6 ms·

> but the Gaza genocide War is not a genocide.

Cyph0n 7mo ago
Wrong, but feel free to replace genocide with whatever term you deem politically correct and try to understand my wider point.
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  > Wrong No, not wrong. Hutu committed genocide. Turks committed genocide against Armenians. But the war in Gaza is not a genocide once you consider facts and compare to other modern conflicts. > and try to understand my wider point Your point is founded on falsehoods.
mikestorrent 7mo ago
So edgy; is being an apologist really the noble calling you think it is? Both are just words, mappings to concepts in our minds; "genocide" is an invented term, but it has a widely shared definition that the UN helped formalize, and in the minds of many, many people all over the world, the term applies here. "War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone. Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done; we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them.
- klipt 7mo ago
  Doesn't the Geneva Convention state that if militants build an underground base beneath a civilian building, that civilian building becomes a military target? Gaza is Swiss-cheesed with hundreds of miles of military tunnels. If any attack on a tunnel is disallowed because of civilian buildings above it, I predict many countries will start adopting the Hamas strategy of putting military bases under civilian buildings. That way, every attack on your bases becomes a war crime by your enemy - you can't lose!
  - mikestorrent 7mo ago
    I do not blame the people of Palestine for taking the defensive actions they deem correct. I do not consent to the idea of civilians becoming legitimate targets due to defensive architecture. Yes, war crimes are being committed; your comment makes you bear complicity to them, in a small degree, as you serve as an apologist for such actions online. Of course, both of our posting is pointless, as we know neither will convince the other. You have an advantage in that your particular side is in power; but I bite my thumb at you.
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      > I do not blame the people of Palestine for taking the defensive actions they deem correct. > your comment makes you bear complicity to them, in a small degree, as you serve as an apologist for such actions online. Can Israelis act as they see fit in defense, or no?
      - mikestorrent 7mo ago
        It appears as though they will act as they see fit - defensively or otherwise - regardless of my position on the topic.
        reliabilityguy 7mo ago
        > It appears as though they will act as they see fit - defensively or otherwise - regardless of my position on the topic. Well, you stated your position multiple times w.r.t. Palestinian rights, so I think for the sake of completeness you can state your position on the rights of Israelis as well. So, do the Israelis have a right to act as they see fit, or no?
  - hirvi74 7mo ago
    > Doesn't the Geneva Convention state that if militants build an underground base beneath a civilian building, that civilian building becomes a military target? I am not sure it truly even matters, practically speaking. Laws that cannot be enforced are merely suggestions.
- dvt 7mo ago
  > So edgy; is being an apologist really the noble calling you think it is? Is it your noble calling? From the Temporary Constitution of the State of Palestine (2026)[1]: Article 4 – Islam, Sharia and Christianity 1. Islam is the official religion in the State of Palestine. 2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation. Not sure how anyone can possibly defend a literal religious autocracy, especially while espousing liberal ideals (right to self-determination, statehood, free markets, rule of law, etc.). [1] https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026.02%20-%20Draft%20constitution%20%28English%29.pdf https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026...
  - mikestorrent 7mo ago
    We can see that your own noble calling is to be an apologist for a genocidal state. It's a pity that in reality you likely do not actually get paid for the task, though I must imagine you have people accusing you of that on a regular basis. I'm not sure if it would improve or worsen the moral calculus if you did. I have no issue with Islam being the religion of Palestine, at least not an issue so strong that murdering its people seems like the correct path forward to me. I suppose your moral reasoning differs on the topic, but it's obviously motivated reasoning based on loyalties I cannot share.
  - inigyou 7mo ago
    Isn't Israel a Jewish state with Jewish law? If you hated theocratic countries, you'd hate both. Palestine doesn't have a government, anyway. Israel destroyed it. Its former temporary constitution is completely irrelevant.
    - simplyaccont 7mo ago
      Not Jewish law. Mix of Common Law with with some leftovers of Ottoman law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_law Government that doesn't exist in your opinion, is sitting in UN as observer state and just opened an embassy in London https://news.sky.com/story/palestinian-embassy-in-london-opens-in-historic-moment-13490822 https://news.sky.com/story/palestinian-embassy-in-london-ope... And "Former temporary constitution" was actually published last week. It's date on the first page
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  > is being an apologist really the noble calling you think it is? Both are just words, mappings to concepts in our minds; "genocide" is an invented term, but it has a widely shared definition that the UN helped formalize Great. Which describes a very specific thing. good. > and in the minds of many, many people all over the world, the term applies here. In minds of many people many things were acceptable. I am not sure this kind of reasoning is a good strategy. In minds of many Hutu, Tutsi did not deserve to live. Were Hutu right? > "War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone. This is very good point. Unfortunately, Palestinians did not follow Geneva convention. Firing unguided rockets in barrages towards population centers with the goal of overwhelming air defense systems is very much non-conventional. > Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done; How come? Do you see a difference between saying "it's okay to kill civilians" and debating the merits of using one term vs. another to describe an event? > we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them. It seems to me an easy way out. Why discuss the merits of an argument, if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away?
  - mikestorrent 7mo ago
    > Were Hutu right? I don't need to involve other conflicts in this situation. This is a "whataboutism". Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment. I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we? > if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away I'm not walking away, but surely we can both see that there will be no agreement between us. All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep.
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      > I don't need to involve other conflicts in this situation. This is a "whataboutism". No, “whataboutism” is using shifting a conversation to a different issue. For example: Person A: "The democrats did X!" Person B: "But the republicans..." Person B is engaging in whataboutism. I am not discussing Hutu. What I am doing is I am providing you an example why the reasoning that majority is never wrong is a fallacy via an example. > Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment. Neither because of yours. Palestinians shoot rockets towards civilians for the past 20 years. Tells us quite a lot who’s the “genocidal” here. > I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we? I am not trying to change your mind. I am posting here for others to see your double standards and flaws in your reasoning. They will see and judge themselves. > All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep. Interesting choice of words here. Should I ask you not to blow yourself on the bus, or in a cafe? Or in a wedding? This is good that you wrote it, it shows exactly what I wanted to see.

Wrong, but feel free to replace genocide with whatever term you deem politically correct and try to understand my wider point.

reliabilityguy 7mo ago
> Wrong No, not wrong. Hutu committed genocide. Turks committed genocide against Armenians. But the war in Gaza is not a genocide once you consider facts and compare to other modern conflicts. > and try to understand my wider point Your point is founded on falsehoods.

mikestorrent 7mo ago

So edgy; is being an apologist really the noble calling you think it is? Both are just words, mappings to concepts in our minds; "genocide" is an invented term, but it has a widely shared definition that the UN helped formalize, and in the minds of many, many people all over the world, the term applies here. "War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone. Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done; we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them.

klipt 7mo ago
Doesn't the Geneva Convention state that if militants build an underground base beneath a civilian building, that civilian building becomes a military target? Gaza is Swiss-cheesed with hundreds of miles of military tunnels. If any attack on a tunnel is disallowed because of civilian buildings above it, I predict many countries will start adopting the Hamas strategy of putting military bases under civilian buildings. That way, every attack on your bases becomes a war crime by your enemy - you can't lose!
- mikestorrent 7mo ago
  I do not blame the people of Palestine for taking the defensive actions they deem correct. I do not consent to the idea of civilians becoming legitimate targets due to defensive architecture. Yes, war crimes are being committed; your comment makes you bear complicity to them, in a small degree, as you serve as an apologist for such actions online. Of course, both of our posting is pointless, as we know neither will convince the other. You have an advantage in that your particular side is in power; but I bite my thumb at you.
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    > I do not blame the people of Palestine for taking the defensive actions they deem correct. > your comment makes you bear complicity to them, in a small degree, as you serve as an apologist for such actions online. Can Israelis act as they see fit in defense, or no?
    - mikestorrent 7mo ago
      It appears as though they will act as they see fit - defensively or otherwise - regardless of my position on the topic.
      - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
        > It appears as though they will act as they see fit - defensively or otherwise - regardless of my position on the topic. Well, you stated your position multiple times w.r.t. Palestinian rights, so I think for the sake of completeness you can state your position on the rights of Israelis as well. So, do the Israelis have a right to act as they see fit, or no?
- hirvi74 7mo ago
  > Doesn't the Geneva Convention state that if militants build an underground base beneath a civilian building, that civilian building becomes a military target? I am not sure it truly even matters, practically speaking. Laws that cannot be enforced are merely suggestions.
dvt 7mo ago
> So edgy; is being an apologist really the noble calling you think it is? Is it your noble calling? From the Temporary Constitution of the State of Palestine (2026)[1]: Article 4 – Islam, Sharia and Christianity 1. Islam is the official religion in the State of Palestine. 2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation. Not sure how anyone can possibly defend a literal religious autocracy, especially while espousing liberal ideals (right to self-determination, statehood, free markets, rule of law, etc.). [1] https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026.02%20-%20Draft%20constitution%20%28English%29.pdf https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026...
- mikestorrent 7mo ago
  We can see that your own noble calling is to be an apologist for a genocidal state. It's a pity that in reality you likely do not actually get paid for the task, though I must imagine you have people accusing you of that on a regular basis. I'm not sure if it would improve or worsen the moral calculus if you did. I have no issue with Islam being the religion of Palestine, at least not an issue so strong that murdering its people seems like the correct path forward to me. I suppose your moral reasoning differs on the topic, but it's obviously motivated reasoning based on loyalties I cannot share.
- inigyou 7mo ago
  Isn't Israel a Jewish state with Jewish law? If you hated theocratic countries, you'd hate both. Palestine doesn't have a government, anyway. Israel destroyed it. Its former temporary constitution is completely irrelevant.
  - simplyaccont 7mo ago
    Not Jewish law. Mix of Common Law with with some leftovers of Ottoman law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_law Government that doesn't exist in your opinion, is sitting in UN as observer state and just opened an embassy in London https://news.sky.com/story/palestinian-embassy-in-london-opens-in-historic-moment-13490822 https://news.sky.com/story/palestinian-embassy-in-london-ope... And "Former temporary constitution" was actually published last week. It's date on the first page
reliabilityguy 7mo ago
> is being an apologist really the noble calling you think it is? Both are just words, mappings to concepts in our minds; "genocide" is an invented term, but it has a widely shared definition that the UN helped formalize Great. Which describes a very specific thing. good. > and in the minds of many, many people all over the world, the term applies here. In minds of many people many things were acceptable. I am not sure this kind of reasoning is a good strategy. In minds of many Hutu, Tutsi did not deserve to live. Were Hutu right? > "War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone. This is very good point. Unfortunately, Palestinians did not follow Geneva convention. Firing unguided rockets in barrages towards population centers with the goal of overwhelming air defense systems is very much non-conventional. > Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done; How come? Do you see a difference between saying "it's okay to kill civilians" and debating the merits of using one term vs. another to describe an event? > we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them. It seems to me an easy way out. Why discuss the merits of an argument, if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away?
- mikestorrent 7mo ago
  > Were Hutu right? I don't need to involve other conflicts in this situation. This is a "whataboutism". Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment. I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we? > if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away I'm not walking away, but surely we can both see that there will be no agreement between us. All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep.
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    > I don't need to involve other conflicts in this situation. This is a "whataboutism". No, “whataboutism” is using shifting a conversation to a different issue. For example: Person A: "The democrats did X!" Person B: "But the republicans..." Person B is engaging in whataboutism. I am not discussing Hutu. What I am doing is I am providing you an example why the reasoning that majority is never wrong is a fallacy via an example. > Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment. Neither because of yours. Palestinians shoot rockets towards civilians for the past 20 years. Tells us quite a lot who’s the “genocidal” here. > I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we? I am not trying to change your mind. I am posting here for others to see your double standards and flaws in your reasoning. They will see and judge themselves. > All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep. Interesting choice of words here. Should I ask you not to blow yourself on the bus, or in a cafe? Or in a wedding? This is good that you wrote it, it shows exactly what I wanted to see.