This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly
Edit: I'm convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
228 points (96.3% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1337 readers
177 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If its about a actual genocide maybe, but its about the made up stuff from gaza, where people scream genocide despite there very objectively being none, there is a war, it definitely cost civilian lifes but that doesn't mean its a genocide. A genocide is what hamas did on 7th October, what Russia did in several separate locations in Ukraine, what China is doing to the Muslims or what Turkey is doing in the east (Armenia and Syria and Kurdish people)
A genocide isn't waging war, a genocide is actively hunting civilians and making life impossible. Israel does not do that, they do the opposite.
Btw the death numbers from the Gaza ministry of health (a hamas lead institution) include the civilians killed by hamas and their actions (i don't count the entire war as their action, there are some sources that do, but thats not right either) about 20% of the rockets hamas launched into Israel failed and hit gaza, killing hundreds of civilians. Hamas dug very elaborate tunnels (military facilities) under living areas, thats not just a war crime but significantly contributes to destruction (hit one thing, cause a chain reaction due to collapsing tunnels)
This is very objectively not a genocide.
Yeah, that's what Israel is doing
I don't know what else you get from Israel's actions and stated concerns. In a year, they've killed a greater percentage of Gazans than Coalition forces killed Iraqis in all ~10 years of the Iraq War. And Coalition forces in Iraq were (rightfully) accused of being metaphorically trigger-happy.
UN isn't a credible source for anything Israel related. (and especially not the ministry of truth) And also, its a very different kind of war and furthermore this are the numbers from the Gaza ministry of health, wich is a hamas institution and wich does the thing mentioned above.
I don't doubt that there are many casualtys, many civilian casualtys as well, but that doesn't mean its a genocide.
By Israel's own admission they kill two civilians for every Hamas soldier.
Israeli soldiers film themselves committing war crimes and dancing on the graves of Palestinian civilians they've killed.
What more do you want?
Please don't use Al Jazeera, they are owned by the Qatari government, which is the same government that actively holds Hamas leadership. They are extraordinarily biased and not to be taken seriously.
Didn't question that, but its a war not a genocide. Furthermore it is common knowledge that hamas does hide among civilians and uses human shields, that's why hamas isn't legally protected by the Geneva conventions, as they don't count as combatants in that matter, they wear mostly civilian clothes.
Aljazeera article... Fuck them they are known to be super pro Hamas. However i didn't question that there happened to be war crimes on the side of the IDF, they do happen, its however a big difference between systematical and individual war crimes, war crimes have to be prosecuted but that doesn't mean its a genocide.
Some Cookies and milk, also maybe not using Aljazeera sources or sources that just cite them unchecked while you are at it.
So, what would you accept as a credible source for Israeli genocide, theoretically?
I can't speak for them, but a general consensus among Western governments.
What's a consensus, in this case? Supermajority? Plurality?
Majority. As long as they can present convincing evidence (i.e. evidence that doesn't rely on trusting the word of Hamas and/or their friends in Doha and Tehran).
Edit: I'll also say that I trust some Western governments more than others. I'll take the word of the current German government over that of the current Italian one, for example.
Understanding that any government declaration that Israel is committing genocide would necessarily require politically hazardous action in accompaniment, do you require that the majority of Western governments declare Israel is committing genocide, or only that a significant and credible portion of the legal and foreign policy institutions of Western governments declare as much?
Ideally I would want to see governmental acknowledgment, but I wouldn't call it a hard requirement. But ultimately it depends on the evidence presented, and on the people and institutions who agree/disagree with it. I can't really give you a more firm answer than that.
Alright, so what do you think about...
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-judges-intelligence-experts-call-halt-israeli-arms-sales-2024-04-04/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-law-clerks-rare-anonymous-statement-decry-genocide-gaza-2024-05-29
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce48wpd08pgo
https://apnews.com/article/spain-israel-icj-genocide-case-67d4d9b8ecf6fd88e718319a5d93465a
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
At what point does the accusation of genocide towards Israel's behavior become plausible?
What about the Israeli government themselves claiming a (very dubious) 50/50 civilian-militant casualty ratio? We've flattened cities in WW2 with better casualty ratios than that.
What about prominent members of the Israeli government openly saying the intention is to commit genocide?
Regarding your initial set of links, I think it's clear that I don't consider these particularly credible. With that said, the accusation obviously has some degree of surface-level plausibility. But there's more to genocide than "people are being killed".
I don't have any issues with that. I know, that sounds callous but considering that urban warfare and sieges always have exceptionally horrific civilian death tolls even without one side (Hamas) very deliberately placing as many civilians between them and the enemy as they can, I'd argue that those numbers are actually exceptionally good.
Not for lack of trying. Civilian casualties were basically a non-concern for the Americans (this is also true of Israel), and the Brits very deliberately sought out attacked purely civilian targets in a terror bombing campaign (this is not). Me saying Israels conduct reminds me of the Allies in WW2 was not a commendation of either. I consider both to be necessary evils to eliminate the Nazis and Hamas respectively.
Ben-Gvir and his party certainly would like to turn it into a genocide, but coalition governments don't work that way. A public statement from one minor coalition member doesn't make something government policy. Otzma Yehudit has two ministers and six seats in the Knesset, they're very much not able to dictate government policy. The fact that they haven't been kicked out of the coalition over their remarks is concerning, but so far that's all it is.
If some of the most respected legal institutions of these countries aren't credible, what IS credible? Israeli spokespeople?
Claims of Hamas using human shields aside, the US claimed civilian casualty ratio in the War on Terror, in which we were (rightfully) condemned for being trigger happy, was .2%. The actual number was 15%.
50% is horrifying - and 50% is the lowest possible estimate, which relies on the IDF being more honest than the US government. Outside sources put the low estimate at ~63%, which assumes, like the .2% claim of the US, that all military-age males killed are enemy combatants, which is pretty fucking dubious at best. Upper estimates go north of 90%.
For reference, the October 7th terrorist attack, in which Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, had a civilian casualty ratio of ~75% according to the Israeli government (whose claims in this case are credible, considering the evidence presented and the difficulty of falsifying one's own casualties in the context of civilian reporting)
The Americans pursued strategic bombing, industrial and military targets, the Brits pursued terror bombing, choosing civilian targets that would demoralize the population. Israel is performing precision strikes on civilians. They're not trying to demoralize the population. They're attempting ethnic fucking cleansing. Fuck's sake, what do you put Israel's effective siege on humanitarian aid as? Is setting up starvation conditions in Gaza just being friendly?
How many members of the government need to express genocidal intent before you consider genocidal intent to be present? Do you apply this standard to all ongoing genocides?
As mentioned above, there is no genocide, and that's why no credible source is speaking about a genocide.
The ICJ (UN so has a anti Israel bias) fir example said that there is no genocide currently even though Israel must take action to protect civilians in Gaza, wich they did, see the other threat here.
Theoretically speaking, what sources would you accept as authoritative on the matter of an ongoing genocide?
There is no credible authority body that calles or doesn't call something genocide, genocide has a very clear definition and genocide is defined according to that definition, ICJ does try to be neutral but Israel has as said a very hard time with UN because UN turned into a anti Israel body, so they don't get people into Gaza or Israel. The only external people in gaza currently are a few selected journalists that travel with IDF (CNN from what i know, maybe the guardian, but I'm not certain on that) or the hamas propaganda speakers that call themselves journalists (aljazeera) but are legally not.
Then why say
as an objection?
You're all over the place.
You asked about a credible source for something, and for a authority body, those are different things so there are different answers
Did you really just "fake news" the UN? LOL!
So you think a Diplomatic forum is the fucking ministry of truth. Its a political platform, its the exact opposite of truthful.
Okay, so you're just making shit up as you go along.
One attack cannot be a genocide.
An ongoing campaign to deprive an entire population of food, water, medicine, electricity, and any route to escape is pretty fucking obviously within the UN definition of genocide.
Hamas has stated clearly that their desire is the extermination of Jews globally.
In 2017, they changed it to just Israel, but Hamas forces don't actually use that charter.
... does it matter what they say or doesn't it?
You're not trying to have it both ways anywhere near as badly as this schmuck, but you are trying to have it both ways.
Of course it matters what either side says, especially if what they say is genocide.
Neither Gaza nor Israel are innocent in the war.
Have you ever in your life read and understood the genocide conversations? Cause this comment speaks otherwise.
Id recommend you to educate yourself:
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people,[a] either in whole or in part.
The Political Instability Task Force estimated that 43 genocides occurred between 1956 and 2016, resulting in about 50 million deaths.[1] The UNHCR estimated that a further 50 million had been displaced by such episodes of violence up to 2008.[1] Genocide is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil.[2] Genocide has been referred to as the "crime of crimes".[3][4][5] Incitement to genocide is recognized as a separate crime under international law and an inchoate crime which does not require genocide to have taken place to be prosecutable.[6]
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[7][8]
-Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
As you see Intention is a big part and a war doesn't constitute intention to kill civilians.
Furthermore your claims are just untrue.
Israel does allow and help to deliver food and water, they even build a temporary Port with the help of USA, they also returned operations of a water treatment plant that was left inoperable by hamas (the "government" of gaza) in fact the war was caused by said group. Furthermore the civilian camps are in fact mostly safe, there have been instances of misfires, that is sad but does happen, or Hamas attacks.
Oh and the claim of prohibiting any way to flee doesn't make sense, Israel had kept civilian corridors open for weeks, yes they aren't allowed to leave Gaza, but thats because the probability of hamas hiding among civilians isn't just high its a certainty.
So By definition, you are wrong.
Have you been living under a rock and purposefully avoiding all the coverage of how Israel have been bombing these "open civilian corridors"?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/gaza-civilians-afraid-to-leave-home-after-bombing-of-safe-routes
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67114281
https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-airstrike-kills-women-children-fleeing-evacuation-route-northern-gaza-2023-10
Maybe you missed the news of how Israel have spent millions of dollars on killing more than 200 aid workers.
You claim intention is needed. What do you call intentionally shelling the "civilian corridors" they themselves tell people to use?
They trap them inside, and shell them continuously. More than a 150'000 people have died as just an indirect cause, being denied clean water, food, shelter and medical supplies.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2024/01/middleeast/gaza-hospitals-destruction-investigation-intl-cmd/
I'll give you a quick tldr; because I know to won't.
What do you think the intent is behind taking out hospitals? I think the intent is to deny medical aid to the hundreds of thousands civilian casualties.
By everything you yourself have stated. What they're doing is a genocide. Their intention is to exterminate the Palestinian people. Gaza will be reduced to rubble. Along with everyone in it. And after there's nothing left and no one can live there. Israel will sieze it.
This little port you think you can use as proof otherwise is nothing but bare minimum to try and make it seem like that's not what they're doing. Like a child pretending to cough so they can stay home from school.
Please be aware that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, meaning that they don't have a strict militia, and they often disguise themselves as civilians. So long as Hamas continues to hide in civilian infrastructure, legally, the IDF can continue these attacks.
The UN has told Hamas to stop this for decades, but it's fallen on deaf ears and is likely to continue.
Likewise, where is your evidence of the 150k figure? Isn't the figure 38-40k?
Estimations of indirect deaths varies of course since they are more difficult.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext
The 150k includes these indirect deaths. Deaths from starvation, trampling, disease and sickness as a result of the war.
Not peer-reviewed, not relevant.
Don't use anything non-peer-reviewed as evidence. It's disingenuous.
We will not have any evidence until after the war is over and bodies can start being dug up from under the demolished buildings and infrastructure.
If you look at their wording they make it clear it's not "implausible" to believe the current toll including starvation etc is up towards or above 180'000.
Likewise the toll can be less than what it is currently. Your point has zero evidence, so stop saying that it's 180k. It's disingenuous.
Our only evidence is from the Hamas-run ministry, which says 40k. However, it's unclear whether or not they include their own forces as civilians, or even how accurate it is, considering they regularly make mistakes.
Gaza had an estimated population of about 2 million people.
We know that 35% of the buildings in Gaza is severely damaged or destroyed. Very little aid is reaching their target, hospitals are destroyed.
There is nothing disingenuous about me agreeing with them that it's plausible that an estimated number of deaths as a result from the war is up towards 180 thousand.
But it's not based on any evidence.
It is based on evidence.
Evidence that very little aid is reaching Gaza. Evidence that clean water is difficult to come by. Evidence that 35% of their builds are severely damaged or destroyed. Evidence from previous wars and how the population were affected by similar conditions.
With those points of data. Qualified people can make estimations of what they think the number of dead might look like.
But there is no evidence to prove the estimation is correct right until after the war is over.
What you want to say, is that there's no proof. Which is correct. There is no proof for the figure. Because again. It's an estimation. There is a war. We can't go dig up the bodies just yet
You're exactly like an antivaxxer. Ain't nothing going to convince you to stop using bullshit.
Too far gone for sure
"Hey, there's no evidence of that number."
Yikes, you really want to strawman this as hard as you can.
Not sure what you're quoting but it ain't me.
There is evidence to draw the conclusion that an estimate of 180k dead is plausible. Everything from the length of the war, the documented lack of aid reaching the region, the documented destruction of medical facilities to the The documented destruction of habital areas.
I understand fully that there are ~40k deaths reported from within. I think it's entierly plausible that the real number of deaths as an indirect cause of the war are far higher than that. Personally I think it's more than plausible. I think it's likely. But I'll stick with plausible just for you.
you are straw-manning though, like actually. You don't have evidence of 180k, absolutely nothing.
No. I'm really not. And as I've explained so many times. There are evidence available to make that conclusion plausible.
The word you are looking for is proof. But you not understanding the difference between evidence and proof is another issue.
https://www.thetower.org/article/the-lancet-how-an-anti-israel-propaganda-platform-was-turned-around/
The Lancet has been used by Hamas before. The death numbers are likely very off and purely fictional as there is no credible source for any of that.
Furthermore lancet doesn't let me fact check with spinscore so thats another reason to not trust them. (403 forbidden error)
You think that is an argument? "Hamas" have used it, that's it? Hamas has also been using H20 in vast quantities. You gonna stop drinking water too?
"Are likely very off and purely fictional", If you were capable of reading it yourself instead of just letting your little AI bot do it. You would know why and how they arrive at these estimates. Since they list their sources and references that lead to their estimates. and what they are attributed to
Keep telling that BS to yourself. Your links don't say anything about Israel bombing those corridors, that's because there is no evidence about that actually happening at all and the probability is rather that hamas did it.
The remaining comment is just bant old antisemitism in the cape of Israel critic without any proof, much framing/Desinformation and many feelings.
Yes. They do. If you actually read them you would know. For example. In the second link. It's explicitly stated in the first paragraph.
You must have "missed" that.
It's funny because any criticism you will drape it as antisemitism. The proof is so overwhelming. Bombing of safe routes, taking out hospitals as a first priority, little by little they are already reducing the strip to rubble. That's not me thinking they will. That's them currently doing it.
https://spinscore.io/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2023%2Foct%2F14%2Fgaza-civilians-afraid-to-leave-home-after-bombing-of-safe-routes
Maybe fact check stuff before using, i did wich is why i say no source says Israel did it. Even your source refrains from explicitly say that, however it is implied, this is nither verifiable nor likely as mentioned above and by the fact check.
And what makes you think "spinscore.io" is a bias free tool for fact checking or that they even check the facts at all? It's an "AI" of which you have no idea how it works or what it takes into consideration. As far as we know. It will suggest that you should put glue on pizza.
What gives "spinscore.io" any credibility at all?
Ah yes... Shure i tried to fact check it manually as well and couldn't find any information about these numbers that didn't come from the lancet, that's why i tried tu use a fact check. And that fact check algorithm is actually very accurate most of the time, there are errors because nothing is perfect, but its the most unbiased fact check i know, and thats why i tried to manually check beforehand, wich didn't have any results about the topic. Just that article i linked you.
And "As far as we know. It will suggest that you should put glue on pizza." is just complete mental diarrhea and shows you don't have any actual arguments.
No, your reliance on AI shows you have little to no understanding in what they are and how they work.
They state very clearly how and why they arrive at these estimations. You have so many references and articles that they link you to, to show you where they are getting the information to come to their conclusion.
You are really sitting there saying you don't know how to fact check an estimate. Do you understand what an estimate is? how we reach estimates? What might make them more or less probable?
As far as I'm concerned, it's genocide vs genocide, as it has been since ancient history.