Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist admits to raping woman during Oct 7 attack

[ModernDiogenes]

I am free to criticize actions without concern for hypocrisy, regardless of what happened before I was born.

Actually, no you are not.

You are free to criticize anything you want BUT it is equally free for others to point out the hypocrisy being committed in doing so if it exists, and in this case it would.

Do you think Germans can't criticize genocide?

Of course that can. Anyone can. Others are free to point out that it might not be prudent.

And, as I pointed out, the metrics do not support and argument of genocide in the case of Gaza. The death total is less than 1% of the population. Gazian Arabs are not going to cease to be from that kind of death rate. That doesn't make it less unfortunate. It simply means genocide isn't what that is. What it is, is war.

What the US did in Dresden should be universally criticized, same for dropping the atomic bombs.

As I stated, an argument can readily be made that the deaths that did occur vastly reduced that deaths that might have occurred had not either of them taken place.

If you know and understand history, you know and understand that.

 

[samiam5211]

Actually, no you are not.

You are free to criticize anything you want BUT it is equally free for others to point out the hypocrisy being committed in doing so if it exists, and in this case it would.



Of course that can. Anyone can. Others are free to point out that it might not be prudent.

And, as I pointed out, the metrics do not support and argument of genocide in the case of Gaza. The death total is less than 1% of the population. Gazian Arabs are not going to cease to be from that kind of death rate. That doesn't make it less unfortunate. It simply means genocide isn't what that is. What it is, is war.



As I stated, an argument can readily be made that the deaths that did occur vastly reduced that deaths that might have occurred had not either of them taken place.

If you know and understand history, you know and understand that.

There is no hypocrisy involved, not one bit.

I can criticize slavery without one bit of hypocrisy. I am not responsible for the history of the United States. I am responsible for the consequences of the history of the US. I should feel obligated to support trying to make up for the harm caused by our mistakes, but i am not responsible for making those mistakes.

I can criticize anything I want, and my criticism is not less valid because of things happened before I was even alive, much less had any influence over.

Calling out hypocrisy in that way is just a very lazy attempt to diminish a point you do not agree with, but of no value at all. It is really just whataboutism.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I do not accept what

I said it in the line you are reponding to: " acknowledge it and realize that what Israel is doing in Gaza is not unlike what has been done by others under circumstances they felt justified in taking to protect themselves. Including the United States of America."

There is no hypocrisy involved, not one bit.

Permit me to disagree. I stated why it would be and gave examples.

I can criticize slavery without one bit of hypocrisy.

Who said you couldn't. These aren't equivalents. One is an act of enslaving another with personal profit being the only cause. The other is seen as an act of self-defense by the persons taking it. What I claimed to be hypocritical is claim that can be written off readily when there are historical example of equally unfortunate acts that have been justified by this same argument, and that might be particularly so when some of those examples emanate from one's own country of origin.

I am not responsible for the history of the United States.

I didn't say you are. I said that if one claims a heritage from one's nation of origin it comes not piecemeal but in its totality. This is part of the US history. If you claim that heritage you claim that part of it as well.

I am responsible for the consequences of the history of the US. I should feel obligated to support trying to make up for the harm caused by our mistakes, but i am not responsible for making those mistakes.

Not stating differently. I am stating that in the past AND PRESENT those decisions were made upon metrics that suggested that as terrible as they might be the results if they hadn't be undertaken would have likely been much worse. I would tend to agree that is highly possible.

I can criticize anything I want, and my criticism is not less valid because of things happened before I was even alive, much less had any influence over.

You can criticise anything you want, but its validity will be that which can be substantially proven. I am suggesting yours is a weak argument not readily substantiated.

Calling out hypocrisy in that way is just a very lazy attempt to diminish a point you do not agree with, but of no value at all.

Stating that, when I have not only made my own statement but backed it up with historical references and their connective threads tying them to what is taking place that we are discussing is neither lazy or as easily diminished as you attempt above.

 

[Apocalypse]

I said it in the line you are reponding to: " acknowledge it and realize that what Israel is doing in Gaza is not unlike what has been done by others under circumstances they felt justified in taking to protect themselves. Including the United States of America."


Permit me to disagree. I stated why it would be and gave examples.



Who said you couldn't. These aren't equivalents. One is an act of enslaving another with personal profit being the only cause. The other is seen as an act of self-defense by the persons taking it. What I claimed to be hypocritical is claim that can be written off readily when there are historical example of equally unfortunate acts that have been justified by this same argument, and that might be particularly so when some of those examples emanate from one's own country of origin.



I didn't say you are. I said that if one claims a heritage from one's nation of origin it comes not piecemeal but in its totality. This is part of the US history. If you claim that heritage you claim that part of it as well.



Not stating differently. I am stating that in the past AND PRESENT those decisions were made upon metrics that suggested that as terrible as they might be the results if they hadn't be undertaken would have likely been much worse. I would tend to agree that is highly possible.




You can criticise anything you want, but its validity will be that which can be substantially proven. I am suggesting yours is a weak argument not readily substantiated.




Stating that, when I have not only made my own statement but backed it up with historical references and their connective threads tying them to what is taking place that we are discussing is neither lazy or as easily diminished as you attempt above.

You're wasting your time on someone who routinely engages in antisemitic remarks against Jews (regardless of Israel) and proudly refers to himself as "a terrorist".

 

[samiam5211]

Stating that, when I have not only made my own statement but backed it up with historical references and their connective threads tying them to what is taking place that we are discussing is neither lazy or as easily diminished as you attempt above.

You are just doing whataboutism.

Much of what we did during WWII was wrong. The fact that it worked doesn't mean it was ok, or even the only option that would have worked.

If the Nazi's had won the war, it wouldn't have meant that the things they did were justified. Just because firebombing Dresden and nuking Japan are big parts of why we won the war, doesn't mean we were justified in doing them.

What Israel is doing right now isn't justified. There is no justifying it, and bringing up history is just a way to avoid trying to justify what is happening right now.

 

[samiam5211]

You're wasting your time on someone who routinely engages in antisemitic remarks against Jews (regardless of Israel) and proudly refers to himself as "a terrorist".

And you constantly diminish real antisemitism because you are desperate to justify ethnic cleansing.

 

[Apocalypse]

And you constantly diminish real antisemitism because you are desperate to justify ethnic cleansing.

Someone who compares people to funny Jewish characters from TV that he knows, because they're Jews, is not an antisemite?
And do you not proudly call yourself "a terrorist" like you said you do?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You're wasting your time on someone who routinely engages in antisemitic remarks against Jews (regardless of Israel) and proudly refers to himself as "a terrorist".

I get it, but while keeping it honest and not doing so simply for that purpose [sometimes a mind can be changed, it happens] sometimes the blade being drawn agaisnt a particular stone is done less on account of the stone or the blade, but for those in attendance whose thoughts might be shaped by the honing taking place of the blade against that stone.

[and if it is the right stone it doesn't hurt that it keeps that blade sharper]

 

[samiam5211]

Someone who compares people to funny Jewish characters from TV that he knows, because they're Jews, is not an antisemite?
And do you not proudly call yourself "a terrorist" like you said you do?

I don't remember when i called myself a terrorist, but I don't doubt that i've done it in some context on here somewhere. You are free to pull up the quote and expose that it isn't nearly as scandalous as you are making it out ot be. I didn't really care enough to dispute it.

As to your first question, no. lol, no.

 

[samiam5211]

I get it, but while keeping it honest and not doing so simply for that purpose [sometimes a mind can be changed, it happens] sometimes the blade being drawn agaisnt a particular stone is done less on account of the stone or the blade, but for those in attendance whose thoughts might be shaped by the honing taking place of the blade against that stone.

[and if it is the right stone it doesn't hurt that it keeps that blade sharper]

My mind isn't going to be changed, but feel free to keep arguing with me if you think it might change someone else's mind. I doubt anyone but us and Apocolypse are paying attention to this exchange though.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You are just doing whataboutism.

What aboutism is not defined as the act of putting things in proper historical perspective, and in doing so pointing directly back at what is being discussed. .
Whataboutism is trying deflect the conversation by pointing it away from what is being discussed. I am not doing that. I am giving DIRECTLY to what is being discussed examples for why what you are suggesting about it is wrong and hypocritical.

Much of what we did during WWII was wrong.

Much of what occurs in any war is wrong. Killing people to solve problems is wrong. However, human beings do so quite a bit. Have been for as long as their have been human beings. So saying, 'Its wrong.", and leaving it at that without addressing the history that shows it to be very human and not going anywhere is not accomplishing much. So that is what I am suggesting. Your argument, for all its probable desire to express goodness and correct thought is spurious as it will accomplish nothing as it doesn't take into account what history teaches us of how human beings behave when they are attacked and think they are defending themselves with their responses.

The fact that it worked doesn't mean it was ok, or even the only option that would have worked.

Didn't say it was. I said that the metrics suggest that it saved more lives than it took. In that light of the savings of human lives makes for an argument that it was better those died than many more. I didn't say that was right either. Just that it makes for a solid argument for doing one thing rather than see another that would have greater cost take place.

If the Nazi's had won the war, it wouldn't have meant that the things they did were justified. Just because firebombing Dresden and nuking Japan are big parts of why we won the war, doesn't mean we were justified in doing them.

I wasn't arguing the justification of ideologies. I argued SOLEY that if in fact that taking of those lives saved more than would have dies had they not the overall saving of human lives could be solid justification for that actions taken.

What Israel is doing right now isn't justified. There is no justifying it, and bringing up history is just a way to avoid trying to justify what is happening right now.

Because you say so?

The argument of self-defense is always one that has to be at least looked at. The argument that taking one hundred lives in an act of self-defense may save many more of the defenders lives and even the lives of the one they perceive as unjustified, even criminal, attackers is certainly one history must look at with an unjaundiced eye.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

My mind isn't going to be changed, but feel free to keep arguing with me if you think it might change someone else's mind. I doubt anyone but us and Apocolypse are paying attention to this exchange though.

Well, I think I am on solid ground in my thoughts on this I am not suggesting it was solely your mind that could be changed.

I have on occasion, with the right argument presented honestly and solidly, changed my perspective. If you look on these pages one can find me thanking those who did so for their enlightening me.

 

[samiam5211]

What aboutism is not defined as the act of putting things in proper historical perspective, and in doing so pointing directly back at what is being discussed. .
Whataboutism is trying deflect the conversation by pointing it away from what is being discussed. I am not doing that. I am giving DIRECTLY to what is being discussed examples for why what you are suggesting about it is wrong and hypocritical.



Much of what occurs in any war is wrong. Killing people to solve problems is wrong. However, human beings do so quite a bit. Have been for as long as their have been human beings. So saying, 'Its wrong.", and leaving it at that without addressing the history that shows it to be very human and not going anywhere is not accomplishing much. So that is what I am suggesting. Your argument, for all its probable desire to express goodness and correct thought is spurious as it will accomplish nothing as it doesn't take into account what history teaches us of how human beings behave when they are attacked and think they are defending themselves with their responses.




Didn't say it was. I said that the metrics suggest that it saved more lives than it took. In that light of the savings of human lives makes for an argument that it was better those died than many more. I didn't say that was right either. Just that it makes for a solid argument for doing one thing rather than see another that would have greater cost take place.



I wasn't arguing the justification of ideologies. I argued SOLEY that if in fact that taking of those lives saved more than would have dies had they not the overall saving of human lives could be solid justification for that actions taken.




Because you say so?

The argument of self-defense is always one that has to be at least looked at. The argument that taking one hundred lives in an act of self-defense may save many more of the defenders lives and even the lives of the one they perceive as unjustified, even criminal, attackers is certainly one history must look at with an unjaundiced eye.

I do not accept your assumption that those actions saved more lives than they cost.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I do not accept your assumption that those actions saved more lives than they cost.

You don't have to, others have made the argument time and time again and the stated reasons for their conclusions part of the recorded record.

Loading…

www.usna.edu

Atomic Salvation: How the A-Bomb Saved the Lives of 32 Million People

Author: Tom LewisReviewer: Dr. Daniel McIntosh

www.airuniversity.af.edu

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki Definitely Saved Lives

The Pacific Realist responds to Ward Wilson about whether the atomic bombings of Japan saved lives or not.

thediplomat.com

Agreed, less so for Dresden but not without its well made arguments. I use that more to point out what people will feel is justified in an act of self-defense. Agree or disagree with the validity of what Isreal is doing, you can't rightfully make an argument that they are doing it without a valid argument of their own defense. After all, it was Hamas that fired the first shot in this round.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

If you're arguing that Israel should have invaded Gaza and relaced the government before 10/7, then I can't say I disagree with you. I'm sure they feel the same way at this point.

No I didn't say that, I don't know what the primer for reading comprehension would be but your argument isn't going anywhere but to the shitheap. Netanyahu spent years enabling Hamas so that it would split the cause for a separate Palestinian state.

A child could search for the Times of Israel articles and many others that comment on this but you want to pretend Hamas somehow is solely responsible for the position Hamas were in?

Why? You're not fooling me in any way whatsoever.

Then I apologize for confusing you. When I said Gaza invaded Israel, I meant the Gazan military invaded Israel on the Gazan government's orders. I wasn't implying that Gazan civilians participated.

You didn't confuse me. Your tactics are obvious.

But Hamas is the sole party responsible for every Israeli and Palestinian life lost on 10/7 and since.

Here's your chance to clarify things then. How did Hamas get to the point they had the money to get the resources, the money to buy materials for tunnels and then build them?
The spaghetti monster snapped its spaghetti tentacles under Israel's nose and suddenly they were in existence?

 

[Apocalypse]

I don't remember when i called myself a terrorist, but I don't doubt that i've done it in some context on here somewhere. You are free to pull up the quote and expose that it isn't nearly as scandalous as you are making it out ot be. I didn't really care enough to dispute it.

As to your first question, no. lol, no.

You said you're a terrorist because you were in the US military I believe? I can find it up for you if you really want me to. It was really bizarre, but I guess you often deal in the bizarre.

 

[venice_ca]

It was a deadly error, and lessons need to be learned from it. But Hamas is the sole party responsible for every Israeli and Palestinian life lost on 10/7 and since.

And since 10/7?

The ICJ disagrees with you.

The ICJ has ordered unhindered aid to Gaza at scale, and orders Israel to prevent genocide. Given the starvation that is currently strangling Gaza, and that Israel allows only a trickle of humanitarian aid to enter by land routes (the most efficient method of delivery), Israel is indeed responsible for civilian deaths in Gaza. Lack of sufficient nutrition, lack of potable water, lack of medicines, lack of functioning hospitals — all under direct Israeli control — are the responsibility of Israel.

 

[samiam5211]

You said you're a terrorist because you were in the US military I believe? I can find it up for you if you really want me to. It was really bizarre, but I guess you often deal in the bizarre.

Yea, that is a pretty simple understanding of what I was saying.

 

[Apocalypse]

Yea, that is a pretty simple understanding of what I was saying.

I'm glad you agree it was bizarre.

 

[samiam5211]

You don't have to, others have made the argument time and time again and the stated reasons for their conclusions part of the recorded record.

Loading…

www.usna.edu

Atomic Salvation: How the A-Bomb Saved the Lives of 32 Million People

Author: Tom LewisReviewer: Dr. Daniel McIntosh

www.airuniversity.af.edu

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki Definitely Saved Lives

The Pacific Realist responds to Ward Wilson about whether the atomic bombings of Japan saved lives or not.

thediplomat.com

Agreed, less so for Dresden but not without its well made arguments. I use that more to point out what people will feel is justified in an act of self-defense. Agree or disagree with the validity of what Isreal is doing, you can't rightfully make an argument that they are doing it without a valid argument of their own defense. After all, it was Hamas that fired the first shot in this round.

Israel is not acting in self-defense. They are ethnically cleansing Gaza.

It is a process that they were working on before October 7. October 7 just gave them an excuse to do it faster.

 

[Apocalypse]

And since 10/7?

Repeat after me: Hamas is responsible for its actions.
Trying to blame Israel for being invaded and having its citizens raped, murdered and kidnapped is just the latest in this pathetic charade by people who identify with sheer evil.

 

[samiam5211]

I'm glad you agree it was bizarre.

Like I said, your understanding of the point seems to be simplistic.

 

[Apocalypse]

Like I said, your understanding of the point seems to be simplistic.

Enlighten me on what I'm missing in you referring to yourself as a terrorist and where is the genius behind it.

 

[samiam5211]

Enlighten me on what I'm missing in you referring to yourself as a terrorist and where is the genius behind it.

No, i don't care what you think nearly enough to bother going back to a post from months ago that I'm sure you've already hyperventilated about and i mocked you in return.

You are free to assume that it is because I can't.

 

[zincwarrior]

I do not.

If he did wouldn't there be 2mm dead Gazans now? All they had to do was kill the water supplies.