[wat0n]

You mean that hospital that was in fact hit by a rocket?

That one?

Don't make me laugh, mass rape supporter.

[skinster]

Yes, because the Palestinian resistance have a history of attacking their own hospitals. If Hamas had weapons that could do that kind of damage, how come we've never seen any report of rockets killing hundreds in Israel? Because you're talking shite...and talking this shite as Israel has destroyed almost the entirety of Gaza's hospitals and continues its raid and executions in al-Shifa hospital.

Just own what you defend, you wimp. I would if I was spending all my days defending it. How weak you must be for not having the guts to do what everyone sees you doing anyway.

[wat0n]

Palestinian armed groups in Gaza do have a history of their rockets hitting their own people. It's not new and not strange either since the rockers are not missiles (i.e. guided).

Just own you defend mass rapists already, and stop demanding to see footage of rape.

[skinster]

Do you get paid a certain amount of money for every time you type out 'rape' on these boards? It's beginning to look like it.

The Christian Baptist hospital was obviously the work of the Israelis who had bombed the hospital days before and demanded its evacuation with threats of more bombs. Palestinians don't have those type of weapons that can kill hundreds in an instance and there has never been a single instance of them killing hundreds with any of the weapons in their arsenal in one instance. I WISH the resistance had that type of weaponry, but it is not true and you and I know that.

Israel bombing convoys of refugees fleeing in Gaza is not new also, they've done it a number of times.


Zionists really do lie as they breathe. Thanks for repeatedly demonstrating that for everyone here who opposes you, it - alongside Israel's own actions - will bring the end of Zionism in Palestine closer.

[wat0n]

No, the Al Ahli hospital wasn't "obviously bombed by Israel". There's no evidence of that and indeed Hamas was quick to remove all rocket shrapnel it could. But there's agreement at this point the explosion doesn't fit the pattern you'd expect from a missile.

But of course, it doesn't matter. A ghoul who wants to watch rape videos to possibly get off isn't someone that can be reasoned with.

[Pants-of-dog]

If there is evidence showing that it is more plausible that it was not an Israeli airstrike that attacked the evacuee convoy, then it should be presented. At this point in this thread, no such evidence has been shown.

Moreover, this shows a pattern of attacking civilians in so called safe zones. when seen in conjunction with the other attacks.

There was, for example, another attack by the IDF on Nuseirat recently.

[skinster]

Next wat0n is going to tell us the 15,000 children Israel has murdered in Gaza over the last five months did it to themselves.

[wat0n]

No, they didn't kill themselves. They were used as human shields by the mass rapists you support.

If there is evidence showing that it is more plausible that it was not an Israeli airstrike that attacked the evacuee convoy, then it should be presented. At this point in this thread, no such evidence has been shown.

Moreover, this shows a pattern of attacking civilians in so called safe zones. when seen in conjunction with the other attacks.

There was, for example, another attack by the IDF on Nuseirat recently.

Nuseirat isn't a safe zone. The safe zone is in southwest Gaza.

I am still waiting for your proof, not arguments from ignorance.

[skinster]

There are no safe zones in Gaza. Even the ones the Israelis state they are are bombed too. Because Zionist savagery is boundless.

human shields

I was close.

If what you said was true though, explain why the entire world is against Israel today.

I sincerely thank you for your many contributions to the downfall of Zionism in Palestine, wat0n..

[Pants-of-dog]

Since there is no new argument, evidence, or rebuttal concerning the IDF attacks against people in supposed safe zones, we can safely say there is such a pattern and that this use of “safe” is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

[wat0n]

@skinster:

Really? At this rate, Hamas is still more likely to be toppled than not.

Of course, it would be a lot easier if Netanyahu was sent home (and then to jail). Which may actually happen soon, if you actually read Israeli news.

@Pants-of-dog nonsense, you are the one who made the claim, you prove it. No arguments from ignorance. No more unsourced bullshit.

[Pants-of-dog]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that shows intent, we see the twisting of the ideas of military advantage and collateral damage.

The humanitarian law idea is that civilian institutions lose their immunity from attack when militants use these institutions as places of attack. The original idea was that these places could be lawfully attacked during the time the militants were actively using them.

The IDF and Israeli government have stretched this law to the point that any civilian institution can be attacked at any time if there is any possibility that Hamas used any area in close proximity at any time in the past.

@wat0n has used similar arguments: attacks on hospitals and refugee camps are lawful because there is a tunnel close by that may have been used by Hamas.

This deliberate misuse of humanitarian law fits the pattern shown by the two precious examples. Three times is almost certainly not a coincidence. This is a pattern of misuse and shows intent.

[skinster]

@skinster:
Really? At this rate, Hamas is still more likely to be toppled than not.

You cannot eradicate Hamas. You cannot eradicate a resistance movement like them. Besides, there are a number of resistance orgs in this war. And this war itself, with every single one of those orphans Israel has created, you have created future resistance fighters. Just like those resistance fighters Israel is dealing with today.

Of course, it would be a lot easier if Netanyahu was sent home (and then to jail). Which may actually happen soon, if you actually read Israeli news.

I know Israelis tell themselves this is simply "a Netanyahu problem" and his removal will fix everything...but that you expect us to believe it is amusing. It is a Zionism problem, an ethnosupremacy problem, a denial of rights of the natives problem and a land theft problem. And now a greater problem for the Israelis since this genocide will be hard to come back from, particularly with the resistance in the region that is only growing, alongside the decline of the U.S. empire which is all that is allowing Israel to be what it is today. But it will get dropped eventually. As Kissinger famously noted, it is deadly to be an enemy of the United States but it is fatal to be a friend.

A sixth of the Israeli settlers have fled already. It is not looking good for your ilk. And why aren't you there, how can you be a real Zionist when you refuse to make aliya?

I do actually read and watch Israeli media, which is why I can talk about the level of honesty you'll get from Israelis compared to the trash about Israel we see in the Western mainstream media, and of course the level of casual genocidal rhetoric that is on display practically every day in Israeli media.

[wat0n]

Since you follow Israeli media, then I guess you are aware Netanyahu is clearly trying to do his best to prolong the war, and that his coalition is about to blow up over the Haredi draft issue.

Certainly, getting rid of him alone won't solve the problem. Hamas won't disappear just because Israel changes its PM after all. But it will at least get one focused on Israel's interests rather than avoiding prosecution over his corruption cases.

Also, Hamas doesn't need to be eradicated. Even ISIS hasn't been eradicated. But it can be toppled, and replaced by an international peacekeeping force.

[wat0n]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that shows intent, we see the twisting of the ideas of military advantage and collateral damage.

The humanitarian law idea is that civilian institutions lose their immunity from attack when militants use these institutions as places of attack. The original idea was that these places could be lawfully attacked during the time the militants were actively using them.

The IDF and Israeli government have stretched this law to the point that any civilian institution can be attacked at any time if there is any possibility that Hamas used any area in close proximity at any time in the past.

@wat0n has used similar arguments: attacks on hospitals and refugee camps are lawful because there is a tunnel close by that may have been used by Hamas.

This deliberate misuse of humanitarian law fits the pattern shown by the two precious examples. Three times is almost certainly not a coincidence. This is a pattern of misuse and shows intent.

No, it's not because "a tunnel may have been used by Hamas". The argument is that the tunnel was used by Hamas.

And also that's not what international law says about when civilian objects lose their protection. They lose their protection when they become military objectives, that is, when they become "objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage". There is no mention here about needing to be used by the defender to carry out attacks and a "definite military advantage" is much broader than that, you just made that up. Destroying a tunnel solely used to transport weapons, for example, provides a definite military advantage and can be perfectly attacked as long as the incidental damage to civilians is not excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated of doing so.

Even worse, you've also said that Israel cannot attack rocket launchers if they are located in civilian areas, worse if civilians are killed, even if they are used to attack Israeli civilians. So stop the bullshit.

[KurtFF8]

Palestinian armed groups in Gaza do have a history of their rockets hitting their own people. It's not new and not strange either since the rockers are not missiles (i.e. guided).

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (like yourself) still harping on this case when Israel has indisputably continued to attack multiple other hospitals since then.

[wat0n]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (like yourself) still harping on this case when Israel has indisputably continued to attack multiple other hospitals since then.

I know the likes of you may not get it, but is very illustrative of how one cannot rely on the claims by the government of Gaza.

Even today, the casualty statistics still count the alleged 471 dead even though the general assessment is that there were far less killed.

And if you want, we can also discuss how there's footage of hospitals being used by the armed groups as well and well beyond simply providing medical care to wounded fighters.

[Pants-of-dog]

Quibbling about terminology is the exact method used to stretch the definitions of collateral damage and military advantage to the extent that they are used to justify any attack against civilians.

Further quibbling (as a means of justification) just provides more example of that very tactic.

There is no disagreement that this is used deliberately and deceptively to justify any attack on civilians. The discovery of a tunnel near Nuseirat is used as a justification for bombing Nuseirat several months earlier. Even though the tunnel was undiscovered at the time, nor was it affected by the bombing that killed children.

[QatzelOk]

...

Also, Hamas doesn't need to be eradicated. Even ISIS hasn't been eradicated. But it can be toppled, and replaced by an international peacekeeping force.

Yes, once the Métis are genocided down to a few starving women and children, you can send in the RCMP to control the debris.

Perhaps you can offer the "Palestinians" some land in Oklahoma where they can build some kind of "New Palestine" on a superfund site?

Say hi to Andrew Jackson and Count Dracula, wat0n! (when you meet them in hell)

[wat0n]

Quibbling about terminology is the exact method used to stretch the definitions of collateral damage and military advantage to the extent that they are used to justify any attack against civilians.

Further quibbling (as a means of justification) just provides more example of that very tactic.

No. You made a wrong claim about what international law says about attacks, I corrected you properly. And it is not "minor quibbling" to say a military object is not defined as such solely by its use for attacks. This is a poor subterfuge, which is in turn used to justify mass rape and massacres.

There is no disagreement that this is used deliberately and deceptively to justify any attack on civilians. The discovery of a tunnel near Nuseirat is used as a justification for bombing Nuseirat several months earlier. Even though the tunnel was undiscovered at the time, nor was it affected by the bombing that killed children.

The justification for attacking Nuseirat is that Hamas has a battalion there.

The tunnels, the eulogies by Hamas' military wing and the testimony of former hostage Amit Soussana are just supporting evidence of the existence of said battalion and its embedding with civilians.

Yes, once the Métis are genocided down to a few starving women and children, you can send in the RCMP to control the debris.

Perhaps you can offer the "Palestinians" some land in Oklahoma where they can build some kind of "New Palestine" on a superfund site?

Say hi to Andrew Jackson and Count Dracula, wat0n! (when you meet them in hell)

An international peacekeeping force would not be under Israeli control, by definition. Even more so since it would then hand Gaza to a Palestinian government, one that does not engage in mass rape of civilians.