JCauto

It doesn't take much effort to find if you wanted to, but you never did, you're just trolling. Every so often one of you is serious and interested in engaging in debate. But seldom is it you. Whatever.

You asked a direct question for which I gave you a plausible answer. Research is clear that children are more inspired by role models who look like they do or come from the same backgrounds that they do. Why is everything about sex to you guys?

At least she inspires young black women. Who does Meathead Ron inspire? Guys who like to wear high heels?

No need. Have you ever seen a less inspiring politician?

Yes, there are some factions who want that, they are the extreme Right and religious parties. Israel is a democracy with dozens of factions. Those factions are fringe parties although they have managed to attain some power within this awful far-Right Israeli government of Netanyahu. However they will be voted out in the next election for the mess they made. They have been trying to co-opt the judiciary's power as well, but hundreds of thousands went into the street to stop it. Israel is a democracy. Arab Israelis vote and their representatives sit in the Knesset (their Parliament). Hamas last held a vote in 2005 and executed much of their PLO opposition in Gaza. They are the ones in control and have been since that time. Their policy is unequivocal and they have never recanted it despite numerous opportunities to do so. There is a difference, can you see that?

I feel for both sides as well, as should any empathetic person. But there's fundamental differences. Yes, you got the original problem correct, but you diverged somewhere in paragraph 2 before going off the rails in para 3. I don't even know who Douglas Murray or what Talk TV is. The history of the establishment of Israel and pre-Israeli Palestinian history is complex and controversial. Because it offers avenues for different sides to "claim" things, it is going to be forever fought over and never agreed upon. I don't think a topic exists that is more suited to "whataboutism" and two people can just trade those from now until entropic death. While there were Arabs displaced in Israel, it seems seldom mentioned how the Jews were pretty much all expelled from their homes in the surrounding lands where they'd also lived for centuries. The difference being that of course they could go to Israel whereas the Arabs aren't keen on accepting their fellow displaced Muslims. I don't think there was some magical solution out there to make this all Kumbaya, but there were considerable efforts made to try to get peace to occur. The Oslo Accords, etc. They were rejected unfortunately, and while the deal would have been skewed towards the Israeli interest as they held the upper hand in terms of power at the time, by summarily rejecting it and not trying to develop their own areas in favour of continuous conflict, they have ended up in this place. Extremists on both sides have been delighted to maintain this unhappy status quo and whenever there seems to be a chance for it to stop they make damn sure things ramp up again. Recall that Hamas leadership stated very clearly just before and after this kicked off that the driving impetus behind these attacks was the potential peace deal between the Saudis and the Israelis, something they simply would not accept and would do anything to scuttle. So they have. Remember what happened to Yitzhak Rabin when he tried to play peacemaker - a fanatic from the Israeli Right murdered him. Hamas have never changed their charter or policy which is to drive every Israeli into the sea. They reject any peace talks, they inculcate hatred into their children from an early age, they broke the ceasefire and attacked civilian populations without attempting to attack any military installations. They have used the billions in aid they receive to build tunnels and buy weapons and pay terrorists who successfully murder Jews. Until Hamas is crippled and their leadership is eliminated this will not change. As to journalism and coverage, how is it that nobody is talking about the geo-political roots of this current conflict and how it is obviously tied to the Russia-Ukraine War. Putin is clearly the winner in the Israel-Hamas conflict and they've thrown the weight of the Russian disinformation machine behind Hamas. It's how so many of the "enlightened" on the Left in the West have been happily re-broadcasting the Hamas propaganda. So the idea that this is all "one-way journalism" is absurd to me, it's just that "journalism" is so different than what we had before it's not being recognized. It's information and culture war without reliable sources who are dispassionate and objective.

The Israelis are also investigating as this was the actual topic of the article that you posted - the Police were asking for witnesses as they were having trouble finding them in their ongoing investigation. Whether they have "international approval", whatever that means, is not something that either was discussed or mentioned. So you are once again deliberately obfuscating in your response; nobody said anything about "international approval", YOU posted that the Israelis have not allowed "ANY" investigations. This is clearly not true. If you wish to be seen as someone with integrity and credibility, then you need to proofread your posts and remove language that is incorrect or unclear or deliberately emotive. Your errors in this regard all changed the sentences to make things look far far worse for the Israelis than if you had been careful and used the correct terminology. This points to a bias, whether conscious or unconscious. You are claiming that this is unconscious, and as you're not the usual sort of poster who immediately starts into whataboutism or name-calling, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it would behoove you to carefully check your posts when they're about such an emotive and controversial topic.

I guess you don't understand how fora work? When you respond to me, I receive a notification of said response. I then can review it and respond back to you. This is how it works. Just answer the question and I'll stop pointing out your hypocrisy and innate racism.

Well, that changes your post quite a bit now, doesn't it? And the reason they don't have evidence YET is that they're still investigating it as was clearly stated in that article is that they're having issues because those affected were also killed, there weren't a lot of witnesses to these crimes and those who are still around are traumatized. In other words, there are no conclusions yet as to the veracity of systemic rape one way or the other although there certainly is evidence of Hamas fighters saying they were instructed to do so and rape clearly happened. So you are basically admitting that you made an ill-considered post that contains misstatements and errors. Why should we believe anything else you write when you're so lacking in care and so full of self-righteous anger that you're willing to twist words for impact and don't bother to check your facts? As to the Doctor's evidence, it is VERY clear from the articles that they told the doctors not to talk to that one specific UN agency who is investigating because they believe it is anti-Israeli and biased. To state as you did that "Israel has instructed its doctors not to allow any investigations into any of their claims" is yet another example of a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. They did NOT! That I have caught you out twice now lying and deliberately misrepresenting the article you linked to yourself shows your bias. YOU. ARE. NOT. CREDIBLE.

So your new line of BS is "I just went to wikipedia because I couldn't spell "Nikki Haley" and it just happened to have her maiden name on it? LOL. You're a really bad liar. Allow me to make it crystal clear. You wrote her Indian name alongside the name she is running for President under along with her maiden name next to it, something you haven't done for any other person who is running for president or whom is a famous politician. You then noted immediately thereafter that she seems "untrustworthy for some reason". This is called a "racist dogwhistle". We know because you don't go to wikipedia to find out the real and maiden names of other politicians and don't refer to the other politicians who use a different name in their public life. Get it?

Now shall we look a bit more deeply into this highly suspect post? NO JOURNALIST HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY RAPE. This is a lie, an outright and blatant lie. Name the (credible) journalist. You won't because you can't. "Israel has instructed its doctors not to allow any investigations into any of their claims" - there is no evidence for this. The article you posted did NOT say there was no evidence for any of this BS. In fact, you deliberately linked to an article written in Hebrew that non-Israelis cannot read. The article is also behind a paywall. But you can observe the headline and sub-headline quite clearly. Here they are: 'It Takes Strength to Speak Out' | Israeli Police Ask Victims and Witnesses to Testify About Hamas Sexual Violence Most of the victims of Hamas sexual violence on October 7 were killed, taken hostage or are in a state of psychological distress and unable to testify. Israel's police investigators are now appealing to the public to encourage living victims or witnesses to contact them and give evidence. So does that say there is no evidence for any of this BS? NO IT DOES NOT. It says that they're having difficulty finding witnesses for the reasons clearly stated. Dead women also tell no tales. You're a joke and deliberately are painting a false picture here. You have no credibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks

So much effort to disprove what is obvious to anyone who read your original post. Explain to me - why haven't you written "Rafael Ted Cruz" or used the maiden name of any of the other female politicians whom you write about? That's the question I put to you. Pretty simple. Now give us an answer, not more obfuscation and diversion.

Sure it is! I am sure that when you discuss other female politicians you also take care to make sure their maiden names are included, right? When you talk about Lauren Boebert you put in "(née Roberts)", correct? Must be exhausting to have to remember everyone's maiden name. Tell me, when you discuss Ted Cruz, do you refer to him as "Rafael Ted Cruz"? You don't. Why just this time? Any reason you simply wrote her original Indian names along the ones that she is known by followed by "There is something untrustworthy and unlikeable (sic) about her." The only thing you have provided that you could possibly be alluding to is her original Indian names. This is called racist dog-whistling. You're following the script by claiming innocence afterwards disingenuously. Yep, all the signs are there, you're a Trumper!

That's a lot of extraneous text to basically state "she's not White, so I don't like her." But we knew that already, as you're a Trump supporter so racism is your "brand".

Now we're coming thankfully towards the end. You're down to sophistry and misrepresentation; once you get there, there's not long before you throw your toys out of the pram and storm off declaring victory. Read this carefully. The ICRC claims that disproportionate response is a war crime. They do not give a black and white definition of what "disproportionate" is, and it does not demand a standard of "one to one" for damage. This is entirely made up whole cloth by you to support your opinion. The ICRC did NOT declare the Israel is undertaking their current operation with disproportionate force. If you want to understand more about proportionality and how one might determine it, then look at their case study on operation Cast Lead from 2008-2009. It's the same players so very relevant. You'll find all of your beliefs to be incorrect and your absurd ideas about proportionality to be those of a child, not an informed and rational adult. No doubt though, you'll just cherrypick a few sentences that support your case. The weight of the document proves how wrong that is. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israelgaza-operation-cast-lead Now I ask again. Which country has been involved in war and not engaged extensively in war crimes according to your definition? You've been asked twice. What's your answer?

Oh, I see. Is there someone else signed into your account that typed the sentence? You should change your password.

Wow, what a great debater you are. I give you an itemized and detailed rebuttal to your post and you refuse to engage or respond because you know you are left exposed and bereft of any credibility. I have responded in detail. If you refuse to then you have nothing. Just accept your lack of understanding and leave the keyboard in favour of educating yourself. Although based on your logical abilities and reasoning, you've got quite a lot of work ahead of you.

Your last sentence is entirely opinion, there is not demonstrated proof you have provided to make such a claim. There is no "quite clearly" here, and we've provided you dozens of examples of why what you believe is not factual or is otherwise biased against Israel whom you insist on applying an entirely different standard to.

Thanks for directly proving my point and every single fact I put out in my response post. This is why we call you out and demand proof and sources for your outrageous claims. So as per your reference, the ICRC, these are NOT indiscriminate attacks: 1. There is a military objective, to destroy Hamas infrastructure and get at the terrorists who committed war crimes against a civilian population from a declared enemy who broke a ceasefire and calls for the complete destruction of Israel and its people - this has been proven by the Hamas bases, tunnels, weapons and places they kept the hostages in the hospitals and other locations; 2. The means of combat are directed at a specific military objective, the tunnels under the buildings and terrorists hiding there, and these are militarily-appropriate methods; 3. The effects cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict - it is widely accepted that bombing is a viable weapon used in warfare and despite the inevitability of "collateral damage" this has never been to my knowledge used as a basis for a trial or conviction under international law. Did the Allies get any approbation or penalties for the fire-bombing of Dresden, for example? 4. Examples you used are ALSO the examples that I used. Glad to see we have come to a concurrence. You are now aware and on record as acknowledging the war crime and prohibition of the Hamas' rockets for example. So there is an ongoing trial to determine whether the IDF have committed any indiscriminate attacks among other issues including the spurious claims of genocide. Let's see what the result of that is before we conclude anything shall we, given that there is no consistency and by your absurd standards every single nation that has ever engaged in war is now a war criminal nation and all those involved in their military and politics are war criminals. I ask you one more time. Name a nation that has engaged in war for any reason that has not violated your ridiculous standards. Just one. You can't and you won't. Quod Erat Demonstratum.

Thanks for confirming that you know nothing about international law and that your points are so trivial as to be meaningless. I'll disengage as I don't waste my time on people without the ability to process thoughts in a logical manner but who simply emote after picking sides.

I think piggy pokers are spiral, no? Perhaps this poor fella has a bit of a fractal phallus and failed to gain satisfaction with partners of his own species? There's a pig in a poke, and then there's a poke in a pig! TIT!

So in your opinion, every single event in history where a bomb was dropped and there were civilians present was a war crime? I am seriously doubting this. It makes "war crime" a triviality in my opinion if this is the case, because it essentially outlaws aerial bombardment or artillery, or for that matter anyone tossing a grenade somewhere without first securing the area and checking that there's no civilians stuck there. Not that I'm a big fan of aerial bombardment, artillery or close combat, but essentially if you make a rule where every single country engaging in war is then guilty of being a "war criminal", then there's no constraint on any behaviour and you might as well not have any rules. Name a single country engaged in war that has done so without by your definition engaging in a "war crime". It's not Hamas, since by your definition they're war criminals too since they fire rockets at civilian populations. What is the benefit to making everything a war crime and everyone engaged in the military a war criminal? Until humanity achieves a higher consciousness this is just trite.

So when you inform the public that an area is about to be bombed and tell them to evacuate because you're attacking a military target embedded in an area of civilian infrastructure and homes, you consider this to be indiscriminate. Is that correct? When you bomb an area that appears to be a civilian hospital or school then your ground operations expose that it was, in fact, a military installation hidden within the civilian infrastructure, is this then still indiscriminate bombing? Or was it actually targeted all along? Even if they targeted it and find it wasn't a military installation, then it's actually not indiscriminate, it's an intelligence failure. Of course, we could call all war an intelligence failure on the part of humans, but that's besides the point. Do you think they're deliberately trying to miss their targets when they start the bombing that they informed the populace about? Or do you think they're deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to inflict damage and pain? That's also not indiscriminate bombing. Indiscriminate bombing is something like carpet bombing, not targeted at all. Something like firing rockets towards a country without knowing or caring where they land. Something like the air campaign over Germany that had targets but no precision about how to hit them nor care about what happened to the population so they just bombed the crap out of it. So no, I don't see this as indiscriminate bombing. It's targeted and deliberate and aimed at specific military installations, infrastructure, personnel and command and control centers. Does this mean it doesn't cause damage around and elsewhere? No, of course it does, there is no "precision bombing" and there is lots of "collateral damage" but these are all nice language tricks to distract people from the horror of war. Unfortunately, this is about as "clean" as it gets. Hamas deliberately puts their military infrastructure in these places and this is why we say they're using the population as human shields. Contrast what's happening in Gaza with what's happening in Ukraine. Do you think there is more or less indiscriminate bombing in Ukraine? Do you think they're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine? I think there's more indiscriminate bombing and more targeting. But it's just less dense in terms of population in most of the places where the bombing is happening - until it isn't and then a Ukrainian city is completely leveled and destroyed and the casualties among the population rise. Look forward to your "thoughts" on these points.

You've become unhinged unfortunately. Listen to your own words - I have different views on other topics because they're not about the elimination of all the Palestinians in Gaza...what does that have to do with your views on other topics? How do your views on the current Israel-Hamas conflict affect your understanding of the African National Congress from decades ago? Why does it make you attempt to draw such an absurd parallel? Do you think this is some internet jihad you're engaging in and you'll somehow win us all over by spouting nonsense? And while a few Far Right nutters in the Israeli government have said stuff as they always do, who said Israel is trying to eliminate all the Palestinians in Gaza? While we both agree that we strongly dislike Netanyahu, he said this six days ago "I want to make a few points absolutely clear,” Netanyahu said. “Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law.” I guess we'll find out about the last part in the Netherlands after a few years. But stop trying to pretend that this isn't exactly what Hamas wanted when they undertook their pogrom on 7 October. Would I like to see the Right in Israel voted out of power and a new government pursue peace? Sure, you mean the Israeli Left like Rabin/Peres? They pursued peace and got an accord before it was rejected and the Palestinian people chose a cynical path forward. How did that go? Why didn't that work? Who walked away from the negotiating table? There are thick books written about this, and I'm not an expert, but it was a genuine attempt at establishing peace and got to a certain point in the mid-90s before it all collapsed because of hardliners on both sides. And as it benefited them, the hardliners have just pushed the conflict further and further as this ensures their ability to either scare the populace into voting them back in (regardless of these people already being convicted of corruption charges) or prevent another vote from ever happening since 2005. Now it's almost impossible for either side to elect peace-seeking leaders. But you would blame this exclusively on the Israelis I suppose. The Palestinians are just innocent children? I do like your solution of locking them all in a room to fight to the death, but it would end with just more on both sides ready and willing to replace them. It's pretty intractable at this point. I don't see how it moves forward with Hamas intact and in power. They've been crystal clear that they have zero interest in peace of any sort, anywhere, with anyone. The Netanyahus of the world are happy to take advantage of this intransigence to push their own fascist visions forward.