3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your selection of news sources says it all really.

Strange you didn't say the same about, Somjot, It's almost like you have an agenda?

8 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Really, what precisely does it say?

Again, seriously??

You are quoting an article from the Jewish federation which works for the Jewish community for a bright Jewish future of the Jewish identity by building bridges with Israel.

And two articles from the The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy with the aim of strengthening U.S. national security and reducing or eliminating threats posed by adversaries and enemies of the United States.

You expect us to believe they´re neutral, unbiased and honest.

That's like trying to convince us to set the wolf to guard the sheep!

Again, the IDF is intentionally murdering children.

They admit it themselves. Sometimes even proudly.

Stop presenting us hasbara lies which might have worked in the first few months after October 7 but not anymore.

That's an insult to our intelligence.

13 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Claiming the IDF actively targets children ignores both International Humanitarian Law and basic military strategy:

That is exactly what Israel has been doing for seven decades now: ignoring international law.

There is a reason why Israel has received more United Nations resolutions and condemnations than any other country.

13 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Israel gains zero tactical or geopolitical advantage from civilian deaths, which only bring severe international condemnation and political isolation!

Israel has always given a flying F**** About international condemnation and political isolation as they have infiltrated the governments and the media of the most powerful countries.

And if you think murdering children ignores basic military strategy, you are more than naive.

Sure, officially it does, as military strategy is supposed to respect humanitarian law.

However, as Israel's goal is—and always has been—'Greater Israel,' the best way to steal land from a people is by destroying their future.

Children are always the future of a people. Take that away, and those people will disappear.

Not to mention the immense psychological impact when your enemy is intentionally slaughtering your children.

Speaking of.

Do you know how many schools and universities in Iran have been hit in the recent US Israeli conflict?

32 universities and 857 schools

How many schools and universities did Iran hit in Israel?

Zero.

Who are the terrorists now?

8 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Strange you didn't say the same about, Somjot, It's almost like you have an agenda?

I try to quote only reliable news sources but I am aware that a few might be a bit more on the left or the right, but their reports are factual.

Smokey`s sources were not news sources but political institutions.

And yes, I have a very clear agenda:

None are as innocent as little children.

None are as guilty as those who kill or mutilate them.

4 hours ago, Somjot said:

You expect us to believe they´re neutral, unbiased and honest.

Could you (or anyone else) please name a source which you feel is "neutral, unbiased and honest?"

8 hours ago, Somjot said:

Again, seriously??

You are quoting an article from the Jewish federation which works for the Jewish community for a bright Jewish future of the Jewish identity by building bridges with Israel.

And two articles from the The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy with the aim of strengthening U.S. national security and reducing or eliminating threats posed by adversaries and enemies of the United States.

You expect us to believe they´re neutral, unbiased and honest.

That's like trying to convince us to set the wolf to guard the sheep!

Again, the IDF is intentionally murdering children.

They admit it themselves. Sometimes even proudly.

Stop presenting us hasbara lies which might have worked in the first few months after October 7 but not anymore.

That's an insult to our intelligence.

That is exactly what Israel has been doing for seven decades now: ignoring international law.

There is a reason why Israel has received more United Nations resolutions and condemnations than any other country.

Israel has always given a flying F**** About international condemnation and political isolation as they have infiltrated the governments and the media of the most powerful countries.

And if you think murdering children ignores basic military strategy, you are more than naive.

Sure, officially it does, as military strategy is supposed to respect humanitarian law.

However, as Israel's goal is—and always has been—'Greater Israel,' the best way to steal land from a people is by destroying their future.

Children are always the future of a people. Take that away, and those people will disappear.

Not to mention the immense psychological impact when your enemy is intentionally slaughtering your children.

Speaking of.

Do you know how many schools and universities in Iran have been hit in the recent US Israeli conflict?

32 universities and 857 schools

How many schools and universities did Iran hit in Israel?

Zero.

Who are the terrorists now?

Attack the methodology, not the masthead.

Attempting to dismiss documented factual evidence simply because a non-profit or foreign policy think tank hosted the paper is the ultimate form of lazy ad hominem—a convenient trapdoor for when you cannot actually refute the data itself.

If a research institute cites verifiable launch telemetry, radar tracks, or primary military source documents, the underlying evidence remains unchanged regardless of whose logo sits on the cover page.

Snarky analogies about wolves and sheep do not magically erase hard primary data, nor do they turn emotional rhetoric, which you obviously love, into an objective rebuttal.

The claim that a professional military maintains an official policy of "intentionally murdering children" is not just legally absurd; it demonstrates a profound, almost impressive ignorance of basic urban warfare dynamics and international humanitarian law.

There is a vast structural and moral chasm between a military operating against combatants deeply embedded within civilian infrastructure under strict rules of engagement, and a terror group that fires unguided rockets directly at suburban apartment blocks with zero tactical objective other than maximizing civilian deaths, which is precisely what Hamas do.

Throwing around internet buzzwords like "hasbara" and pretending that deliberate, indiscriminate terrorism is functionally identical to high-density combat collateral damage isn't just an insult to intelligence—it's a complete surrender to ideological dogma.

8 hours ago, Somjot said:

That is exactly what Israel has been doing for seven decades now: ignoring international law.

There is a reason why Israel has received more United Nations resolutions and condemnations than any other country.

Conflating UN General Assembly resolutions with objective legal truth fundamentally misunderstands how international diplomacy works.

UN General Assembly votes are non-binding political expressions driven by geopolitical blocs—most notably the 56-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement—not impartial judicial verdicts handed down by a court of law. Treating a majority vote in a political assembly as ironclad legal proof is like determining guilt in a criminal trial by taking a public poll rather than examining forensic evidence.

Using the sheer volume of UN condemnations as proof of systemic wrongdoing relies on a completely circular argument that ignores the UN's well-documented structural obsession.

When the UN General Assembly routinely passes more condemnatory resolutions against Israel in a single year than against Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China combined, it does not prove that Israel commits more violations than the rest of the world put together; it proves that the UN's voting mechanism is heavily politicized. Citing a biased political tally to validate the claim of illegal targeting is using the bias itself as the proof.

9 hours ago, Somjot said:

Israel has always given a flying F**** About international condemnation and political isolation as they have infiltrated the governments and the media of the most powerful countries.

And if you think murdering children ignores basic military strategy, you are more than naive.

Sure, officially it does, as military strategy is supposed to respect humanitarian law.

However, as Israel's goal is—and always has been—'Greater Israel,' the best way to steal land from a people is by destroying their future.

Children are always the future of a people. Take that away, and those people will disappear.

Not to mention the immense psychological impact when your enemy is intentionally slaughtering your children.

Speaking of.

Do you know how many schools and universities in Iran have been hit in the recent US Israeli conflict?

32 universities and 857 schools

How many schools and universities did Iran hit in Israel?

Zero.

Relying on classic, unsubstantiated conspiracy tropes about shadowy figures controlling foreign governments and media is a convenient way to avoid dealing with hard tactical facts.

Resorting to grand "Greater Israel" existential theories entirely ignores the operational reality of how modern air and standoff strikes actually work.

Militaries do not waste multimillion-dollar precision-guided munitions or commit flight hours to target children for "psychological impact", they execute deliberate target packages against military infrastructure, intelligence nodes, and command installations.

Conflating the tragic, inevitable collateral damage that occurs when non-state actors embed themselves within civilian populations with a grand genocidal master plan is a complete inversion of basic operational logic.

Parroting unverified state-controlled claims—like the specific "32 universities and 857 schools" figure released directly by Tehran's state press outlets—without applying an ounce of critical thinking is the definition of selective belief and ignorance.

Treating statistical output from an active combatant's propaganda ministry as objective truth while ignoring Iran's decades-long history of targeting civilian infrastructure across the region—from launching unguided ballistic missiles and suicide drones directly into populated urban centers to funding proxy rocket salvos aimed explicitly at cities—is pure cognitive dissonance.

Measuring moral authority by relying on state-issued damage tallies rather than analyzing operational intent and launch conduct is a complete failure of objective analysis.

When you then add an AI generated political meme, that is totally fabricated, it proves you have lost the plot!

11 hours ago, Somjot said:

I try to quote only reliable news sources but I am aware that a few might be a bit more on the left or the right, but their reports are factual.

Smokey`s sources were not news sources but political institutions.

And yes, I have a very clear agenda:

None are as innocent as little children.

None are as guilty as those who kill or mutilate them.

Most msm is biased, one way or the other, its difficult to find completely neutral articles.

The ones you quoted, especially aljazeera is well known for being biased and sensationalistic, as its based in Qatar.

As you have an agenda, you cannot be impartial or fair and balanced?

13 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Attack the methodology, not the masthead.

Attempting to dismiss documented factual evidence simply because a non-profit or foreign policy think tank hosted the paper is the ultimate form of lazy ad hominem—a convenient trapdoor for when you cannot actually refute the data itself.

If a research institute cites verifiable launch telemetry, radar tracks, or primary military source documents, the underlying evidence remains unchanged regardless of whose logo sits on the cover page.

Snarky analogies about wolves and sheep do not magically erase hard primary data, nor do they turn emotional rhetoric, which you obviously love, into an objective rebuttal.

The claim that a professional military maintains an official policy of "intentionally murdering children" is not just legally absurd; it demonstrates a profound, almost impressive ignorance of basic urban warfare dynamics and international humanitarian law.

There is a vast structural and moral chasm between a military operating against combatants deeply embedded within civilian infrastructure under strict rules of engagement, and a terror group that fires unguided rockets directly at suburban apartment blocks with zero tactical objective other than maximizing civilian deaths, which is precisely what Hamas do.

Throwing around internet buzzwords like "hasbara" and pretending that deliberate, indiscriminate terrorism is functionally identical to high-density combat collateral damage isn't just an insult to intelligence—it's a complete surrender to ideological dogma.

Relying on the abstract legal defense of 'collateral damage' completely crumbles when confronted with the reality documented on the ground. This isn't a matter of internet buzzwords; it is a matter of documented records by the world's highest neutral authorities.

A detailed investigation by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry explicitly concluded that Israeli security forces have deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children, finding that these acts were not incidental, but part of a calculated strategy. When an army consistently drops heavy munitions on designated 'safe zones' and bombs over half of the UN-run schools serving as civilian shelters, the mass death of innocents is no longer an accidental byproduct of urban warfare—it is a conscious, premeditated choice.

Furthermore, organizations like Human Rights Watch have documented a horrific, repeating pattern of Israeli forces opening live fire directly onto crowds of unarmed civilians waiting in food aid lines.

In moral philosophy and international law, if you know with absolute certainty that pulling a trigger or dropping a bomb will butcher dozens of completely defenseless, unarmed human beings—and you choose to do it anyway, day after day—the semantic difference between 'intent' and 'collateral damage' completely vanishes. To claim this level of systemic slaughter is just standard urban warfare isn't just legally absurd; it is an attempt to sanitize the deliberate destruction of human life

13 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Conflating UN General Assembly resolutions with objective legal truth fundamentally misunderstands how international diplomacy works.

UN General Assembly votes are non-binding political expressions driven by geopolitical blocs—most notably the 56-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement—not impartial judicial verdicts handed down by a court of law. Treating a majority vote in a political assembly as ironclad legal proof is like determining guilt in a criminal trial by taking a public poll rather than examining forensic evidence.

Using the sheer volume of UN condemnations as proof of systemic wrongdoing relies on a completely circular argument that ignores the UN's well-documented structural obsession.

When the UN General Assembly routinely passes more condemnatory resolutions against Israel in a single year than against Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China combined, it does not prove that Israel commits more violations than the rest of the world put together; it proves that the UN's voting mechanism is heavily politicized. Citing a biased political tally to validate the claim of illegal targeting is using the bias itself as the proof.

Dismissing the entire argument as a political tally completely misses the point. This isn't about General Assembly resolutions, nor is it a popularity contest driven by geopolitical voting blocks. It is a matter of formal, independent judicial findings and rigorous on-the-ground forensic evidence.

When the International Criminal Court issued formal arrest warrants for Israeli leadership, it did not take a public poll. Prosecutors had to present verified, baseline evidence of war crimes, including the intentional targeting of civilians and the weaponization of starvation, to an independent bench of international judges. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice issued explicit, legally binding orders because the forensic and humanitarian data showed a catastrophic failure to protect human life.

Even if you completely write off the United Nations, you cannot ignore the independent investigations by organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

These groups do not rely on diplomatic consensus; they use ballistics analysis, satellite tracking, and medical forensics to document cases where unarmed civilians, including families in designated safe zones and people waiting in aid lines, were directly targeted.

Calling everything 'politicized' is a convenient shield, but it cannot scrub away the verified, forensic record of systemic recklessness and intentional harm to civilian life.

13 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Relying on classic, unsubstantiated conspiracy tropes about shadowy figures controlling foreign governments and media is a convenient way to avoid dealing with hard tactical facts.

Resorting to grand "Greater Israel" existential theories entirely ignores the operational reality of how modern air and standoff strikes actually work.

Militaries do not waste multimillion-dollar precision-guided munitions or commit flight hours to target children for "psychological impact", they execute deliberate target packages against military infrastructure, intelligence nodes, and command installations.

Conflating the tragic, inevitable collateral damage that occurs when non-state actors embed themselves within civilian populations with a grand genocidal master plan is a complete inversion of basic operational logic.

Parroting unverified state-controlled claims—like the specific "32 universities and 857 schools" figure released directly by Tehran's state press outlets—without applying an ounce of critical thinking is the definition of selective belief and ignorance.

Treating statistical output from an active combatant's propaganda ministry as objective truth while ignoring Iran's decades-long history of targeting civilian infrastructure across the region—from launching unguided ballistic missiles and suicide drones directly into populated urban centers to funding proxy rocket salvos aimed explicitly at cities—is pure cognitive dissonance.

Measuring moral authority by relying on state-issued damage tallies rather than analyzing operational intent and launch conduct is a complete failure of objective analysis.

When you then add an AI generated political meme, that is totally fabricated, it proves you have lost the plot!

Attempting to sanitize systemic devastation by hiding behind the technical mechanics of “precision-guided munitions” is a profound failure of ethical analysis.

In fact, the argument about advanced technology completely defeats itself. If a military is utilizing multimillion-dollar, pin-point accurate precision weapons, it means they know exactly what they are hitting with metric precision. When those exact same precision weapons repeatedly obliterate clearly marked UN shelters, hospitals, refugee camps, and dense residential blocks, the mass death of thousands of children is no longer a tragic accident of 'urban warfare.' It is the calculated, predictable outcome of a deliberate target-selection policy. Precision technology removes the excuse of ignorance.

Furthermore, professional militaries are not historically immune to using civilian destruction for psychological pressure. History is filled with advanced armies expanding their 'target packages' to civilian infrastructure to break the will of a population. When an army expands its operational definitions to classify entire apartment buildings as 'command nodes' just to target a single low-level operative, that is not a tactical necessity, it is a conscious ethical choice that civilian lives are disposable.

We do not need to look at state-controlled propaganda or disputed combatant tallies to see this. We can look at independent, Western-vetted forensic data from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which use satellite imagery and ballistics to document a pattern of reckless disregard for human life.

Dismissing the systematic flattening of an entire society as mere 'collateral damage' isn't objective tactical analysis; it is using military jargon to justify the unjustifiable

And a proof for moral bankruptcy.

Speaking of proof:

18 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Could you (or anyone else) please name a source which you feel is "neutral, unbiased and honest?"

If you are looking for a single, perfectly pure, unbiased source, you won't find one, because perfect neutrality doesn't exist in human institutions. But looking for an 'unbiased narrator' is the wrong way to find the truth. We should look at methodology and forensic verification.

Instead of relying on media narratives, the most honest approach is to look at cross-verified, evidence-based sources that operate under immense scrutiny:

1. International Courts (ICC and ICJ): These are not political voting blocks. They are panels of international jurists who must legally evaluate forensic evidence, satellite tracking, and physical documentation before issuing a single warrant or ruling.

2. Independent Forensic Investigators: Organizations like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch use concrete data—such as bomb fragment identification, satellite imagery of strike zones, and medical examiner reports.

3. The Admissions of Close Allies: The most undeniable 'honest' sources are the official findings of governments like the United States, the UK, and Australia. When Israel's strongest military and political allies review the classified data and publicly state that rules of engagement are being violated and aid workers are being targeted, that is not anti-Israel bias. That is a consensus of facts overriding political loyalty.

Truth isn't found by trusting one perfect news channel; it is found when independent judges, forensic scientists, and a country's own allies all look at the physical evidence and reach the exact same conclusion.

11 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

As you have an agenda, you cannot be impartial or fair and balanced?

You are confusing a moral boundary with political bias.

Having an 'agenda' that places the survival of innocent children above all else isn't a partisan political position, it is the baseline of civilized human ethics, which Israel has lost long time ago.

Being fair and balanced does not mean finding a 'middle ground' between those who kill children and the children who die.

True impartiality means holding every actor, whether it is a state military or a terror group, to the exact same moral standard.

My agenda is human rights.

If your definition of balance requires compromising on the lives of children to remain 'fair,' then your balance is morally broken.

2 hours ago, Somjot said:

Having an 'agenda' that places the survival of innocent children above all else isn't a partisan political position, it is the baseline of civilized human ethics, which Israel has lost long time ago

like germany

2 hours ago, Somjot said:

My agenda is human rights

your agenda is the same as every other jew hater primarily found in your country since the middle ages.

3 hours ago, Somjot said:

My agenda is human rights.

My agenda is supporting the right of Israel to exist behind secure borders as the homeland of the world's Jews. Opposing antisemitism wherever I encounter it is part of that agenda.

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

My agenda is supporting the right of Israel to exist behind secure borders as the homeland of the world's Jews. Opposing antisemitism wherever I encounter it is part of that agenda.

I also support the right of Israel to exist, but please define on a map where those borders are?

8 hours ago, Somjot said:

Relying on the abstract legal defense of 'collateral damage' completely crumbles when confronted with the reality documented on the ground. This isn't a matter of internet buzzwords; it is a matter of documented records by the world's highest neutral authorities.

A detailed investigation by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry explicitly concluded that Israeli security forces have deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children, finding that these acts were not incidental, but part of a calculated strategy. When an army consistently drops heavy munitions on designated 'safe zones' and bombs over half of the UN-run schools serving as civilian shelters, the mass death of innocents is no longer an accidental byproduct of urban warfare—it is a conscious, premeditated choice.

Furthermore, organizations like Human Rights Watch have documented a horrific, repeating pattern of Israeli forces opening live fire directly onto crowds of unarmed civilians waiting in food aid lines.

In moral philosophy and international law, if you know with absolute certainty that pulling a trigger or dropping a bomb will butcher dozens of completely defenseless, unarmed human beings—and you choose to do it anyway, day after day—the semantic difference between 'intent' and 'collateral damage' completely vanishes. To claim this level of systemic slaughter is just standard urban warfare isn't just legally absurd; it is an attempt to sanitize the deliberate destruction of human life

Conflating non-binding political reports with impartial judicial rulings distorts international humanitarian law.

The UN Commission of Inquiry is a political body created by the notoriously biased UN Human Rights Council, not an international criminal court.

Citing its conclusions as absolute truth swaps one partisan source for another while evading tactical realities.

Under the Geneva Conventions, when combatants embed military nodes, weapons depots, and staging grounds inside schools or safe zones, those facilities lose protected status.

The primary war crime is turning civilian infrastructure into human-shielded military installations; striking those verified targets remains a lawful, albeit tragic, operational necessity.

Redefining high-density combat against an enemy that actively relies on human shields for PR leverage as "premeditated murder" completely destroys the legal distinction between targeted terrorism and urban warfare.

Intentionally firing unguided rockets at suburban apartment blocks with zero military targets is an indisputable war crime. Operating under rules of engagement against combatants hiding behind their own population is an operational nightmare created entirely by human-shield tactics. Collapsing this vital moral and legal distinction doesn't rewrite international law—it rewards the exact strategy that puts those innocent lives in danger.

9 hours ago, Somjot said:

Dismissing the entire argument as a political tally completely misses the point. This isn't about General Assembly resolutions, nor is it a popularity contest driven by geopolitical voting blocks. It is a matter of formal, independent judicial findings and rigorous on-the-ground forensic evidence.

When the International Criminal Court issued formal arrest warrants for Israeli leadership, it did not take a public poll. Prosecutors had to present verified, baseline evidence of war crimes, including the intentional targeting of civilians and the weaponization of starvation, to an independent bench of international judges. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice issued explicit, legally binding orders because the forensic and humanitarian data showed a catastrophic failure to protect human life.

Even if you completely write off the United Nations, you cannot ignore the independent investigations by organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

These groups do not rely on diplomatic consensus; they use ballistics analysis, satellite tracking, and medical forensics to document cases where unarmed civilians, including families in designated safe zones and people waiting in aid lines, were directly targeted.

Calling everything 'politicized' is a convenient shield, but it cannot scrub away the verified, forensic record of systemic recklessness and intentional harm to civilian life.

Citing ICC arrest warrants, ICJ interim measures, and human rights reports as infallible, non-political truth ignores the structural flaws and procedural overreach inherent in these institutions.

An ICC warrant or ICJ interim order is an unproven accusation from a preliminary phase, not a final, tested judicial verdict based on cross-examined evidence.

Prosecutorial bodies regularly issue warrants based on ex parte filings that rely heavily on unverified figures and narratives supplied by combatant-controlled entities like the Gaza Ministry of Health.

Treating an initial filing or interim procedural directive as an established legal fact turns the fundamental presumption of innocence on its head and mistakes an opening charge for a final judgment.

Relying on NGO reports from groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as "impartial forensic truth" ignores their documented systemic biases and methodological limitations.

Non-governmental organizations do not possess access to military target packages, real-time intelligence telemetry, radar tracks, or operational intent—the exact legal criteria required under International Humanitarian Law to evaluate proportionality and military necessity.

Conducting post-blast satellite analysis or interviewing witnesses in a territory controlled by a repressive terror regime yields zero insight into whether an enemy command node or weapon cache was embedded at the site.

Transforming preliminary accusations and remote observations into absolute proof of "intentional harm" is not rigorous analysis; it is substituting political activism for actual legal adjudication.

9 hours ago, Somjot said:

Attempting to sanitize systemic devastation by hiding behind the technical mechanics of “precision-guided munitions” is a profound failure of ethical analysis.

In fact, the argument about advanced technology completely defeats itself. If a military is utilizing multimillion-dollar, pin-point accurate precision weapons, it means they know exactly what they are hitting with metric precision. When those exact same precision weapons repeatedly obliterate clearly marked UN shelters, hospitals, refugee camps, and dense residential blocks, the mass death of thousands of children is no longer a tragic accident of 'urban warfare.' It is the calculated, predictable outcome of a deliberate target-selection policy. Precision technology removes the excuse of ignorance.

Furthermore, professional militaries are not historically immune to using civilian destruction for psychological pressure. History is filled with advanced armies expanding their 'target packages' to civilian infrastructure to break the will of a population. When an army expands its operational definitions to classify entire apartment buildings as 'command nodes' just to target a single low-level operative, that is not a tactical necessity, it is a conscious ethical choice that civilian lives are disposable.

We do not need to look at state-controlled propaganda or disputed combatant tallies to see this. We can look at independent, Western-vetted forensic data from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which use satellite imagery and ballistics to document a pattern of reckless disregard for human life.

Dismissing the systematic flattening of an entire society as mere 'collateral damage' isn't objective tactical analysis; it is using military jargon to justify the unjustifiable

And a proof for moral bankruptcy.

The assertion that the deployment of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) disproves the existence of human-shield tactics completely flips the basic mechanics of modern targeting logic.

Having a weapon capable of striking within meters of an intended coordinate does not alter who or what is standing inside or directly beneath that coordinate.

When a combatant deliberately positions a command node, an ammunition stockpile, or a rocket team inside a civilian apartment block, a hospital basement, or a dense urban neighborhood, using a precision weapon ensures that the precise military asset is hit rather than destroying the entire surrounding square mile with unguided carpet-bombing.

Claiming that precision technology transforms every strike into a "deliberate massacre of civilians" intentionally ignores why precision weapons exist: to maximize impact against a concealed military target while attempting to minimize collateral damage in an environment engineered by the enemy to guarantee civilian casualties.

Invoking NGO satellite imagery to claim that widespread destruction proves a "deliberate policy to target civilians" demonstrates a complete failure to understand the legal standard of proportionality and distinction under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Satellite photos show physical structural collapse; they cannot reveal whether an subterranean tunnel network ran beneath that pavement, whether weapon caches caused secondary explosions, or whether enemy personnel were operating inside the structure.

Under IHL, protected civilian status is revoked the moment an object is used for military purposes. Substituting post-blast photos and moralizing jargon for an actual analysis of operational intent, intelligence inputs, and human-shield tactics isn't an "ethical breakthrough"—it is simply rewriting international law to grant total military immunity to any terror group that hides behind its own population.

As for your 'proof'..??

Citing isolated clips of localized battlefield misconduct to prove a systemic state policy of "intentional civilian murder" fails basic evidentiary logic.

Individual engagement breaches or the disrespectful handling of dead combatants' bodies—such as the incident on a Qabatiya rooftop—are severe operational violations, but they are not evidence of a top-down strategic doctrine.

A military operating under an official policy of targeting non-combatants does not issue formal public repudiations, declare field conduct contrary to service values, or immediately open internal military police investigations to discipline its own personnel.

Extrapolating localized tactical crimes or protocol breaches to claim an entire counter-terrorism campaign is "premeditated genocide" is a complete non-sequitur.

International Humanitarian Law explicitly distinguishes between unauthorized misconduct by individual operators on the ground and an official state policy.

Conflating battlefield crimes—which professional militaries actively investigate and prosecute under military law—with overall strategic intent relies on viral video clips to mask a total absence of structural legal proof.

10 hours ago, Somjot said:

You are confusing a moral boundary with political bias.

Having an 'agenda' that places the survival of innocent children above all else isn't a partisan political position, it is the baseline of civilized human ethics, which Israel has lost long time ago.

Being fair and balanced does not mean finding a 'middle ground' between those who kill children and the children who die.

True impartiality means holding every actor, whether it is a state military or a terror group, to the exact same moral standard.

My agenda is human rights.

If your definition of balance requires compromising on the lives of children to remain 'fair,' then your balance is morally broken.

Claiming a noble agenda like "human rights" or "saving children" does not make an analysis objective; it only serves to mask selective application and emotional manipulation.

Impartiality is not about finding a middle ground between life and death, but about applying identical analytical criteria to all actors.

Joining together civilian casualties resulting from lawful military operations against an enemy using human shields with the deliberate, targeted massacres committed by a terrorist organization erases essential distinctions of intent and legal context.

Weaponizing human tragedy to declare immunity from critical debate is an intellectual dodge that reduces complex urban warfare to a false moral binary.

Holding a democratic nation to absolute perfection while granting structural leniency to a terror group that places its own population in harm's way is not a baseline of civilized ethics. It is a fundamental double standard disguised as righteous indignation.

10 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

My agenda is supporting the right of Israel to exist behind secure borders as the homeland of the world's Jews.

What borders would those be?

5 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

I also support the right of Israel to exist, but please define on a map where those borders are?

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

What borders would those be?

Israel has two recognized international borders that were decided through negotiations and formalized through treaties: with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994. These borders are secure and there has been no military action since the treaties were signed.

Israel doesn't yet have official borders with Lebanon or Syria, only "frontiers" based on temporary lines of demarcation. Once the governments of Lebanon and Syria acknowledge Israel's right to exist as the homeland of all Jews, then negotiations can begin toward establishing permanent international borders.

The military capabilities of Hezbollah have to be destroyed before this can happen.

Of course the thorniest issue is the Palestinian Territories, but again, once Hamas is destroyed, negotiations with the Palestinian Authority can resume. All Palestinian groups outside the PA that refuse to accept Israel's right to exist must be neutralized.

The maps come from https://sovereignlimits.com/boundaries,

Edited August 6Aug 6 by Evil Penevil

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

that refuse to accept Israel's right to exist must be neutralized.

Didn’t the Daleks say something like that.

Neutralized sounds like a euphemism to me.

On 8/6/2026 at 8:02 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

As for your 'proof'..??

Citing isolated clips of localized battlefield misconduct to prove a systemic state policy of "intentional civilian murder" fails basic evidentiary logic.

Individual engagement breaches or the disrespectful handling of dead combatants' bodies—such as the incident on a Qabatiya rooftop—are severe operational violations, but they are not evidence of a top-down strategic doctrine.

Isolated clips? Individual engagement breaches?

Have you been hibernating for the last 3 years?

On 8/6/2026 at 8:02 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

A military operating under an official policy of targeting non-combatants does not issue formal public repudiations, declare field conduct contrary to service values, or immediately open internal military police investigations to discipline its own personnel.

Israel does not only cover their war crimes, they even aggressively set the perpetrators free, if by chance one of the very few descend service members dares to arrest them and they later discuss "the right to rape" in their government.

What civilized leadership does that?

and later they drop the charges immediately

and invite the rapist to TV shows to worship him

On 8/6/2026 at 8:02 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

International Humanitarian Law explicitly distinguishes between unauthorized misconduct by individual operators on the ground and an official state policy.

Conflating battlefield crimes—which professional militaries actively investigate and prosecute under military law—with overall strategic intent relies on viral video clips to mask a total absence of structural legal proof.

Here´s your proof

12.473 Aufrufe · 398 Reaktionen | Israeli soldiers admit...

Israeli soldiers admit they were ordered to shoot at unarmed and hungry civilians near controversial aid sites in Gaza, a new report by Israeli publication Haaretz says. Israeli officials deny the...

https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-military-ordered-soldiers-in-gaza-to-shoot-to-kill-every-man-they-saw/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-27/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-deliberately-at-unarmed-gazans-waiting-for-humanitarian-aid/00000197-ad8e-de01-a39f-ffbe33780000

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/israeli-soldiers-admit-killing-palestinians-in-gaza-no-matter-the-age-even-if-unarmed

https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-military-ordered-soldiers-in-gaza-to-shoot-to-kill-every-man-they-saw/

What´s your comment to that?

One more grandiloquent, pompous and bombastic AI generated speech trying to tell us in your turgid and gassed up language something like: "Well, even all news magazines writing it, doesn´t make it the truth"

All your Strategic ignorance doesn't change anything of what Israel´s leaders openly said:

Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister): Invoked biblical references in late October 2023 regarding the commandment to destroy Amalek.

Nissim Vaturi (Knesset Member): Posted on social media on October 7, 2023, that the common goal should be "erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the Earth.

Give me one example of your "immediately opened internal military police investigations to discipline its own personnel".

Did they discipline the murderers of HIND RAJAB, the 5 year old girl who was sitting amongst her slaughtered siblings in that car, begging for her life?

THE IDF EXECUTED THAT 5 YEAR OLD GIRL: WITH 355 BULLTES

The IDF heroes also murdered the 2 guys in the ambulance, after officially granting them permission to rescue Hind Rajab.

What was their crime? Trying to save a little girl??

The extent of your willful blindness is unbearable.

Spare me your theoretical AI generated nonsense and try to justify the murder of Hind Rajab. Or the World´s kitchen guys. Or the 15 aid workers.

Dr. Nick Maynard is a senior consultant in upper gastrointestinal surgery at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and a professor of surgery at the University of Oxford. He has been working regularly in the Gaza Strip since 2010.

The IDF targeting different body parts of children depending on the day of the week.

Witnessed by many western medics from the UK and the US.

Go on, justify that.

23 hours ago, Somjot said:

Isolated clips? Individual engagement breaches?

Have you been hibernating for the last 3 years?

Israel does not only cover their war crimes, they even aggressively set the perpetrators free, if by chance one of the very few descend service members dares to arrest them and they later discuss "the right to rape" in their government.

What civilized leadership does that?

and later they drop the charges immediately

and invite the rapist to TV shows to worship him

Here´s your proof

12.473 Aufrufe · 398 Reaktionen | Israeli soldiers admit...

Israeli soldiers admit they were ordered to shoot at unarmed and hungry civilians near controversial aid sites in Gaza, a new report by Israeli publication Haaretz says. Israeli officials deny the...

https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-military-ordered-soldiers-in-gaza-to-shoot-to-kill-every-man-they-saw/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-27/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-deliberately-at-unarmed-gazans-waiting-for-humanitarian-aid/00000197-ad8e-de01-a39f-ffbe33780000

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/israeli-soldiers-admit-killing-palestinians-in-gaza-no-matter-the-age-even-if-unarmed

https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-military-ordered-soldiers-in-gaza-to-shoot-to-kill-every-man-they-saw/

What´s your comment to that?

One more grandiloquent, pompous and bombastic AI generated speech trying to tell us in your turgid and gassed up language something like: "Well, even all news magazines writing it, doesn´t make it the truth"

All your Strategic ignorance doesn't change anything of what Israel´s leaders openly said:

Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister): Invoked biblical references in late October 2023 regarding the commandment to destroy Amalek.

Nissim Vaturi (Knesset Member): Posted on social media on October 7, 2023, that the common goal should be "erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the Earth.

Give me one example of your "immediately opened internal military police investigations to discipline its own personnel".

Did they discipline the murderers of HIND RAJAB, the 5 year old girl who was sitting amongst her slaughtered siblings in that car, begging for her life?

THE IDF EXECUTED THAT 5 YEAR OLD GIRL: WITH 355 BULLTES

The IDF heroes also murdered the 2 guys in the ambulance, after officially granting them permission to rescue Hind Rajab.

What was their crime? Trying to save a little girl??

The extent of your willful blindness is unbearable.

Spare me your theoretical AI generated nonsense and try to justify the murder of Hind Rajab. Or the World´s kitchen guys. Or the 15 aid workers.

Your arrogant, condescending, and highly emotional tone does you no favors, quite the opposite!

Lecturing others about “willful blindness,” “theoretical AI-generated nonsense,” and demanding that people “justify the murder” of a child while packing the post with capital letters and moral outrage is not the same as presenting a rigorous factual argument.

It signals that you are more interested in performing certainty than in carefully weighing contested evidence.

You’re treating every serious allegation as settled proof of an official, top-down policy of intentional civilian murder.

That leap doesn’t hold any water.

Individual videos and soldier testimonies (including the Haaretz report you linked) are important and deserve investigation.

They do not automatically equal a formal state doctrine.

Professional armies can and do have breakdowns in discipline, local excesses, or poorly worded rules of engagement without those being the written strategic policy.

International Humanitarian Law still distinguishes between the two for a reason.

Pointing to viral clips and media reports does not erase that distinction.

The June 2025 Haaretz piece quoted anonymous soldiers describing fire being used near aid distribution points.

The IDF publicly rejected the claim of orders to deliberately target unarmed civilians and stated the Military Advocate General had directed a review.

That is the opposite of a cover-up.

An Israeli newspaper published the allegations and the military said it was examining them. Whether the review produces real accountability is a fair question, but it is not evidence that no process exists.

You asked for examples of internal investigations.

The IDF has opened dozens of Military Police probes during this war into detainee deaths, alleged abuse, looting, and civilian harm cases.

Some have led to disciplinary action or charges (the Sde Teiman cases being the most public).

The broader criticism — that the rate of indictments for combat-related civilian deaths remains very low — is legitimate and longstanding, but low conviction rates do not prove zero investigations occur.

The death of Hind Rajab and the two paramedics is a horrific case.

Independent investigations (Washington Post, Forensic Architecture) contradicted the IDF’s initial claim that its forces were not in the area and documented extensive gunfire on the car.

The IDF’s preliminary review maintained it was not responsible; no public final criminal charges against specific personnel have been released.

That lack of transparent accountability is a serious problem. It still does not convert one (or even many) contested incidents into proof of a formal policy of executing children.

Netanyahu’s Amalek reference and certain MKs’ extreme rhetoric were reckless and rightly criticized, including inside Israel. Inflammatory political language is not the same as an operational order issued to troops.

Courts and serious legal analysis look at both rhetoric and actual commands, targeting directives, and patterns of conduct.

No one and certainly not me, is claiming Israel is innocent.

The high civilian death toll, questions about proportionality, and failures of accountability are real and serious.

But neither is Hamas innocent. Hamas launched the 7 October attack that killed approximately 1,200 people, including around 40 Israeli children.

Multiple investigations (UN, Human Rights Watch, New York Times and others) have found clear evidence that Hamas and allied fighters also committed sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, against Israeli females and some males, during the attack, also against hostages.

Hamas has long embedded its fighters, tunnels and rocket launchers among Gaza’s civilian population as previously mentioned, a tactic that is itself a war crime and a primary reason civilian casualties are so high.

One side’s crimes do not cancel out the other’s.

There would still be the longer-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its many grievances, but the particular debate you are engaged in right now exists only because Hamas chose to start this round with a mass-casualty assault on Israeli civilians and soldiers. Without that attack, this war and this specific argument would not be happening.

You list alleged Israeli violations at length but never once acknowledge that Hamas’s 7 October attack, the deliberate killing of civilians and children, the sexual violence, or the taking of hostages were themselves serious war crimes.

A consistent application of International Humanitarian Law would condemn those acts too. The complete absence of any such condemnation in your posts is very conspicuous!

Your previous post....."Having an 'agenda' that places the survival of innocent children above all else isn't a partisan political position, it is the baseline of civilized human ethics, which Israel has lost long time ago.

Being fair and balanced does not mean finding a 'middle ground' between those who kill children and the children who die.

True impartiality means holding every actor, whether it is a state military or a terror group, to the exact same moral standard.

My agenda is human rights."...............??? Again you don't mention Hamas??

You keep demanding that I “justify” specific deaths.

No one is justifying the killing of a five-year-old or unarmed civilians.

The point under discussion is whether the available evidence proves a deliberate, top-down Israeli policy of intentional civilian murder as distinct from the tragic, often unlawful, results of a high-intensity urban war against an enemy that embeds among civilians.

Those are not the same claim.If you have primary-source operational orders, court-admissible documentation of a formal targeting policy against non-combatants, or final judicial findings that establish systemic intent, present them.

Media reports, anonymous testimony, and forensic reconstructions of individual incidents are serious and should be investigated, but they are not yet the conclusive structural proof you are asserting.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Your arrogant, condescending, and highly emotional tone does you no favors, quite the opposite!

Lecturing others about “willful blindness,” “theoretical AI-generated nonsense,” and demanding that people “justify the murder” of a child while packing the post with capital letters and moral outrage is not the same as presenting a rigorous factual argument.

It signals that you are more interested in performing certainty than in carefully weighing contested evidence.

You’re treating every serious allegation as settled proof of an official, top-down policy of intentional civilian murder.

That leap doesn’t hold any water.

Individual videos and soldier testimonies (including the Haaretz report you linked) are important and deserve investigation.

They do not automatically equal a formal state doctrine.

Professional armies can and do have breakdowns in discipline, local excesses, or poorly worded rules of engagement without those being the written strategic policy.

International Humanitarian Law still distinguishes between the two for a reason.

Pointing to viral clips and media reports does not erase that distinction.

The June 2025 Haaretz piece quoted anonymous soldiers describing fire being used near aid distribution points.

The IDF publicly rejected the claim of orders to deliberately target unarmed civilians and stated the Military Advocate General had directed a review.

That is the opposite of a cover-up.

An Israeli newspaper published the allegations and the military said it was examining them. Whether the review produces real accountability is a fair question, but it is not evidence that no process exists.

You asked for examples of internal investigations.

The IDF has opened dozens of Military Police probes during this war into detainee deaths, alleged abuse, looting, and civilian harm cases.

Some have led to disciplinary action or charges (the Sde Teiman cases being the most public).

The broader criticism — that the rate of indictments for combat-related civilian deaths remains very low — is legitimate and longstanding, but low conviction rates do not prove zero investigations occur.

The death of Hind Rajab and the two paramedics is a horrific case.

Independent investigations (Washington Post, Forensic Architecture) contradicted the IDF’s initial claim that its forces were not in the area and documented extensive gunfire on the car.

The IDF’s preliminary review maintained it was not responsible; no public final criminal charges against specific personnel have been released.

That lack of transparent accountability is a serious problem. It still does not convert one (or even many) contested incidents into proof of a formal policy of executing children.

Netanyahu’s Amalek reference and certain MKs’ extreme rhetoric were reckless and rightly criticized, including inside Israel. Inflammatory political language is not the same as an operational order issued to troops.

Courts and serious legal analysis look at both rhetoric and actual commands, targeting directives, and patterns of conduct.

No one and certainly not me, is claiming Israel is innocent.

The high civilian death toll, questions about proportionality, and failures of accountability are real and serious.

But neither is Hamas innocent. Hamas launched the 7 October attack that killed approximately 1,200 people, including around 40 Israeli children.

Multiple investigations (UN, Human Rights Watch, New York Times and others) have found clear evidence that Hamas and allied fighters also committed sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, against Israeli females and some males, during the attack, also against hostages.

Hamas has long embedded its fighters, tunnels and rocket launchers among Gaza’s civilian population as previously mentioned, a tactic that is itself a war crime and a primary reason civilian casualties are so high.

One side’s crimes do not cancel out the other’s.

There would still be the longer-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its many grievances, but the particular debate you are engaged in right now exists only because Hamas chose to start this round with a mass-casualty assault on Israeli civilians and soldiers. Without that attack, this war and this specific argument would not be happening.

You list alleged Israeli violations at length but never once acknowledge that Hamas’s 7 October attack, the deliberate killing of civilians and children, the sexual violence, or the taking of hostages were themselves serious war crimes.

A consistent application of International Humanitarian Law would condemn those acts too. The complete absence of any such condemnation in your posts is very conspicuous!

Your previous post....."Having an 'agenda' that places the survival of innocent children above all else isn't a partisan political position, it is the baseline of civilized human ethics, which Israel has lost long time ago.

Being fair and balanced does not mean finding a 'middle ground' between those who kill children and the children who die.

True impartiality means holding every actor, whether it is a state military or a terror group, to the exact same moral standard.

My agenda is human rights."...............??? Again you don't mention Hamas??

You keep demanding that I “justify” specific deaths.

No one is justifying the killing of a five-year-old or unarmed civilians.

The point under discussion is whether the available evidence proves a deliberate, top-down Israeli policy of intentional civilian murder as distinct from the tragic, often unlawful, results of a high-intensity urban war against an enemy that embeds among civilians.

Those are not the same claim.If you have primary-source operational orders, court-admissible documentation of a formal targeting policy against non-combatants, or final judicial findings that establish systemic intent, present them.

Media reports, anonymous testimony, and forensic reconstructions of individual incidents are serious and should be investigated, but they are not yet the conclusive structural proof you are asserting.

Well said sir!

A well balanced post, unlike some others!