5 ms·

or maybe its conflict of interests. I'm not talking of the general situation but about this action by Israel government and the response. And this all human rig

or maybe its conflict of interests. I'm not talking of the general situation but about this action by Israel government and the response. And this all human right groups are funded by the EU if its private or public it doesn't matter from the Israeli government perspective. Or maybe this groups doesn't know everything? why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? some of them are even have pro-Palestinian independence stance

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
The fact based claim is that the Israel government haven’t provided evidence to their claims and therefore the claims are unsubstantiated. Any discussion of conspiracy can be put to rest with some proof.
- pythonlion 5y ago
  but since when governments need to provide evidence and to whom? the world government? Can I go to random governments around the world and ask them to show evidence about their security issues to my organization?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Yes, and you should. And for those governments who can’t or won’t provide evidence, you should disregard their assertions as baseless and suspect. I mean, why wouldn’t you demand proof? Governments have a long and nasty history of conflating their political interests with security interests, just trusting their assertions seems extremely foolhardy.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      because it would compromise means and methods
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”. More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        flipside of tough - you're demanding a foreign nation compromise its security so that you can feel better. You and your demands are nobody and nothing to a foreign state. So no. tough.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        No, I’m demanding they support their allegations before killing people. Giving the state unfettered access to kill and jail god knows who based on unsupported allegations of terrorism is very dangerous territory, and any right thinking person should be wary of handing out that kind of power. Saying this is about making me “feel better” is pushing the limits of good faith discussion, don’t do that.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not your state, and this did go to court, you just weren't privy to the evidence because you're not a party involved in the investigation or the case, and have no security clearance in this foreign state to know the details.
        starik36 5y ago
        All the evidence of Russian collusion and hacking is almost always presented without any evidence whatsoever. Yet no one in the mainstream media thinks to question it.
  - Quanttek 5y ago
    Any state abiding by the rule of law, human rights, and democracy needs to provide evidence proving such allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and enabling the victims to challenge such administrative decisions in court. If Israel wants to drop the pretense of democracy, so be it. But human rights and the rule of law are universal obligations under international law.
    - pythonlion 5y ago
      this is biased for countries which are not under conflict and don't get accused by the other side every other week
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? Why does the opinion of multiple third parties carry more merit about the adversarial facts of a conflict than one of the participants to said conflict? Really?

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

The fact based claim is that the Israel government haven’t provided evidence to their claims and therefore the claims are unsubstantiated. Any discussion of conspiracy can be put to rest with some proof.

pythonlion 5y ago
but since when governments need to provide evidence and to whom? the world government? Can I go to random governments around the world and ask them to show evidence about their security issues to my organization?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Yes, and you should. And for those governments who can’t or won’t provide evidence, you should disregard their assertions as baseless and suspect. I mean, why wouldn’t you demand proof? Governments have a long and nasty history of conflating their political interests with security interests, just trusting their assertions seems extremely foolhardy.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    because it would compromise means and methods
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Tough. The logical consequence of “we can’t show you the proof” is “okay, I don’t believe that you have any”. After all, you would not believe my assertions about fantastical achievements without evidence, and the consequences of that hypothetical are much lower than the state saying it should be able to kill people in the name of “counter terrorism”. More succinctly; “it would compromise means and methods” is a phenomenal way to cover up shaky or non-existent evidence.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        flipside of tough - you're demanding a foreign nation compromise its security so that you can feel better. You and your demands are nobody and nothing to a foreign state. So no. tough.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        No, I’m demanding they support their allegations before killing people. Giving the state unfettered access to kill and jail god knows who based on unsupported allegations of terrorism is very dangerous territory, and any right thinking person should be wary of handing out that kind of power. Saying this is about making me “feel better” is pushing the limits of good faith discussion, don’t do that.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        It's not your state, and this did go to court, you just weren't privy to the evidence because you're not a party involved in the investigation or the case, and have no security clearance in this foreign state to know the details.
      - starik36 5y ago
        All the evidence of Russian collusion and hacking is almost always presented without any evidence whatsoever. Yet no one in the mainstream media thinks to question it.
- Quanttek 5y ago
  Any state abiding by the rule of law, human rights, and democracy needs to provide evidence proving such allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and enabling the victims to challenge such administrative decisions in court. If Israel wants to drop the pretense of democracy, so be it. But human rights and the rule of law are universal obligations under international law.
  - pythonlion 5y ago
    this is biased for countries which are not under conflict and don't get accused by the other side every other week
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> why their members opinion is more accepted than the Israeli politicians who did that? Why does the opinion of multiple third parties carry more merit about the adversarial facts of a conflict than one of the participants to said conflict? Really?