7 ms·

A standard might be: uses suicide bombers. An even more radical form would be: uses child suicide bombers.

thrance 10mo ago
All in all, Israel is doing most of the killing here. They have access to more sophisticated weapon, but it's no less barbaric.
- brigandish 10mo ago
  Using one's own children to suicide bomb is no less barbaric than firing a missile? That's not even true in a mathematical sense, let alone a moral one.
  - thrance 10mo ago
    Stop using your thought-terminating clichés about terrorism and look at actual stats: > As of 19 November 2025, over 72,500 people (70,525 Palestinians and 2,109 Israelis) have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including 248 journalists and media workers, 120 academics, and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, a number that includes 179 employees of UNRWA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war How is killing tens of thousands of people less barbaric than killing thousands of people? What kind of twisted morality do you use to excuse mass murder by missiles but not through suicide bombing?
    - hersko 10mo ago
      More Germans died in WW2 than Brits. Guess the Allies were the bad guys.
      - thrance 10mo ago
        Are you fine with the mass killings of civilian populations in Gaza, yes or no? War is ugly, I'm not trying to make the Palestinians into saints, but the other guy is advocating the insane position that Israel can do no wrong, and that them using excessive force is completely justified. I feel like I'm losing my mind, why is it so hard to say "killing tens of thousands of civilians is barbaric"??
        JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > why is it so hard to say "killing tens of thousands of civilians is barbaric"?? Because it’s not true unless we’re just saying war is barbaric. Which I agree with. But it’s not useful when trying to delineate justified versus excessive force. I agree Israel is using excessive force in Gaza. I also think Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seems committed to continuing to do terrorism. I genuinely haven’t figured out how to balance thsr equation, though I think discussing it without calling someone engaging in good faith a monster/genocider/anti-Semite is a good start.
        thrance 10mo ago
        At some point, you have to call out a genocide for what it is. Many are still quick to rationalize it away, or relay Israeli propaganda about the many killed journalists being Hamas terrorists, or humanitarian aid workers also being Hamas terrorists, or the UN orgs also being Hamas terrorists, etc. You get the gist. This doesn't excuse any crime that Hamas has committed, but anyone still not calling for Israel to move out of Gaza, in light of the many exactions committed by the IDF, is not engaging in good faith, in my book. The continued killings of civilian populations in Gaza is vindicating the Palestinians in their belief that Israel is legitimately out to kill them all. Because they are. This in turn will create a new generation of "terrorists" who see violence as the only escape. This is also how Hamas was created. Israel is interested in cleansing the Gaza strip. Whatever the solution to this cycle of violence is (two states, one state...) it first involves stopping Israel immediately and getting the IDF out of Gaza. There is no equation to balance here.
        10mo ago
    - LorenPechtel 10mo ago
      Some facts about that number: 1) It's the total death toll from all causes, including natural causes. 2) The majority of those "journalists and media workers" were Hamas propaganda people. 3) UNRWA had a higher proportion of it's people identified as terrorists than the population at large. 4) It's what Hamas claimed, without any means of verification. Israel showed about 4k were unquestionably false. Hamas also claimed 10,000 buried in the rubble--which never changed. Then when they started digging after the war only some hundreds were found--and Israel caught them planting bodies to be found. And, fundamentally, the death toll proves nothing. Blame war on the side that chooses to fight, not on the side that is successful at fighting. Typically they are one in the same as most countries will not launch a war they don't expect to win. But when a little guy goes and tries to beat up a big guy and gets pounded it's still the guy who started it that's in the wrong.
      - thrance 10mo ago
        1) It's not. In fact, most scholars agree these numbers are way lower than the real one, as those are only the confirmed deaths. 2) Source? The only places where I can read about it are in far right Israeli or American communications. 3) Source? It seems like Israel was interested in labelling UNRWA as a terrorist organization at some point, but there is no evidence to back up their claim. After all, the IDF is known to shoot at journalists and humanitarian aid workers in their strategy to starve Gaza, so it makes sense they would try to discredit the org. 4) I can't find what you're talking about. I think it would be more honest if you simply stated that you are fine with the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, rather that argue about who started what while ignoring the century that Israel's settler-colonial project has existed. This isn't country vs country, this is well-funded colonizer vs colonyzee. More akin to the American expansion over natives territory. Did native American attacks back then justify the US in killing them all? Of course not. Same thing here. Hamas's existence is at least explainable (if not excusable) in the light of a Palestinian population that feared for its lives, and was vindicated in the last few years in thinking that Israel was out to kill them all. Because it is.
        JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > it would be more honest if you simply stated that you are fine with the ethnic cleansing in Gaza You guys have been arguing in good faith and interestingly. You undermine your credibility with insults.
    - brigandish 10mo ago
      Please, be calm and respectful. Firstly, I haven’t mentioned terrorism, nor Palestine or Israel in particular (though that was obviously mentioned by others). What I have given is a way - I maintain - that will separate any groups based on how far or deeply they have been propagandised. Using suicide attacks is clearly one way to do that. It can be used with and without numbers, so referring to the volume of death or the means is not entirely relevant. Firstly, because if we accept that the suicide attacker has been deeply propagandised and radicalised, then there is an argument that they are innocent (at least in the sense that they are also a victim) which only increases they younger they are. Secondly, it is possible to fire a missile at a group containing only people it would be straightforward to justify using force against (e.g. military targets). That is difficult with suicide attackers given the point about innocence made above, and also given the targets for attacks that suicide bombers often choose or have chosen for them (which is why they are associated with terrorism, to the point that you actually misread my comment to such an extent that you replied with a clumsy straw man). So, take your time when responding in such situations, it will benefit your response and everyone involved.
LorenPechtel 10mo ago
Suicide bombers don't make it terrorism. Were the Japanese Kamikaze pilots terrorists? No--their targets were clearly military in nature. Likewise, was the US pilot that kamikaed a terrorist? No. (His plane had no hope of making it back to the carrier, he could have bailed out but the only possible rescue would be from the very fleet he was attacking. No path with a meaningful chance of survival, as soldiers in hopeless situations often do he chose to take as many enemies with him as he could.) Terrorism is about the target, not the means.
- brigandish 10mo ago
  The point was regarding how to ascertain a population had been deeply propagandized and radicalized and tell them apart from others. Terrorism is, as you point out, not necessarily relevant to that. The example of kamikaze pilots also works like suicide bombers to distinguish different groups on those terms. All in all, what you’ve written has the sense of a rebuttal but is acting as support for my point.

All in all, Israel is doing most of the killing here. They have access to more sophisticated weapon, but it's no less barbaric.

brigandish 10mo ago
Using one's own children to suicide bomb is no less barbaric than firing a missile? That's not even true in a mathematical sense, let alone a moral one.
- thrance 10mo ago
  Stop using your thought-terminating clichés about terrorism and look at actual stats: > As of 19 November 2025, over 72,500 people (70,525 Palestinians and 2,109 Israelis) have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including 248 journalists and media workers, 120 academics, and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, a number that includes 179 employees of UNRWA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war How is killing tens of thousands of people less barbaric than killing thousands of people? What kind of twisted morality do you use to excuse mass murder by missiles but not through suicide bombing?
  - hersko 10mo ago
    More Germans died in WW2 than Brits. Guess the Allies were the bad guys.
    - thrance 10mo ago
      Are you fine with the mass killings of civilian populations in Gaza, yes or no? War is ugly, I'm not trying to make the Palestinians into saints, but the other guy is advocating the insane position that Israel can do no wrong, and that them using excessive force is completely justified. I feel like I'm losing my mind, why is it so hard to say "killing tens of thousands of civilians is barbaric"??
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > why is it so hard to say "killing tens of thousands of civilians is barbaric"?? Because it’s not true unless we’re just saying war is barbaric. Which I agree with. But it’s not useful when trying to delineate justified versus excessive force. I agree Israel is using excessive force in Gaza. I also think Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seems committed to continuing to do terrorism. I genuinely haven’t figured out how to balance thsr equation, though I think discussing it without calling someone engaging in good faith a monster/genocider/anti-Semite is a good start.
        thrance 10mo ago
        At some point, you have to call out a genocide for what it is. Many are still quick to rationalize it away, or relay Israeli propaganda about the many killed journalists being Hamas terrorists, or humanitarian aid workers also being Hamas terrorists, or the UN orgs also being Hamas terrorists, etc. You get the gist. This doesn't excuse any crime that Hamas has committed, but anyone still not calling for Israel to move out of Gaza, in light of the many exactions committed by the IDF, is not engaging in good faith, in my book. The continued killings of civilian populations in Gaza is vindicating the Palestinians in their belief that Israel is legitimately out to kill them all. Because they are. This in turn will create a new generation of "terrorists" who see violence as the only escape. This is also how Hamas was created. Israel is interested in cleansing the Gaza strip. Whatever the solution to this cycle of violence is (two states, one state...) it first involves stopping Israel immediately and getting the IDF out of Gaza. There is no equation to balance here.
        10mo ago
  - LorenPechtel 10mo ago
    Some facts about that number: 1) It's the total death toll from all causes, including natural causes. 2) The majority of those "journalists and media workers" were Hamas propaganda people. 3) UNRWA had a higher proportion of it's people identified as terrorists than the population at large. 4) It's what Hamas claimed, without any means of verification. Israel showed about 4k were unquestionably false. Hamas also claimed 10,000 buried in the rubble--which never changed. Then when they started digging after the war only some hundreds were found--and Israel caught them planting bodies to be found. And, fundamentally, the death toll proves nothing. Blame war on the side that chooses to fight, not on the side that is successful at fighting. Typically they are one in the same as most countries will not launch a war they don't expect to win. But when a little guy goes and tries to beat up a big guy and gets pounded it's still the guy who started it that's in the wrong.
    - thrance 10mo ago
      1) It's not. In fact, most scholars agree these numbers are way lower than the real one, as those are only the confirmed deaths. 2) Source? The only places where I can read about it are in far right Israeli or American communications. 3) Source? It seems like Israel was interested in labelling UNRWA as a terrorist organization at some point, but there is no evidence to back up their claim. After all, the IDF is known to shoot at journalists and humanitarian aid workers in their strategy to starve Gaza, so it makes sense they would try to discredit the org. 4) I can't find what you're talking about. I think it would be more honest if you simply stated that you are fine with the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, rather that argue about who started what while ignoring the century that Israel's settler-colonial project has existed. This isn't country vs country, this is well-funded colonizer vs colonyzee. More akin to the American expansion over natives territory. Did native American attacks back then justify the US in killing them all? Of course not. Same thing here. Hamas's existence is at least explainable (if not excusable) in the light of a Palestinian population that feared for its lives, and was vindicated in the last few years in thinking that Israel was out to kill them all. Because it is.
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > it would be more honest if you simply stated that you are fine with the ethnic cleansing in Gaza You guys have been arguing in good faith and interestingly. You undermine your credibility with insults.
  - brigandish 10mo ago
    Please, be calm and respectful. Firstly, I haven’t mentioned terrorism, nor Palestine or Israel in particular (though that was obviously mentioned by others). What I have given is a way - I maintain - that will separate any groups based on how far or deeply they have been propagandised. Using suicide attacks is clearly one way to do that. It can be used with and without numbers, so referring to the volume of death or the means is not entirely relevant. Firstly, because if we accept that the suicide attacker has been deeply propagandised and radicalised, then there is an argument that they are innocent (at least in the sense that they are also a victim) which only increases they younger they are. Secondly, it is possible to fire a missile at a group containing only people it would be straightforward to justify using force against (e.g. military targets). That is difficult with suicide attackers given the point about innocence made above, and also given the targets for attacks that suicide bombers often choose or have chosen for them (which is why they are associated with terrorism, to the point that you actually misread my comment to such an extent that you replied with a clumsy straw man). So, take your time when responding in such situations, it will benefit your response and everyone involved.

LorenPechtel 10mo ago

Suicide bombers don't make it terrorism. Were the Japanese Kamikaze pilots terrorists? No--their targets were clearly military in nature. Likewise, was the US pilot that kamikaed a terrorist? No. (His plane had no hope of making it back to the carrier, he could have bailed out but the only possible rescue would be from the very fleet he was attacking. No path with a meaningful chance of survival, as soldiers in hopeless situations often do he chose to take as many enemies with him as he could.) Terrorism is about the target, not the means.

brigandish 10mo ago
The point was regarding how to ascertain a population had been deeply propagandized and radicalized and tell them apart from others. Terrorism is, as you point out, not necessarily relevant to that. The example of kamikaze pilots also works like suicide bombers to distinguish different groups on those terms. All in all, what you’ve written has the sense of a rebuttal but is acting as support for my point.