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
11 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
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.
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.
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?
Theoretically speaking, what sources would you accept as authoritative on the matter of an ongoing genocide?
Then why say
as an objection?
You're all over the place.
Did you really just "fake news" the UN? LOL!
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 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.
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
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.
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?
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.