas. They bought tonnes of arms and ammunition. They planned for this attack, 7th Oct, for over three years and yet what did they not do? They didnt provide anything to protect the ordinary civilians, they didnt build one shelter, not one. You thought they could have built one underground when they were building their runnels but no, not one. So if the planned for years, bought all sorts to attack but not defend you have to ask why. And when you discuss all the reasons and all the various possibilities you should come to the realisation that the simplest explanation is normally the answer. So why spend on offense and not defense because they didnt want to defend their civilians. Hamas wants the deaths to win the other war thats being fought now, the Propaganda War. Hamas deliberately provoked another nation into war and then let, no not let, wanted their civilians to take the full brunt of the retaliation they knew was coming. Hamas has gotten what they wanted. Yet you cannot see this. If you did something that was dangerous, that endangered the life of someone else, especially a child and you knew that your actions would cause this do you think you'd face repercussions for it? If you do think you would then why do you think Hamas arent to blame here? Hamas did this, knowing what would happen, without providing any protection to its civilians, even placing them directly in harms way. They are the villians of the piece here. Israel just responded like any nation would in the same circumstance. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts. By proportionality, if you mean that Israel is supposed to kill the exact number of people that Hamas killed, it doesn't matter in war or self defence. From Israel's perspective, Hamas are a threat to the lives of their people. They went after Hamas. They do their best to give warnings. From their perspective, their own lives are more valuable than the lives of the others. This is how every war in the history worked. By proportionality, I mean that military actions should reflect ethical limits. The scale of civilian deaths in Gaza—including thousands of children—demonstrates a disregard for non-combatant life that goes far beyond what could be justified as self-defense. Warnings alone do not absolve responsibility when the methods used result in mass civilian casualties." Who defines those ethical limits? It's easy to sit on the moral high horse and write about ethics and mortality in the internet. The equations change when your own life is in threat. Using civilians as sacrificial lambs is a known tactic for terrorist groups. What you are talking about now is the exact reason why they do it. It would attract attention from some people in the world who will naively put pressure on Israel to stop them from retaliating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One has to ask what would count as disproportionate for those cheering on the IDF? " Nobody is cheering on the IDF, They are just the military of a state that came under attack from another state. It's not about proportionality. As I've stated there is an agreed formula for this, its been posted before but I havent got it to hand but it exists, and from this alone the numbers are not disproportionate. If you carry on with emotive arguments alone then all war is immoral but thats not true. I know that history is written by the winners but sometimes war is justified and the easiest example here is WW2 and the struggle to rid the world of Nazism. It all depends upon your own personal beliefs but I believe that the UK faced with the exact same circumstances as Israel would go to war. We went to war for less casualties in 1982, was that proportionate? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Proportionality matters, not just the act of issuing alerts. By proportionality, if you mean that Israel is supposed to kill the exact number of people that Hamas killed, it doesn't matter in war or self defence. From Israel's perspective, Hamas are a threat to the lives of their people. They went after Hamas. They do their best to give warnings. From their perspective, their own lives are more valuable than the lives of the others. This is how every war in the history worked. By proportionality, I mean that military actions should reflect ethical limits. The scale of civilian deaths in Gaza—including thousands of children—demonstrates a disregard for non-combatant life that goes far beyond what could be justified as self-defense. Warnings alone do not absolve responsibility when the methods used result in mass civilian casualties. Who defines those ethical limits? It's easy to sit on the moral high horse and write about ethics and mortality in the internet. The equations change when your own life is in threat. Using civilians as sacrificial lambs is a known tactic for terrorist groups. What you are talking about now is the exact reason why they do it. It would attract attention from some people in the world who will naively put pressure on Israel to stop them from retaliating." Occams Razor, right there, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But in two recent conflicts, in the same area you are talking about millions killed. Now im not saying that that comparison justifies anything, im just pointing g out examples of the scale of casualties in urban conflict. The number of casualties is not exceptional here, no matter what we think, what morals we hold but purely from an objective, non emotional examination of the figures. Does that make it any less devastating for those loved ones who have lost someone? No of course not but its predictable and as such, why does nobody ask why Hamas did nothing to protect its civilians? They built more tunnels, a system thats larger than the London Underground. They built rockets and missiles in huge numbers, enough that they fired around 2000 of them on the day that Israel actually handed Gaza over to Hamas. They bought tonnes of arms and ammunition. They planned for this attack, 7th Oct, for over three years and yet what did they not do? They didnt provide anything to protect the ordinary civilians, they didnt build one shelter, not one. You thought they could have built one underground when they were building their runnels but no, not one. So if the planned for years, bought all sorts to attack but not defend you have to ask why. And when you discuss all the reasons and all the various possibilities you should come to the realisation that the simplest explanation is normally the answer. So why spend on offense and not defense because they didnt want to defend their civilians. Hamas wants the deaths to win the other war thats being fought now, the Propaganda War. Hamas deliberately provoked another nation into war and then let, no not let, wanted their civilians to take the full brunt of the retaliation they knew was coming. Hamas has gotten what they wanted. Yet you cannot see this. If you did something that was dangerous, that endangered the life of someone else, especially a child and you knew that your actions would cause this do you think you'd face repercussions for it? If you do think you would then why do you think Hamas arent to blame here? Hamas did this, knowing what would happen, without providing any protection to its civilians, even placing them directly in harms way. They are the villians of the piece here. Israel just responded like any nation would in the same circumstance. Mrs x " Just to be clear, I’m not saying Hamas hasn’t done anything wrong—they have. But the impact of their actions, even at their worst, has resulted in far fewer civilian deaths than the scale of destruction caused by Israel’s operations. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and the deliberate or reckless killing of non-combatants can’t be morally justified. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One has to ask what would count as disproportionate for those cheering on the IDF? Nobody is cheering on the IDF, They are just the military of a state that came under attack from another state. It's not about proportionality. As I've stated there is an agreed formula for this, its been posted before but I havent got it to hand but it exists, and from this alone the numbers are not disproportionate. If you carry on with emotive arguments alone then all war is immoral but thats not true. I know that history is written by the winners but sometimes war is justified and the easiest example here is WW2 and the struggle to rid the world of Nazism. It all depends upon your own personal beliefs but I believe that the UK faced with the exact same circumstances as Israel would go to war. We went to war for less casualties in 1982, was that proportionate? Mrs x" You say there’s an ‘agreed formula’ for acceptable casualties, implying the IDF’s actions are justified. But there isn’t such a universal agreement—international bodies, including the UN, have described the situation as disproportionate and potentially genocidal. The supposed ‘formula’ doesn’t override basic principles of human life or ethical limits in war. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not about proportionality. As I've stated there is an agreed formula for this, its been posted before but I havent got it to hand but it exists, and from this alone the numbers are not disproportionate." First you say it isn't about proportionality then you bring up a formula that you can't define and claim that the IDF's killings are proportionate according to this unknown formula. The IDF's own leaked military data indicates that they believe 83% of those killed in Gaza have been civilians. Sources: Guardian, +972 and Local Call. Perhaps if you can tell us what the "agreed formula" is we can then have a benchmark for deciding what is and what isn't proportionate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not about proportionality. As I've stated there is an agreed formula for this, its been posted before but I havent got it to hand but it exists, and from this alone the numbers are not disproportionate. First you say it isn't about proportionality then you bring up a formula that you can't define and claim that the IDF's killings are proportionate according to this unknown formula. The IDF's own leaked military data indicates that they believe 83% of those killed in Gaza have been civilians. Sources: Guardian, +972 and Local Call. Perhaps if you can tell us what the "agreed formula" is we can then have a benchmark for deciding what is and what isn't proportionate. " I'm sorry I can't right now. The only defense I have is that it's been posted on here numerous times and I hope that those posters who do have it, read this and then repost it. It is out there i promise but thats not much use right now so I'll discuss proportionality right now. War is not proportionate, in fact when do you think it has been? Just as I cannot point out the equation I have seen, you cannot point out 'proportionate' series of wars to back up your argument. History is littered with examples of civilians suffering in times of war. No one is saying the figures arent high, what I am saying is this is to be expected in such conflicts. Russia, China, even Germany itself suffered millions upon millions of civilian casualties during WW2. So you accused others of only supporting one side but all I seem to read from you is about the actions from one side against the other. So do you think its ok for one side to attack, kill, r@pe and take hostages from another? Do you think the other side has a right to defend themselves and retaliate in such circumstances? Do you then think its ok for the side that attacked first, can attack those innocent civilians and then defend themselves by literally hiding behind their civilians? Do you believe thats ok and not a War crime? Not sure you'll answer this, or give examples of proportionality in conflicts. Expecting further personal asides but here's hoping. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry I can't right now. The only defense I have is that it's been posted on here numerous times and I hope that those posters who do have it, read this and then repost it. It is out there i promise but thats not much use right now so I'll discuss proportionality right now. War is not proportionate, in fact when do you think it has been? Just as I cannot point out the equation I have seen, you cannot point out 'proportionate' series of wars to back up your argument. History is littered with examples of civilians suffering in times of war. No one is saying the figures arent high, what I am saying is this is to be expected in such conflicts. Russia, China, even Germany itself suffered millions upon millions of civilian casualties during WW2. So you accused others of only supporting one side but all I seem to read from you is about the actions from one side against the other. So do you think its ok for one side to attack, kill, r@pe and take hostages from another? Do you think the other side has a right to defend themselves and retaliate in such circumstances? Do you then think its ok for the side that attacked first, can attack those innocent civilians and then defend themselves by literally hiding behind their civilians? Do you believe thats ok and not a War crime? Not sure you'll answer this, or give examples of proportionality in conflicts. Expecting further personal asides but here's hoping. Mrs x" Various scholars and organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross estimate that civilian casualty rates in warfare are typically between 30% and 60%. Eckhart studied many wars and concluded that "the civilian percentage share of war-related deaths remained at about 50% from century to century.". So 83% is an unusually high ratio. On top of the direct killing, the Israeli government is openly declaring that it is restricting aid to civilians. Even if one discounts the genocidal remarks made by various Israeli politicians it doesn't look proportionate to most of us. If the same proportion of the population killed by the IDF in Gaza were killed in the UK it would mean 2.3 million dead Brits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without being in their shoes it's difficult to say what should have been done and understandably emotion can win over clear thoughts. What exactly would have been a proportionate response? They could have not retaliated at all and just tried negotiating for hostage returns. Personally I doubt any country would have not hit back after suffering such an horrific attack. They could have launched a like for like attack, deliberately killing civilians in the same numbers as hamas killed in their raid - would that be acceptable? Seems they decided to go after hamas fighter's which is reasonable but given hamas and their like are known for using innocent civilians as human shields and would use civilian casualties for propaganda, it comes at huge risk of loosing international support, which apart from America seems to have happened. Those that make the decisions also have to think of their own soldiers as well. Never clear answers" There's a lot to unpick here but a few things stand out. One, it's kind of implied that the conflict started two years ago and the recent IDF actions stand in isolation from all the other actions by the IDF going back decades. Another is the human shields idea. This is complicated by Israel operating a forced conscription system where most adults in Israel are either active soldiers, reserve soldiers or retired soldiers. Then there's the practice of the IDF using Palestinians as human shields. From B'Tselem... "Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli security forces have repeatedly used Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip as human shields, ordering them to perform military tasks that risked their lives. As part of this policy, soldiers have ordered Palestinian civilians to remove suspicious objects from roads, to tell people to come out of their homes so the military can arrest them, to stand in front of soldiers while the latter shoot from behind them, and more. The Palestinian civilians were chosen at random for these tasks, and could not refuse the demand placed on them by armed soldiers." On US support, public opinion polling shows 59% of Anerican citizens now have a negative view of Israel. Source: Pew Research. "An Economist/You Gov poll in August found that 45% of the public believe Israel is committing genocide – a charge Israel vociferously denies – compared with only 31% who disagreed. About four in 10 American Jews believe the same, according to a new Washington Post poll." Source: Guardian | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry I can't right now. The only defense I have is that it's been posted on here numerous times and I hope that those posters who do have it, read this and then repost it. It is out there i promise but thats not much use right now so I'll discuss proportionality right now. War is not proportionate, in fact when do you think it has been? Just as I cannot point out the equation I have seen, you cannot point out 'proportionate' series of wars to back up your argument. History is littered with examples of civilians suffering in times of war. No one is saying the figures arent high, what I am saying is this is to be expected in such conflicts. Russia, China, even Germany itself suffered millions upon millions of civilian casualties during WW2. So you accused others of only supporting one side but all I seem to read from you is about the actions from one side against the other. So do you think its ok for one side to attack, kill, r@pe and take hostages from another? Do you think the other side has a right to defend themselves and retaliate in such circumstances? Do you then think its ok for the side that attacked first, can attack those innocent civilians and then defend themselves by literally hiding behind their civilians? Do you believe thats ok and not a War crime? Not sure you'll answer this, or give examples of proportionality in conflicts. Expecting further personal asides but here's hoping. Mrs x Various scholars and organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross estimate that civilian casualty rates in warfare are typically between 30% and 60%. Eckhart studied many wars and concluded that "the civilian percentage share of war-related deaths remained at about 50% from century to century.". So 83% is an unusually high ratio. On top of the direct killing, the Israeli government is openly declaring that it is restricting aid to civilians. Even if one discounts the genocidal remarks made by various Israeli politicians it doesn't look proportionate to most of us. If the same proportion of the population killed by the IDF in Gaza were killed in the UK it would mean 2.3 million dead Brits. " Im aware of what you've read on Wiki. And 83% sounds like a high figure. But Hamas must bear the vast majority of the blame for this. The civilian casualties were always going to be high given the tactics used by Hamas. What about another figure, that of 3%. Thats the percentage of Gazans killed in this war, both civilians and terrorists. My point about proportionality is related to that. I keep going back to WW2 but Russia lost 19 million civilians, China 18 million and Germany 3 million. This was a just war to rid the world of Nazism but you must think it wasn't proportionate. But it just goes to show that war isn't proportionate. Now all 3 of these countries had very dubious regimes but I dont remember them hiding behind babies, Hamas are an evil, evil terrorist organisation, which like Nazism need to be wiped from the face of the earth, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So 83% is an unusually high ratio. " Not given the context of urban warfare, the geography and demography of Gaza and the hostility (non compliance with IDF military directives and support for the militants) of the local population. For decades, people in the Middle East relied on Israel to hold back. They were shocked that this time they acted with a less restrictive approach. Israel had one overarching goal: to ensure that nobody tries this kind of attack again. In the past, they would have negotiated the swapping of hostages for terrorists and prisoners, which was Sinwar's calculus. That assumption will no longer be made. Israel reacted in a more "Middle Eastern" manner, but still with casualty minimisation strategies (which were mostly successful). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry I can't right now. The only defense I have is that it's been posted on here numerous times and I hope that those posters who do have it, read this and then repost it. It is out there i promise but thats not much use right now so I'll discuss proportionality right now. War is not proportionate, in fact when do you think it has been? Just as I cannot point out the equation I have seen, you cannot point out 'proportionate' series of wars to back up your argument. History is littered with examples of civilians suffering in times of war. No one is saying the figures arent high, what I am saying is this is to be expected in such conflicts. Russia, China, even Germany itself suffered millions upon millions of civilian casualties during WW2. So you accused others of only supporting one side but all I seem to read from you is about the actions from one side against the other. So do you think its ok for one side to attack, kill, r@pe and take hostages from another? Do you think the other side has a right to defend themselves and retaliate in such circumstances? Do you then think its ok for the side that attacked first, can attack those innocent civilians and then defend themselves by literally hiding behind their civilians? Do you believe thats ok and not a War crime? Not sure you'll answer this, or give examples of proportionality in conflicts. Expecting further personal asides but here's hoping. Mrs x Various scholars and organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross estimate that civilian casualty rates in warfare are typically between 30% and 60%. Eckhart studied many wars and concluded that "the civilian percentage share of war-related deaths remained at about 50% from century to century.". So 83% is an unusually high ratio. On top of the direct killing, the Israeli government is openly declaring that it is restricting aid to civilians. Even if one discounts the genocidal remarks made by various Israeli politicians it doesn't look proportionate to most of us. If the same proportion of the population killed by the IDF in Gaza were killed in the UK it would mean 2.3 million dead Brits. " Oh and I knew you wouldn't actually give examples of proportionality in any modern war, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm sorry I can't right now. The only defense I have is that it's been posted on here numerous times and I hope that those posters who do have it, read this and then repost it. It is out there i promise but thats not much use right now so I'll discuss proportionality right now. War is not proportionate, in fact when do you think it has been? Just as I cannot point out the equation I have seen, you cannot point out 'proportionate' series of wars to back up your argument. History is littered with examples of civilians suffering in times of war. No one is saying the figures arent high, what I am saying is this is to be expected in such conflicts. Russia, China, even Germany itself suffered millions upon millions of civilian casualties during WW2. So you accused others of only supporting one side but all I seem to read from you is about the actions from one side against the other. So do you think its ok for one side to attack, kill, r@pe and take hostages from another? Do you think the other side has a right to defend themselves and retaliate in such circumstances? Do you then think its ok for the side that attacked first, can attack those innocent civilians and then defend themselves by literally hiding behind their civilians? Do you believe thats ok and not a War crime? Not sure you'll answer this, or give examples of proportionality in conflicts. Expecting further personal asides but here's hoping. Mrs x Various scholars and organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross estimate that civilian casualty rates in warfare are typically between 30% and 60%. Eckhart studied many wars and concluded that "the civilian percentage share of war-related deaths remained at about 50% from century to century.". So 83% is an unusually high ratio. On top of the direct killing, the Israeli government is openly declaring that it is restricting aid to civilians. Even if one discounts the genocidal remarks made by various Israeli politicians it doesn't look proportionate to most of us. If the same proportion of the population killed by the IDF in Gaza were killed in the UK it would mean 2.3 million dead Brits. " Zzz. We can always rely on Fabs' resident Googling Wikipedian bore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without being in their shoes it's difficult to say what should have been done and understandably emotion can win over clear thoughts. What exactly would have been a proportionate response? They could have not retaliated at all and just tried negotiating for hostage returns. Personally I doubt any country would have not hit back after suffering such an horrific attack. They could have launched a like for like attack, deliberately killing civilians in the same numbers as hamas killed in their raid - would that be acceptable? Seems they decided to go after hamas fighter's which is reasonable but given hamas and their like are known for using innocent civilians as human shields and would use civilian casualties for propaganda, it comes at huge risk of loosing international support, which apart from America seems to have happened. Those that make the decisions also have to think of their own soldiers as well. Never clear answers There's a lot to unpick here but a few things stand out. One, it's kind of implied that the conflict started two years ago and the recent IDF actions stand in isolation from all the other actions by the IDF going back decades. Another is the human shields idea. This is complicated by Israel operating a forced conscription system where most adults in Israel are either active soldiers, reserve soldiers or retired soldiers. Then there's the practice of the IDF using Palestinians as human shields. From B'Tselem... "Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli security forces have repeatedly used Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip as human shields, ordering them to perform military tasks that risked their lives. As part of this policy, soldiers have ordered Palestinian civilians to remove suspicious objects from roads, to tell people to come out of their homes so the military can arrest them, to stand in front of soldiers while the latter shoot from behind them, and more. The Palestinian civilians were chosen at random for these tasks, and could not refuse the demand placed on them by armed soldiers." On US support, public opinion polling shows 59% of Anerican citizens now have a negative view of Israel. Source: Pew Research. "An Economist/You Gov poll in August found that 45% of the public believe Israel is committing genocide – a charge Israel vociferously denies – compared with only 31% who disagreed. About four in 10 American Jews believe the same, according to a new Washington Post poll." Source: Guardian" I made no mention of when the troubles between the sides started. However several posts here talk about the Israeli response as disproportionate and I assume they are talking since the hamas attack. I was basically asking what would a proportionate response look like and gave some options. I am not sure why Israel using conscripts changes the fact that hamas use human shields nor if Israel have also done that changes that fact. So the question remains of what should a proportionate response look like for anyone that cares to answer (to be clear, I'm not asking what it should not look like) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I suspect some people might have difficultly visualizing what 83% is because of the non-linearity of ratios. It means that for every combatant killed by the IDF they have killed five civilians. It's a matter of judgement whether you think it's excessive to kill five civilians in order to kill one combatant." Just under four to one, not five (which is off by a relative +25%). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just under four to one, not five (which is off by a relative +25%)." If 83% are civilian then 17% are combatants. 83 divided by 17 is slightly over 4.88 and using normal rounding rules 4.88 is expressed as 5. In the original article the wording was actually... "Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare." A ratio of five to one. 5 divided by 6 is 0.833 recurring but using normal rounding this is expressed as 83%. So the ratio is not under four to one. But frankly even if you were right it would still be excessive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 5 divided by 6 is 0.833 recurring but using normal rounding this is expressed as 83%. So the ratio is not under four to one. " Oops. You are absolutely correct, given those numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just under four to one, not five (which is off by a relative +25%). If 83% are civilian then 17% are combatants. 83 divided by 17 is slightly over 4.88 and using normal rounding rules 4.88 is expressed as 5. " You don't divide 83 by 17 to find the number of civilians killed per combatant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just under four to one, not five (which is off by a relative +25%). If 83% are civilian then 17% are combatants. 83 divided by 17 is slightly over 4.88 and using normal rounding rules 4.88 is expressed as 5. You don't divide 83 by 17 to find the number of civilians killed per combatant. " Sorry my bad. I was thinking of a different ratio | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody expects warfare to be without collateral damage and I don't think there is a magic number for the threshold between proportionate and disproportionate but I don't thnk that means we should ignore the concept of proportionality altogether. The ICRC defines proportionality like this... "The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “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”." As I said earlier studies of previous wars seems to indicate that something like 50% of fatalities being civilians is typical. In other words for every combatant killed one civilian was killed. In Ukraine the current figure is around 17%. World War II was particularly brutal with estimated 67% civilian fatalities. In other words for every combatant killed two civilians were killed. I suspect some people might have difficultly visualizing what 83% is because of the non-linearity of ratios. It means that for every combatant killed by the IDF they have killed five civilians. It's a matter of judgement whether you think it's excessive to kill five civilians in order to kill one combatant. Death toll to total population ratio is a completely different thing to proportionality but in WWII it was 3.76% overall over a six year period. In the UK it was 0.76% but in the Soviet Union 14.8% (source:Statista). The death toll in Gaza is currently 3.2% over a two year period but this is based on the number of bodies recovered. It doesn't include any buried under the rubble." I admit that I believe you have a kind heart and that is what drives your thoughts in this matter. However you do not appear to say what your opinion is, or what a possible solution is acceptable to you. You quote lots of figures and opinions of others but very little of your own thoughts. You say you like to use logic and debate, so lets look at a scenario that will make people look at how they would react in such a terrible situation as that in Gaza. Using your figutes to question proportionality. So lets say that the person that you love most in the world was held by 5 terrorists. These terrorists will undoubtedly visit terrible evil, pain and suffering upon your loved one. This will lead, ultimately, to your loved ones death. Would you, if you could, kill these terrorists to free your loved ones from their gruesome fate? Would you think about proportionality then and if so would you apply this? I think I know what most people would do. I know what i would do. Now I've a suspicion that you will counter this by saying they are civilians, innocents, woman and children, why should they die? And you may be right. But what about those woman, adult woman, choosing to provide shelter and aid to the terrorists? Are they not guilty of harbouring terrorists, something thats a crime in most Western countries, making them equally guilty in the eyes of the law. So say in this scenario, 2 of the 5 are woman but these woman provided shelter, hid the terrorists, fed them, cared for them, what would you do then? Would you still kill all 5 to save your loved one if this was the only way? Again I know what I would do. So take it a step further. Say the 5 people consist of 2 terrorists, 2 woman and one child, a son or daughter of one of the woman. What then, would you kill the 4 adults, knowing that a child may die? Thats a much bigger issue, I can see why that may change the scenario. So what would you do then? I still know what I would do and I would save my child or loved one in the blink of an eye. You may say I'm callous, evil even but if someone is prepared to net their childs life that I will back down from saving mine then they have made the wrpng decision. Why are their loved ones more valuable than mine? Why is it ok for them to kill, r@pe, and take hostage mine but I cannpt retaliate because they are hiding behind theirs? This tactic is why the civilian casualties are so high on Gaza. Hamas took the wrong bet in thinking they could hide behind woman and children. Forcing them to stay placed them all on the frontline. You mention the figires in comparison to Ukraine, saying civilan casualties are at 17%. Implying there has been some sort of proportionality here. This is an example of why I dont believe you are giving your own thoughts on the issue. Just think about WHY the figures vary so much between 2 majot conflicts. Is it because one set of civilians had to stay put on the frontline whilst the other set mobilised a mass evacuation? You cannot kill anyone if they arent there to be killed. Over 20 millipn Ukrainians have been evacuated, do you think that might be a factor in this statistical difference. If you missed it, it was only the most massive movement of people due to a conflict in Europe since WW2. Indeed you mention WW2 as only having 63% civilian casualties but you fail to mention that WW2 had the biggest movement of civilians, due to war, in history. Nothing comes close to it. Even the English had children evacuated from the major cities which were being bombed. So back to Gaza, Hamas are to blame for this high percentage of civilian casualties by forcing their population to remain in the line of fire, something which most countries wouldnt do, Ukraine being a great example of this, thanks for bringing it up. I hope you can bring yourself to answer the theoretical scenarios I've put to you. However since you've only given others opinions and analysis of any question I've asked of you I'm not holding my breath. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody expects warfare to be without collateral damage and I don't think there is a magic number for the threshold between proportionate and disproportionate but I don't thnk that means we should ignore the concept of proportionality altogether. The ICRC defines proportionality like this... "The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “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”." As I said earlier studies of previous wars seems to indicate that something like 50% of fatalities being civilians is typical. In other words for every combatant killed one civilian was killed. In Ukraine the current figure is around 17%. World War II was particularly brutal with estimated 67% civilian fatalities. In other words for every combatant killed two civilians were killed. I suspect some people might have difficultly visualizing what 83% is because of the non-linearity of ratios. It means that for every combatant killed by the IDF they have killed five civilians. It's a matter of judgement whether you think it's excessive to kill five civilians in order to kill one combatant. Death toll to total population ratio is a completely different thing to proportionality but in WWII it was 3.76% overall over a six year period. In the UK it was 0.76% but in the Soviet Union 14.8% (source:Statista). The death toll in Gaza is currently 3.2% over a two year period but this is based on the number of bodies recovered. It doesn't include any buried under the rubble.I admit that I believe you have a kind heart and that is what drives your thoughts in this matter. However you do not appear to say what your opinion is, or what a possible solution is acceptable to you. You quote lots of figures and opinions of others but very little of your own thoughts. You say you like to use logic and debate, so lets look at a scenario that will make people look at how they would react in such a terrible situation as that in Gaza. Using your figutes to question proportionality. So lets say that the person that you love most in the world was held by 5 terrorists. These terrorists will undoubtedly visit terrible evil, pain and suffering upon your loved one. This will lead, ultimately, to your loved ones death. Would you, if you could, kill these terrorists to free your loved ones from their gruesome fate? Would you think about proportionality then and if so would you apply this? I think I know what most people would do. I know what i would do. Now I've a suspicion that you will counter this by saying they are civilians, innocents, woman and children, why should they die? And you may be right. But what about those woman, adult woman, choosing to provide shelter and aid to the terrorists? Are they not guilty of harbouring terrorists, something thats a crime in most Western countries, making them equally guilty in the eyes of the law. So say in this scenario, 2 of the 5 are woman but these woman provided shelter, hid the terrorists, fed them, cared for them, what would you do then? Would you still kill all 5 to save your loved one if this was the only way? Again I know what I would do. So take it a step further. Say the 5 people consist of 2 terrorists, 2 woman and one child, a son or daughter of one of the woman. What then, would you kill the 4 adults, knowing that a child may die? Thats a much bigger issue, I can see why that may change the scenario. So what would you do then? I still know what I would do and I would save my child or loved one in the blink of an eye. You may say I'm callous, evil even but if someone is prepared to net their childs life that I will back down from saving mine then they have made the wrpng decision. Why are their loved ones more valuable than mine? Why is it ok for them to kill, r@pe, and take hostage mine but I cannpt retaliate because they are hiding behind theirs? This tactic is why the civilian casualties are so high on Gaza. Hamas took the wrong bet in thinking they could hide behind woman and children. Forcing them to stay placed them all on the frontline. You mention the figires in comparison to Ukraine, saying civilan casualties are at 17%. Implying there has been some sort of proportionality here. This is an example of why I dont believe you are giving your own thoughts on the issue. Just think about WHY the figures vary so much between 2 majot conflicts. Is it because one set of civilians had to stay put on the frontline whilst the other set mobilised a mass evacuation? You cannot kill anyone if they arent there to be killed. Over 20 millipn Ukrainians have been evacuated, do you think that might be a factor in this statistical difference. If you missed it, it was only the most massive movement of people due to a conflict in Europe since WW2. Indeed you mention WW2 as only having 63% civilian casualties but you fail to mention that WW2 had the biggest movement of civilians, due to war, in history. Nothing comes close to it. Even the English had children evacuated from the major cities which were being bombed. So back to Gaza, Hamas are to blame for this high percentage of civilian casualties by forcing their population to remain in the line of fire, something which most countries wouldnt do, Ukraine being a great example of this, thanks for bringing it up. I hope you can bring yourself to answer the theoretical scenarios I've put to you. However since you've only given others opinions and analysis of any question I've asked of you I'm not holding my breath. Mrs x " Just to clarify, the figure fir Ukraianes evacuees is 10 million not 20 million. And I misquoted you saying it was 63% of civilians in WW2 when I should have said 67%, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've expressed my opinion many time that the solution is for Palestinians to enjoy the same basic rights as Israelis and that everyone should focus on paths to peace and mutual security. I believe the most practical route to this is the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West bank that is demilitarised and policed by an international peace-keeping force for at least a decade and maybe longer until some kind of mutal trust is established. I also think that Marwan Barghouti is capable of leading the Palestinians to deliver this and so should be released. The PA have offered this route for decades but it has been turned down by the Israeli government because their aim is to have complete Israeli sovereignity over the entire region and to not give the Palestinians any kind of democratic rights. Your scenarios ignore the fact that by the IDF's own analysis they are killing five times as many civilians as combatants. All you are doing is imagining that civilians aren't civilians." My scenarios dont just ignore the IDF figures. I'm simply pointing out the obvious, something you choose to ignore. Proportionality does not always have a place in war. War by its very nature is disproportionate in nature. Like they say, if you are fighting fair you arent really fighting. Why are civilians killed in a high percentage here and its obvious. Its simply because Hamas have placed them on the frontline. Your figures from Ukraine highlight this point wonderfully well. I never asked about how to solve the conflict, we are discussing proportionality but again you refuse to answer with any thoughts of your own. AI not supplied any decent answers I can only assume. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The disproportionate civilian fatalities are down to the Israeli government treating all Palestinians as the enemy. It's that simple. I was wondering how long it would be before Mr Woolly's fallacy would be rolled out. " So how do you reconcile tge fifures you yourself quoted about Ukraine? You cant and thats why you attack the poster and not the post. You havent got an original thought, pity really because you seem like a genuinely nice guy but when you dont have, or more lijely find, an answwr you result in insults, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"ROFL" Impressions can be wrong though, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On a more serious note the war in Ukraine is about Putin wanting to slowly reconstruct the former Soviet Union's territory under his tight control. The war there is not about removing the Ukranian population but about absorbing them into his vision of empire. In contrast the Likud vision is to have Israeli dominion over Gaza, Judea and Samaria (and more maximally parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan) and to either displace or undemocratically subjugate the population of these regions rather than absorb them." Over 10 million Ukrainians agree with you and only left Ukraine for a 'jolly'. You will say anything wont you. I suppose all the ammunition and armaments fired into the towns and citys of Ukraine were 'dummies', come on get real. And as you dont place any blame on Hamas for the casualties in Gaza does that mean you support Fundametalist Muslim Terrorists and the actions they take? Killing 1200 innocents is not a genuine reason for retaliation? And as for your hypothetical reasoning and the Likuds party desire to take all of the OPT, you dp onow it was the zlikud who were in power when Israel w8thdrew from Gaza. Dpnt you find thst a bit strange. Chat GPT is in for a hammerinh now isnt it, cant wait to hear what they say, haha. MRS X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On a more serious note the war in Ukraine is about Putin wanting to slowly reconstruct the former Soviet Union's territory under his tight control. The war there is not about removing the Ukranian population but about absorbing them into his vision of empire. In contrast the Likud vision is to have Israeli dominion over Gaza, Judea and Samaria (and more maximally parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan) and to either displace or undemocratically subjugate the population of these regions rather than absorb them.Over 10 million Ukrainians agree with you and only left Ukraine for a 'jolly'. You will say anything wont you. I suppose all the ammunition and armaments fired into the towns and citys of Ukraine were 'dummies', come on get real. And as you dont place any blame on Hamas for the casualties in Gaza does that mean you support Fundametalist Muslim Terrorists and the actions they take? Killing 1200 innocents is not a genuine reason for retaliation? And as for your hypothetical reasoning and the Likuds party desire to take all of the OPT, you dp onow it was the zlikud who were in power when Israel w8thdrew from Gaza. Dpnt you find thst a bit strange. Chat GPT is in for a hammerinh now isnt it, cant wait to hear what they say, haha. MRS X"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you dating Mr Woolly?" And again with the personal comments, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And right on cue he pops up!" We have been down this road many times, you always resort to insults when challenged, as others have also noted. And yes, your use of AI is obvious. Whether edited or not, the flow gives it away. Passing off AI responses as your own is disingenuous and it undermines credibility. Each to their own | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm well used to debate. You two are clearly apologists for the Israeli government and that's OK. I present my opinions and try to back up everything with evidence. You can't respond in any meaningful way so resort to pathetic retorts like claiming I'm not using my own intellect. It's laughable. " You havent answwred anything with your own opinion, youve answered nothing asked of you. Thats laughable, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You havent answwred anything with your own opinion, youve answered nothing asked of you. Thats laughable, Mrs x" I have strong opinions formed over decades of debate about I/P. That you and Mr Woolly think my opinions must be down to AI is just a variation on ad hominem. Me hinting that you two might be dating isn't ad hominem it's a gentle joke. If you aren't dating then I suggest you do as you seem to have a lot in common. I speak with my own words. You obviously don't like them. Tough. I'm not a puppet, I don't bother answering questions like your ridiculous scenarios where you imagine civilians are terrorists. I could repeat what I've said in the past on this forum about the pressure the US put on Israel to close down the settlements in Gaza in 2005 but repetition gets boring. I doubt you have any genuine interest in Ukraine, it seems more likely that it's just a diversion from talking about the disproportionality of the IDF attacks killing five times more civilians than combatants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You havent answwred anything with your own opinion, youve answered nothing asked of you. Thats laughable, Mrs x I have strong opinions formed over decades of debate about I/P. That you and Mr Woolly think my opinions must be down to AI is just a variation on ad hominem. Me hinting that you two might be dating isn't ad hominem it's a gentle joke. If you aren't dating then I suggest you do as you seem to have a lot in common. I speak with my own words. You obviously don't like them. Tough. I'm not a puppet, I don't bother answering questions like your ridiculous scenarios where you imagine civilians are terrorists. I could repeat what I've said in the past on this forum about the pressure the US put on Israel to close down the settlements in Gaza in 2005 but repetition gets boring. I doubt you have any genuine interest in Ukraine, it seems more likely that it's just a diversion from talking about the disproportionality of the IDF attacks killing five times more civilians than combatants. " You mentioned the Ukraine not me, believing mistakenly tgat it strengthened your argument but it actually weakens it. The reason the percentage of civiluans killed in the Ukraine is down to the fact that the war precipitated the largest evacuation of civilians since the 1940s. This is a fact, its impossible to kill someone if you cannot get to them. You are just being obtuse. And as for the scenarios, you saying that you wouldnt kill 5 terrorists to save your loved one. I'm sure most people would but since you seem to support Fundamental Muslum Terrorism you appwar conflicted, or maybe youve never loved someone enough to do anything to protect them. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"ROFL x 2" Haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm well used to debate. You two are clearly apologists for the Israeli government and that's OK. I present my opinions and try to back up everything with evidence. You can't respond in any meaningful way so resort to pathetic retorts like claiming I'm not using my own intellect. It's laughable. " And here's Fabs' very own Mr Wiki off on his Google horse again. I bet you live in a darkened cellar, your best friends being your router and your mouse. I'd wager the closer you've ever been to the Middle East is your local kebab house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned the Ukraine not me, believing mistakenly tgat it strengthened your argument but it actually weakens it. The reason the percentage of civiluans killed in the Ukraine is down to the fact that the war precipitated the largest evacuation of civilians since the 1940s. This is a fact, its impossible to kill someone if you cannot get to them. You are just being obtuse. And as for the scenarios, you saying that you wouldnt kill 5 terrorists to save your loved one. I'm sure most people would but since you seem to support Fundamental Muslum Terrorism you appwar conflicted, or maybe youve never loved someone enough to do anything to protect them. Mrs x" 5.7 million Ukranians have left out of a population of 44 million. That's a large amount, about 13% of the population. But if we assume that the combatant force remains constant a 13% reduction in civilian population size isn't going to turn 17% into 83%. I'm not sure you know what the word obtuse means. I didn't say I wouldn't kill 5 terrorists to save a loved one and I don't support any kind of terrorism. You are reduced to desperately making shit up because you can't make a coherent argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned the Ukraine not me, believing mistakenly tgat it strengthened your argument but it actually weakens it. The reason the percentage of civiluans killed in the Ukraine is down to the fact that the war precipitated the largest evacuation of civilians since the 1940s. This is a fact, its impossible to kill someone if you cannot get to them. You are just being obtuse. And as for the scenarios, you saying that you wouldnt kill 5 terrorists to save your loved one. I'm sure most people would but since you seem to support Fundamental Muslum Terrorism you appwar conflicted, or maybe youve never loved someone enough to do anything to protect them. Mrs x 5.7 million Ukranians have left out of a population of 44 million. That's a large amount, about 13% of the population. But if we assume that the combatant force remains constant a 13% reduction in civilian population size isn't going to turn 17% into 83%. I'm not sure you know what the word obtuse means. I didn't say I wouldn't kill 5 terrorists to save a loved one and I don't support any kind of terrorism. You are reduced to desperately making shit up because you can't make a coherent argument. " 'After the first year of war, over 8,000 Ukrainian civilians were killed. It caused the one of the fastest population movements since World War II as people were forced to flee from their homes. 6 million people displaced were within Ukraine and another 8 million fled the country as refugees.' The is from the World Food Program USA. So thats a figure of 14 million that have evacuated either internally, or externally, to escape the conflict. This is what a state does to safeguard their population in response to a war being fought in their country. You never answer with your own thoughts, your figures of 5.7 million come straight from Wikipedia... 'As of September 2025, the UNHCR has recorded 5.7 million Ukrainian refugees around the world, with 90% of this figure residing in various European countries outside of Ukraine.' I know you'll claim superiority over the figures you quote from Wiki so how about the figures from the UN which states '...more than 3.6 million people internally displaced by the full-scale war. As of January 2025, some 6.8 million refugees from Ukraine were recorded globally.' Even this figure is over 10 million. This is the reason for the difference in figures, oh and the fact the Ukrainians arent hiding behind woman and children too. Is that coherent enough for you? And as for you saying you wouldnt kill terrorists to save a loved one you never said you WOULD kill anyone to save a loved one and you still havent. Thats strange in itself. You cannot say what is proprotionate, especially here, because you ignore context. You just focus on the agenda and narrative that Hamas spew out. Israel bad, Jew bad hey? Hamas are winning the war being fought on social media but at what cost, oh yeah their own population. Ask yourself is that proportionate? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here we go again… rather than engaging with the argument, it’s dismissed outright simply because AI may have been involved. The true sign of disingenuous acting is ignoring the argument and attacking the tool with absolutely no evidence." I have seen people do the same when someone shares a link from Daily Mail/Telegraph. How is this any different? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mentioned the Ukraine not me, believing mistakenly tgat it strengthened your argument but it actually weakens it. The reason the percentage of civiluans killed in the Ukraine is down to the fact that the war precipitated the largest evacuation of civilians since the 1940s. This is a fact, its impossible to kill someone if you cannot get to them. You are just being obtuse. And as for the scenarios, you saying that you wouldnt kill 5 terrorists to save your loved one. I'm sure most people would but since you seem to support Fundamental Muslum Terrorism you appwar conflicted, or maybe youve never loved someone enough to do anything to protect them. Mrs x 5.7 million Ukranians have left out of a population of 44 million. That's a large amount, about 13% of the population. But if we assume that the combatant force remains constant a 13% reduction in civilian population size isn't going to turn 17% into 83%. I'm not sure you know what the word obtuse means. I didn't say I wouldn't kill 5 terrorists to save a loved one and I don't support any kind of terrorism. You are reduced to desperately making shit up because you can't make a coherent argument. 'After the first year of war, over 8,000 Ukrainian civilians were killed. It caused the one of the fastest population movements since World War II as people were forced to flee from their homes. 6 million people displaced were within Ukraine and another 8 million fled the country as refugees.' The is from the World Food Program USA. So thats a figure of 14 million that have evacuated either internally, or externally, to escape the conflict. This is what a state does to safeguard their population in response to a war being fought in their country. You never answer with your own thoughts, your figures of 5.7 million come straight from Wikipedia... 'As of September 2025, the UNHCR has recorded 5.7 million Ukrainian refugees around the world, with 90% of this figure residing in various European countries outside of Ukraine.' I know you'll claim superiority over the figures you quote from Wiki so how about the figures from the UN which states '...more than 3.6 million people internally displaced by the full-scale war. As of January 2025, some 6.8 million refugees from Ukraine were recorded globally.' Even this figure is over 10 million. This is the reason for the difference in figures, oh and the fact the Ukrainians arent hiding behind woman and children too. Is that coherent enough for you? And as for you saying you wouldnt kill terrorists to save a loved one you never said you WOULD kill anyone to save a loved one and you still havent. Thats strange in itself. You cannot say what is proprotionate, especially here, because you ignore context. You just focus on the agenda and narrative that Hamas spew out. Israel bad, Jew bad hey? Hamas are winning the war being fought on social media but at what cost, oh yeah their own population. Ask yourself is that proportionate? Mrs x " Iran was actively provoking and part of the war on social media, until the power got hit by Israel's offensives, and the bots disappeared instantly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have seen people do the same when someone shares a link from Daily Mail/Telegraph. How is this any different?" Not really the same thing. If someone posts a Daily Mail article, people are judging the source — which can be fair if that outlet has a record of twisting facts. But AI isn’t a source, it’s a tool. The Daily Mail writes its own stories; AI just helps someone phrase or structure their own argument. The facts, reasoning, and evidence still come from the person using it. So dismissing someone’s point just because AI might have been involved isn’t the same as questioning a biased publication — it’s avoiding the argument entirely. If something’s wrong, show why. If it’s right, it doesn’t stop being right because of the tool used to write it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have seen people do the same when someone shares a link from Daily Mail/Telegraph. How is this any different? Not really the same thing. If someone posts a Daily Mail article, people are judging the source — which can be fair if that outlet has a record of twisting facts. But AI isn’t a source, it’s a tool. The Daily Mail writes its own stories; AI just helps someone phrase or structure their own argument. The facts, reasoning, and evidence still come from the person using it. So dismissing someone’s point just because AI might have been involved isn’t the same as questioning a biased publication — it’s avoiding the argument entirely. If something’s wrong, show why. If it’s right, it doesn’t stop being right because of the tool used to write it." You are suggesting the user of AI understands the information they are being presented. Based on what I read here, copy and paste with a few tweaks is enough for the user of AI to be satisfied they are passing Turing test. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But AI isn’t a source, it’s a tool. The Daily Mail writes its own stories; AI just helps someone phrase or structure their own argument. The facts, reasoning, and evidence still come from the person using it. " AI is used as a source in most arguments here if you haven't noticed. Where do you think all those numbers are coming from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"AI is used as a source in most arguments here if you haven't noticed. Where do you think all those numbers are coming from? " That’s not how it works. AI doesn’t create the data — it formats or summarises what already exists. The numbers come from places like the UN, Amnesty, or others, not some magic AI database. If you think the stats are wrong, challenge the source, not the tool used to present them. Otherwise it just sounds like you’re more interested in discrediting the method than discussing the facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have seen people do the same when someone shares a link from Daily Mail/Telegraph. How is this any different? Not really the same thing. If someone posts a Daily Mail article, people are judging the source — which can be fair if that outlet has a record of twisting facts. But AI isn’t a source, it’s a tool. The Daily Mail writes its own stories; AI just helps someone phrase or structure their own argument. The facts, reasoning, and evidence still come from the person using it. So dismissing someone’s point just because AI might have been involved isn’t the same as questioning a biased publication — it’s avoiding the argument entirely. If something’s wrong, show why. If it’s right, it doesn’t stop being right because of the tool used to write it." But passing if off as your own opinion is disingenuous. When someone quotes facts and figures, that are very specific but don't attribute them could be seem as a form of intellectual aggrandizement. Them problem with tools like AI is they are widely available, so when someone uses it, its available to everyone should they decide to look something up, or ask it a question and therefore its quite easy to spot. But hey ho, back to the issue of the hour, proportionality and what it means in Israels response to Hamas. Anyone? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But passing if off as your own opinion is disingenuous. When someone quotes facts and figures, that are very specific but don't attribute them could be seem as a form of intellectual aggrandizement. Them problem with tools like AI is they are widely available, so when someone uses it, its available to everyone should they decide to look something up, or ask it a question and therefore its quite easy to spot. But hey ho, back to the issue of the hour, proportionality and what it means in Israels response to Hamas. Anyone? Mrs x" Not disingenuous — just practical. Some of us live with things like chronic fatigue, chemo brain, ADHD, or executive dysfunction that make it genuinely hard to get complex thoughts out clearly. AI helps me structure what I already think — it doesn’t replace my reasoning or opinions, and it doesn’t fact-check or form conclusions for me. I still verify everything I post. If someone can articulate their point better with help, that’s not “intellectual aggrandizement,” it’s accessibility — and dismissing or attacking someone for needing that help can edge into ableism. The substance still matters more than the syntax. And since you brought it back — proportionality isn’t about emotion or who can debate louder. When over 20,000 children are killed and millions displaced, the issue isn’t presentation — it’s humanity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's an argument here that googling information or using wiki as a starting point for research is somehow invalid. This is ridiculous. It's like saying someone going to the library to find anything out is cheating Books in the library can be just as, if not more inaccurate, than a wiki page. People should debate openly on the arguments presented not try to hide behind bogus source accusations. " That is not what is being said, you are being sensationalist.. To be clear, passing off AI responses as your own is disingenuous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But passing if off as your own opinion is disingenuous. When someone quotes facts and figures, that are very specific but don't attribute them could be seem as a form of intellectual aggrandizement. Them problem with tools like AI is they are widely available, so when someone uses it, its available to everyone should they decide to look something up, or ask it a question and therefore its quite easy to spot. But hey ho, back to the issue of the hour, proportionality and what it means in Israels response to Hamas. Anyone? Mrs x Not disingenuous — just practical. Some of us live with things like chronic fatigue, chemo brain, ADHD, or executive dysfunction that make it genuinely hard to get complex thoughts out clearly. AI helps me structure what I already think — it doesn’t replace my reasoning or opinions, and it doesn’t fact-check or form conclusions for me. I still verify everything I post. If someone can articulate their point better with help, that’s not “intellectual aggrandizement,” it’s accessibility — and dismissing or attacking someone for needing that help can edge into ableism. The substance still matters more than the syntax. And since you brought it back — proportionality isn’t about emotion or who can debate louder. When over 20,000 children are killed and millions displaced, the issue isn’t presentation — it’s humanity." Where did these numbers come from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm fine with the Ukrainian data from any reputable source, they have different criteria for arrriving at their numbers but it's all valid in context whether it's 5.7 million or 6.8 milion or 8 million refugees. You can write as long a post as you like but it's completely transparent that all you are interested in is trying to downplay the five to one ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza." I'm not trying to downplay anything. I would happily kill 5 people, who were about to kill one of my loved ones, in the blink of an eye. Would I care at the time, no I wouldn't. My only purpose in life is to protect my loved ones be it my hubby, kids or grandkids. Thats what im saying about the Hazans. They haven't done what I would consider their parental duty in removing their loved ones from harmful. The Ukrainians have and that's why the percentage, ratio, whatever mathematical formula you want to use shows this huge difference. Ukrainians have removed loved ones from harm, Gazans haven't. I believe the Ukrainians have chosen the right option here and I think most reasonable people would do the same for their loved ones. War is never proportionate. It's all about being bigger, stronger, faster, more tactically astute, more ruthless than the opposition. There is nothing fair about war, nothing. Thats what im saying, thats just my opinion but if I had to I could supply evidence of this. But I dont have to, history shows us this time and again. Yet you dont want to accept this for some reason. So go on, I'll play your game. Tell me what you consider to be a reasonable ratio to satisfy your interpretation of proportionality. Once you do that give your argument as to why you believe that and you may change my mind. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did these numbers come from?" They’re from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and UNICEF, which both report over 37,000 total Palestinian deaths — roughly half of them children. Save the Children also confirmed that more than 20,000 children have been killed or are missing under the rubble. The 37 Israeli children figure comes from the Israeli government’s own report to the UN following the October 7 attacks. These are internationally verified humanitarian statistics, not speculation — and of course, you’d already know that if you’d read the earlier posts in this thread where they were cited. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Where did these numbers come from? They’re from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and UNICEF, which both report over 37,000 total Palestinian deaths — roughly half of them children. Save the Children also confirmed that more than 20,000 children have been killed or are missing under the rubble. The 37 Israeli children figure comes from the Israeli government’s own report to the UN following the October 7 attacks. These are internationally verified humanitarian statistics, not speculation — and of course, you’d already know that if you’d read the earlier posts in this thread where they were cited." Where are they obtaining the figures you are quoting? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But passing if off as your own opinion is disingenuous. When someone quotes facts and figures, that are very specific but don't attribute them could be seem as a form of intellectual aggrandizement. Them problem with tools like AI is they are widely available, so when someone uses it, its available to everyone should they decide to look something up, or ask it a question and therefore its quite easy to spot. But hey ho, back to the issue of the hour, proportionality and what it means in Israels response to Hamas. Anyone? Mrs x Not disingenuous — just practical. Some of us live with things like chronic fatigue, chemo brain, ADHD, or executive dysfunction that make it genuinely hard to get complex thoughts out clearly. AI helps me structure what I already think — it doesn’t replace my reasoning or opinions, and it doesn’t fact-check or form conclusions for me. I still verify everything I post. If someone can articulate their point better with help, that’s not “intellectual aggrandizement,” it’s accessibility — and dismissing or attacking someone for needing that help can edge into ableism. The substance still matters more than the syntax. And since you brought it back — proportionality isn’t about emotion or who can debate louder. When over 20,000 children are killed and millions displaced, the issue isn’t presentation — it’s humanity." It's intellectual aggradizement if you dont credit your source. If you did that on an academic paper it could be seen as plagiarism. It's not an aid if you do this, you are simply passing on another's opinion, leaving the reader to think its your own. An aid is reading something, from a journal, report or paper and then using this in your argument, thats fine so long as you say you've read it in x,y or z. Even if you say you got the information from somewhere but you can't remember where is much better than using AI and staying quiet about it. It's not an aid, because how AI works is you ask it a question and it then gives you ITS answer on a matter. It's not like a search engine which finds lots of material about a question leaving you to research the matter at hand, coming up with your own conclusion. And nobody who mentions this is being ableist, they are just calling out a form of cheating. An AI opinion is not YOUR opinion, its the opinion of an algorithm. A forum is an arena for debate. In most debates you dont have the luxury of any external help, I should imagine thats why its quite falling when people use AI in here. Thinking for yourself is the best policy I believe but I could be wrong so hang on while I ask Gemini what she thinks... 
Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where are they obtaining the figures you are quoting? " The figures come directly from the official websites of those organisations. I can’t link them here because of forum rules, but the data is publicly available on their sites. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where are they obtaining the figures you are quoting? The figures come directly from the official websites of those organisations. I can’t link them here because of forum rules, but the data is publicly available on their sites." How many of those organisations have an actual presence in Gaza? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's intellectual aggradizement if you dont credit your source. If you did that on an academic paper it could be seen as plagiarism. It's not an aid if you do this, you are simply passing on another's opinion, leaving the reader to think its your own. An aid is reading something, from a journal, report or paper and then using this in your argument, thats fine so long as you say you've read it in x,y or z. Even if you say you got the information from somewhere but you can't remember where is much better than using AI and staying quiet about it. It's not an aid, because how AI works is you ask it a question and it then gives you ITS answer on a matter. It's not like a search engine which finds lots of material about a question leaving you to research the matter at hand, coming up with your own conclusion. And nobody who mentions this is being ableist, they are just calling out a form of cheating. An AI opinion is not YOUR opinion, its the opinion of an algorithm. A forum is an arena for debate. In most debates you dont have the luxury of any external help, I should imagine thats why its quite falling when people use AI in here. Thinking for yourself is the best policy I believe but I could be wrong so hang on while I ask Gemini what she thinks...
Mrs x"AI isn’t an “opinion generator”; it’s a tool — like Grammarly or speech-to-text — that helps me organise and express my own thoughts when things like fatigue, chemo brain, or ADHD make writing difficult. The ideas and facts are still mine, and I always verify and cite my sources so anyone can check them for themselves. That’s accessibility, not cheating. This isn’t an academic paper, it’s a discussion — what matters is whether the point is accurate, not how it’s typed. Focusing on the method instead of the substance feels like avoiding the argument itself — and when that argument concerns tens of thousands of civilian deaths, that kind of deflection says more than it defends. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is not what is being said, you are being sensationalist.. To be clear, passing off AI responses as your own is disingenuous." You repeatedly accuse me of using AI even though I don't. I just do regular google searches and because I can read and type at high speed and am used to filtering large volumes of text I end up with data that you imagine must be AI driven. I'm sure you'll accuse me of bragging but iI've actually been involved in developing AI - mostly multi-parallel finite state machines with event, logic and probability driven transitions. But I've studied AI well beyond these relatively primitive mechanisms so do know what I'm talking about. Anyone who says that current AI has anything like human intelligence is talking bollocks. Large language models and generative transformation in general only seem intelligent because they are relying on a massive database of stuff created by humans. The idea that my arguments are based on AI is insulting. And it's insulting to others who do use AI to help them formulate arguments. As another poster has said it can be a useful tool for people to express what they want to say. They carefully vet what AI responses they get and learn how to better phrase queries. I get the impression that you use AI a lot yet seem to oscillate between being pro and anti AI so I'm not sure what your position actually is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where are they obtaining the figures you are quoting? The figures come directly from the official websites of those organisations. I can’t link them here because of forum rules, but the data is publicly available on their sites. How many of those organisations have an actual presence in Gaza?" I’ve already told you where the data comes from — if you want to question its validity, you know where to find it. And with chronic fatigue, I have to use my energy wisely — so unless you’re actually engaging in good faith, I’m not wasting it forming your argument for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's an argument here that googling information or using wiki as a starting point for research is somehow invalid. This is ridiculous. It's like saying someone going to the library to find anything out is cheating Books in the library can be just as, if not more inaccurate, than a wiki page. People should debate openly on the arguments presented not try to hide behind bogus source accusations. " But you dont debate honestly, thats an issue. You regurgitating things you read, which is fine but, in the main, it does not seem to be in support of your argument it just appears to be your 'whole' argument. And yes you do credit lots of your 'points', but you just dont give anything which seems to suggest you have thought about it. It's like original thought passes you by. I've tried to ask you questions in generic form, to establish what you consider is the scope of proportionality for you, yet you ignore this. You then respond with some barbed comment about the poster, me in this case, or you respond with some facts and figures which you think will deflect from the questions asked of you. I know you will ignore this but let's start simply. Would you kill someone you knew was about to kill someone you loved and if you didnt act then this would come to pass? If you would, to protect your loved ones life, then add another person into the question, so would you kill 2? Keep doing this until you wouldn't do this anymore and give me a that number. Then we could examine it further, this is when facts, figures and other people's opinions, theories and philosophies can be discussed. As we are talking about civilians, now ask yourself how many people would you be prepared to die to save your loved ones life. So in this instance you are not killing but its a question of collateral damage. Use the same formula and then we can debate from there. Then we have to add in context and thats were original thought really comes into play. You want to play or am I just 'spirraling' again haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's intellectual aggradizement if you dont credit your source. If you did that on an academic paper it could be seen as plagiarism. It's not an aid if you do this, you are simply passing on another's opinion, leaving the reader to think its your own. An aid is reading something, from a journal, report or paper and then using this in your argument, thats fine so long as you say you've read it in x,y or z. Even if you say you got the information from somewhere but you can't remember where is much better than using AI and staying quiet about it. It's not an aid, because how AI works is you ask it a question and it then gives you ITS answer on a matter. It's not like a search engine which finds lots of material about a question leaving you to research the matter at hand, coming up with your own conclusion. And nobody who mentions this is being ableist, they are just calling out a form of cheating. An AI opinion is not YOUR opinion, its the opinion of an algorithm. A forum is an arena for debate. In most debates you dont have the luxury of any external help, I should imagine thats why its quite falling when people use AI in here. Thinking for yourself is the best policy I believe but I could be wrong so hang on while I ask Gemini what she thinks...
Mrs x
AI isn’t an “opinion generator”; it’s a tool — like Grammarly or speech-to-text — that helps me organise and express my own thoughts when things like fatigue, chemo brain, or ADHD make writing difficult. The ideas and facts are still mine, and I always verify and cite my sources so anyone can check them for themselves.
That’s accessibility, not cheating. This isn’t an academic paper, it’s a discussion — what matters is whether the point is accurate, not how it’s typed.
Focusing on the method instead of the substance feels like avoiding the argument itself — and when that argument concerns tens of thousands of civilian deaths, that kind of deflection says more than it defends."So ok let's just focus on the deaths, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So ok let's just focus on the deaths, Mrs x" I tried to stay on topic, and you went straight back to attacking how I communicate instead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is not what is being said, you are being sensationalist.. To be clear, passing off AI responses as your own is disingenuous. You repeatedly accuse me of using AI even though I don't. I just do regular google searches and because I can read and type at high speed and am used to filtering large volumes of text I end up with data that you imagine must be AI driven. I'm sure you'll accuse me of bragging but iI've actually been involved in developing AI - mostly multi-parallel finite state machines with event, logic and probability driven transitions. But I've studied AI well beyond these relatively primitive mechanisms so do know what I'm talking about. Anyone who says that current AI has anything like human intelligence is talking bollocks. Large language models and generative transformation in general only seem intelligent because they are relying on a massive database of stuff created by humans. The idea that my arguments are based on AI is insulting. And it's insulting to others who do use AI to help them formulate arguments. As another poster has said it can be a useful tool for people to express what they want to say. They carefully vet what AI responses they get and learn how to better phrase queries. I get the impression that you use AI a lot yet seem to oscillate between being pro and anti AI so I'm not sure what your position actually is. " I struggle to believe your claims | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's intellectual aggradizement if you dont credit your source. If you did that on an academic paper it could be seen as plagiarism. It's not an aid if you do this, you are simply passing on another's opinion, leaving the reader to think its your own. An aid is reading something, from a journal, report or paper and then using this in your argument, thats fine so long as you say you've read it in x,y or z. Even if you say you got the information from somewhere but you can't remember where is much better than using AI and staying quiet about it. It's not an aid, because how AI works is you ask it a question and it then gives you ITS answer on a matter. It's not like a search engine which finds lots of material about a question leaving you to research the matter at hand, coming up with your own conclusion. And nobody who mentions this is being ableist, they are just calling out a form of cheating. An AI opinion is not YOUR opinion, its the opinion of an algorithm. A forum is an arena for debate. In most debates you dont have the luxury of any external help, I should imagine thats why its quite falling when people use AI in here. Thinking for yourself is the best policy I believe but I could be wrong so hang on while I ask Gemini what she thinks...
Mrs x
AI isn’t an “opinion generator”; it’s a tool — like Grammarly or speech-to-text — that helps me organise and express my own thoughts when things like fatigue, chemo brain, or ADHD make writing difficult. The ideas and facts are still mine, and I always verify and cite my sources so anyone can check them for themselves.
That’s accessibility, not cheating. This isn’t an academic paper, it’s a discussion — what matters is whether the point is accurate, not how it’s typed.
Focusing on the method instead of the substance feels like avoiding the argument itself — and when that argument concerns tens of thousands of civilian deaths, that kind of deflection says more than it defends."Im its currently form AI is an 'opinion generator'. You ask it a question, it gives you an answer. How it gets to that answer is immaterial but thats what it does. So by answering something AI is giving ITS opinion. It's not like Hoogle which is much more of an efficient librarian, telling you where the articles you may find useful are, so you can look for yourself. Now Im.not saying its not a useful tool but passing off its opinion, without telling the reader that that is not your opinion, is disingenuous. Much more so than what would be traditionally thought of as plagiarism, at least there you would have to think for yourself when choosing which particular extract to pass off as your own. Mrs c | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's nearly one am and this thread will be full and closed soon but I hope another wil open so that we can continue this wide-ranging and interesting debate. Good night all. " Top deflecting, well done, at least you are consistent haha, Sweet Dreams, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So ok let's just focus on the deaths, Mrs x I tried to stay on topic, and you went straight back to attacking how I communicate instead." I havent, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im its currently form AI is an 'opinion generator'. You ask it a question, it gives you an answer. How it gets to that answer is immaterial but thats what it does. So by answering something AI is giving ITS opinion. It's not like Hoogle which is much more of an efficient librarian, telling you where the articles you may find useful are, so you can look for yourself. Now Im.not saying its not a useful tool but passing off its opinion, without telling the reader that that is not your opinion, is disingenuous. Much more so than what would be traditionally thought of as plagiarism, at least there you would have to think for yourself when choosing which particular extract to pass off as your own. Mrs c" You keep assuming I ask AI for opinions when I’ve said from the start that I use it to refine and double-check my own. I tell it what I think first, then look at info that supports or challenges it — same as anyone using Google or a library. The way you keep misrepresenting that says more about your assumptions than about how I actually use it. But I thought we were returning to focus on the deaths | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So ok let's just focus on the deaths, Mrs x I tried to stay on topic, and you went straight back to attacking how I communicate instead.I havent, Mrs x" You said we should focus on the deaths — then immediately wrote paragraphs attacking how you assume I use AI. That’s not staying on topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
