(06-04-2025 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-03-2025 10:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A bit sensitive to be asked a question I see.

As I would be.... because the TRUTH is there if you care to be informed. It shouldn't be random people on a chat room giving you the truth.

Quote:I asked because all the articles I saw cited a non-Hamas source and the Israeli military as saying that there was a shooting. The post from Ham was the first I had heard of this, so it was strange to find multiple reports citing the Israeli military but seeing multiple posters argue that it was a lie. I mean, I do agree that believing Hamas is a bad idea.

You completely missed MY point about them 'creating morbid entertainment' rather than news..

While I suspect there may have been more than one such report... the report I watched with the IDF spokesperson was ASKED about the reports... and the IDF spokesperson said precisely what you report.... that there WAS a shooting.... but that it was not in any way near or related to the claimed 'attack'.... and included shots in the air... then warning shots 'near' people... but intentionally not targeting them.

What you miss is that Hamas is COUNTING on people like you to NOT be suspicious, and the media to be complicit. They will do something to draw a military response of some kind by Israel... and then use Israel TELLING YOU THE TRUTH about there having been a non-lethal or limited encounter.... as EVIDENCE of a mass shooting.

You quoted yourself above... Non-Hamas sources reported there was a shooting. That does not in ANY way mean that there were massive deaths and tanks.

Quote:The Post tweet isn’t even saying it was an erroneous report. You’re mischaracterizing that. It was saying that there were conflicting reports and they didn’t adequately convey that situation.

If there are conflicting reports, does that not suggest to you that one of them is not what happened?? Since they only presented one... they did not share the NEWS.... but instead they shared 'one side of the conflict'

Quote:I do agree that IDF’s statements carry some weight, especially when they admit to firing towards a crowd.

Then there is the Red Cross who also said that Israeli troops opened fire…

Yes.... Israel admitted to firing in the air and then warning shots NEAR rioters/aggressors.

Don't you think if the IDF had killed 20+ people that the red cross would say something more than 'they opened fire'??

You're taking the very obvious bait.

Every time Palestians get killed in Gaza the following happens:

1) Palestianians blame Israel for killing innocent people
2) Israel claims that:
a) it was not them that killed the Palestinians or
b) it was them that killed them but it was necessary because Hamas was using
the Palestinians as human shields.

Leftists tend to meet 1) with indignation and Rightists tend to meet 2) with indignation.

Nobody know what the f*** is actually happening over there. Both sides believe what they want to believe and there is plenty of misinformation to support what you want to hear.

I'm not sure what to believe on the story involving the shooting near the aid station. Hamas has discouraged and harassed any journalist trying to cover any story in Gaza. And Israel is just as bad...openly intimidating any journalist near any of the combat zones.
I don't believe either side. They both openly lie and distort what is going on.

Hamas and its ilk have sealed their long-term fate with the October 7 massacre and their continued disregard for any semblance of well-being for their own people. Israel has doomed themselves to a future of suffering at the hands of thousands of starving young Gazan children who will grow up somewhere, arm themselves and seek vengeance as terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israelis.

There will be no peace for either side until they come to the conclusion that killing each others children is not the solution. To anything.

People say that both sides lie, and how to tell which one, if either, is telling the truth.

If it is a binary choice, I would tend to believe the side that didn't sponsor a sneak attack on innocent people, killing, raping, and kidnapping.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fri...fc80&ei=12

(06-04-2025 01:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  People say that both sides lie, and how to tell which one, if either, is telling the truth.

If it is a binary choice, I would tend to believe the side that didn't sponsor a sneak attack on innocent people, killing, raping, and kidnapping.

I'd tend to believe the side who has nothing to gain from lying.

So in this instance, the Israeli military saying they fired shots is not something they would lie about, because they gain nothing by admitting that. So it is a pretty clear piece of evidence that this wasn't a fabrication.

Then you have the Red Cross wading in, who also has nothing to gain by publicly stating this occurred.

You can't believe this just on the words of Hamas or the organization running the aid station - both would have reasons to lie about the shootings happening or not happening, respectively.

(06-04-2025 01:03 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  ... at the hands of thousands of ... Gazan children who will grow up somewhere, arm themselves and seek vengeance as terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israelis.

Wasn't this the case before Oct 7 and the subsequent response? Were those children ever going to grow up to be pro-Israel?

(06-04-2025 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-03-2025 10:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A bit sensitive to be asked a question I see.

As I would be.... because the TRUTH is there if you care to be informed. It shouldn't be random people on a chat room giving you the truth.

Oh give it a break. I literally Googled this event to learn more. All the news articles I found reported that the shooting occurred, with multiple parties backing up that fact.

I didn't find an article claiming it was completely fabricated, and even Tomball's link was to a tweet for a retraction related to the level of certainty that was used.

Do you still maintain that this was fabricated?

Quote:

Quote:I asked because all the articles I saw cited a non-Hamas source and the Israeli military as saying that there was a shooting. The post from Ham was the first I had heard of this, so it was strange to find multiple reports citing the Israeli military but seeing multiple posters argue that it was a lie. I mean, I do agree that believing Hamas is a bad idea.

You completely missed MY point about them 'creating morbid entertainment' rather than news..

While I suspect there may have been more than one such report... the report I watched with the IDF spokesperson was ASKED about the reports... and the IDF spokesperson said precisely what you report.... that there WAS a shooting.... but that it was not in any way near or related to the claimed 'attack'.... and included shots in the air... then warning shots 'near' people... but intentionally not targeting them.

What you miss is that Hamas is COUNTING on people like you to NOT be suspicious, and the media to be complicit. They will do something to draw a military response of some kind by Israel... and then use Israel TELLING YOU THE TRUTH about there having been a non-lethal or limited encounter.... as EVIDENCE of a mass shooting.

You quoted yourself above... Non-Hamas sources reported there was a shooting. That does not in ANY way mean that there were massive deaths and tanks.

I didn't miss your point - I didn't even try and respond to your point about morbid entertainment.

I was asking about the claim that this was fabricated. At the time of reading that post I hadn't even heard of this situation. It struck me as a rather sizzling back and forth and something I wanted to know more about. Hence why I was asking for some supporting information when my initial search didn't turn up anything supporting your statement: this "doesn't seem to be an accurate description of what happened... like AT ALL"

I think what you miss is that the IDF is counting on people like you to NOT be suspicious. Seriously, both Hamas and the IDF have incentives to lie - I don't trust either on their word unless they are admitting to something that doesn't benefit them.

So why are you not suspicious of that initial statement by the IDF? Aren't conservatives supposed to be suspicious of governments?

Quote:

Quote:The Post tweet isn’t even saying it was an erroneous report. You’re mischaracterizing that. It was saying that there were conflicting reports and they didn’t adequately convey that situation.

If there are conflicting reports, does that not suggest to you that one of them is not what happened?? Since they only presented one... they did not share the NEWS.... but instead they shared 'one side of the conflict'

To your first statement: yes

But that does not mean the retraction that was issues conveys that what was reported was wrong. It means that it wasn't properly presented at the time.

Remember, Tomball said this "here is one source that corrected its initial erroneous report. Of course, many of their progressive followers will never see the correction."

In the context of this discussion, saying that the initial report was erroneous is saying that the Washington Post has confirmed that the shooting wasn't attributed to the IDF.

Quote:

Quote:I do agree that IDF’s statements carry some weight, especially when they admit to firing towards a crowd.

Then there is the Red Cross who also said that Israeli troops opened fire…

Yes.... Israel admitted to firing in the air and then warning shots NEAR rioters/aggressors.

Don't you think if the IDF had killed 20+ people that the red cross would say something more than 'they opened fire'??

You're taking the very obvious bait.

I'm taking the very obvious bait? I'm looking at your and Tomball skeptically for being so certain that what has been reported has been falsely reported.

From the BBC:

Quote:In a statement, the IDF said approximately 0.5km from the aid distribution site "several suspects" moved towards them. It said troops shot warning fire and when "suspects failed to retreat, additional shots were directed near a few individual suspects". It said it was looking into reports of casualties.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xg7rv9g4yo

I like that you think the word near used here, when IDF explicitly says it was near a few individuals, means they didn't fire at them. My training with firearms was that you only ever aimed near something if you intended to hit it.

My hunch is that there is not a complete fabrication. But I would not be surprised if Hamas is exaggerating things and trying to milk the most out of this. But given that IDF troops shot towards the crowds multiple times, I think it is appropriate to question someone who vehemently argues that this was fabricated.

We should look at both sides skeptically.

(06-04-2025 01:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-04-2025 01:03 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  ... at the hands of thousands of ... Gazan children who will grow up somewhere, arm themselves and seek vengeance as terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israelis.

Wasn't this the case before Oct 7 and the subsequent response? Were those children ever going to grow up to be pro-Israel?

Yes. It was. And, no they weren’t.
As long as Israel’s response to Hamas etc is to kill children in Gaza that is going to be the default response of Hamas. And vice versa.
Until the default response is…let’s stop killing each others children then the war continues.
It’s worked in N Ireland. It’s worked in S Africa. It’s worked in Rwanda.
You won’t get a solution until that happens.
Neither side right now has the courage to do it.

(06-04-2025 01:03 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I'm not sure what to believe on the story involving the shooting near the aid station. Hamas has discouraged and harassed any journalist trying to cover any story in Gaza. And Israel is just as bad...openly intimidating any journalist near any of the combat zones.
I don't believe either side. They both openly lie and distort what is going on.

Hamas and its ilk have sealed their long-term fate with the October 7 massacre and their continued disregard for any semblance of well-being for their own people. Israel has doomed themselves to a future of suffering at the hands of thousands of starving young Gazan children who will grow up somewhere, arm themselves and seek vengeance as terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israelis.

There will be no peace for either side until they come to the conclusion that killing each others children is not the solution. To anything.

Agree with this and I join you in disbelieving what both sides tell us.

Dead Israelis

related

(06-04-2025 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't miss your point - I didn't even try and respond to your point about morbid entertainment.

Which means you ignored it, rather than missed it. A distinction without a difference to me.

You missed where I pointed out the very different meanings of 'shooting near someone 1/2 a mile away from the food distribution center' and 'killing 20+ people with tanks'. You seem to see the admission of the former as evidence of the latter.

But more, I don't really care THAT MUCH about either of these things. War is ugly and bad things happen. The object should be to end the war.

The claims of 'Genocide' have come from Hamas... but despite having the power to actually DO it, Israel has not... and while I'm sure there are some doing it... it is not widely called for the elimination of Palestine. Can you say that about 'the elimination of Israel' from Hamas??

Quote:I was asking about the claim that this was fabricated. At the time of reading that post I hadn't even heard of this situation. It struck me as a rather sizzling back and forth and something I wanted to know more about. Hence why I was asking for some supporting information when my initial search didn't turn up anything supporting your statement: this "doesn't seem to be an accurate description of what happened... like AT ALL"

Yes.. because the people AT the food distribution center denied that 20+ people were killed near it.

Quote:Remember, Tomball said this "here is one source that corrected its initial erroneous report. Of course, many of their progressive followers will never see the correction."

And he's 100% correct. More though, in response to such a horrible report, BAD THINGS can happen from 'triggered' people... and more, it is hard to change someone's mind once it has been soured by such claims.

Quote:In the context of this discussion, saying that the initial report was erroneous is saying that the Washington Post has confirmed that the shooting wasn't attributed to the IDF.

Nope. It wasn't AT a food distribution center and 20+ people 'just trying to get food' don't seem to have been killed

Quote:From the BBC:

Quote:In a statement, the IDF said approximately 0.5km from the aid distribution site "several suspects" moved towards them. It said troops shot warning fire and when "suspects failed to retreat, additional shots were directed near a few individual suspects". It said it was looking into reports of casualties.

Yes. Isn't this precisely what I said?? Nothing in THAT report supports HAMAS' claim.

I earlier said 1/2 mile... it was 1/2 k.

Quote: My training with firearms was that you only ever aimed near something if you intended to hit it.

Wow... I'm really trying not to insult you here...
You weren't trained for either war nor 'peacekeeping' support. You aren't expected to have the weapons and training that these people do. 'putting one across their bow' is actually fairly common in situations like these. Only when all else has failed do they shoot to kill as you were 'trained'. But yes... ANY time you discharge a weapon, you should be prepared for an accident to happen.... but 20+ people by guns (not by falling debris or bombs) likely isn't an accident.

Quote:My hunch is that there is not a complete fabrication. But I would not be surprised if Hamas is exaggerating things and trying to milk the most out of this. But given that IDF troops shot towards the crowds multiple times, I think it is appropriate to question someone who vehemently argues that this was fabricated.

Good thing I never did that. There is ALWAYS a glimmer of truth in any decent lie. As I said... I think there is enough difference between 'firing warning shots at threatening people some distance away from a food distribution center' and 'killing 20+ innocent people just trying to get food' to justify the comment.... ESPECIALLY when again, the two 3rd party witnesses' reports don't support the latter.... but would be consistent with the former.



Again... I'm not really interested in trying to 'armchair QB' a war... especially not an urban one. I'm looking to end it. Only ONE side seems willing to let the other exist.

(03-14-2025 12:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  documentary shows connection between Hamas and campus protests

In one of the film’s most shocking revelations, senior "leaders of Hamas in America" are heard strategizing on how to infiltrate U.S. "media outlets, universities, and research centers" and coordinate their language to make Hamas most palatable to an American progressive audience.

"The Americans… we must address them from a position of rights and justice, and at the same time choose our words well," an unidentified voice says in the recording.

Organizations like the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have accused Israel of committing "apartheid" and "genocide" while downplaying or staying silent on Hamas atrocities on Oct. 7, according to Sachs. She said that the silence from these groups drove her to make this film.

FAFO: The effect of suspending foreign enrollment from universities that coddle antisemitics

(06-05-2025 03:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2025 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I didn't miss your point - I didn't even try and respond to your point about morbid entertainment.

Which means you ignored it, rather than missed it. A distinction without a difference to me.

You missed where I pointed out the very different meanings of 'shooting near someone 1/2 a mile away from the food distribution center' and 'killing 20+ people with tanks'. You seem to see the admission of the former as evidence of the latter.

But more, I don't really care THAT MUCH about either of these things. War is ugly and bad things happen. The object should be to end the war.

The claims of 'Genocide' have come from Hamas... but despite having the power to actually DO it, Israel has not... and while I'm sure there are some doing it... it is not widely called for the elimination of Palestine. Can you say that about 'the elimination of Israel' from Hamas??

Quote:I was asking about the claim that this was fabricated. At the time of reading that post I hadn't even heard of this situation. It struck me as a rather sizzling back and forth and something I wanted to know more about. Hence why I was asking for some supporting information when my initial search didn't turn up anything supporting your statement: this "doesn't seem to be an accurate description of what happened... like AT ALL"

Yes.. because the people AT the food distribution center denied that 20+ people were killed near it.

Quote:Remember, Tomball said this "here is one source that corrected its initial erroneous report. Of course, many of their progressive followers will never see the correction."

And he's 100% correct. More though, in response to such a horrible report, BAD THINGS can happen from 'triggered' people... and more, it is hard to change someone's mind once it has been soured by such claims.

Quote:In the context of this discussion, saying that the initial report was erroneous is saying that the Washington Post has confirmed that the shooting wasn't attributed to the IDF.

Nope. It wasn't AT a food distribution center and 20+ people 'just trying to get food' don't seem to have been killed

Quote:From the BBC:

Quote:In a statement, the IDF said approximately 0.5km from the aid distribution site "several suspects" moved towards them. It said troops shot warning fire and when "suspects failed to retreat, additional shots were directed near a few individual suspects". It said it was looking into reports of casualties.

Yes. Isn't this precisely what I said?? Nothing in THAT report supports HAMAS' claim.

I earlier said 1/2 mile... it was 1/2 k.

Quote: My training with firearms was that you only ever aimed near something if you intended to hit it.

Wow... I'm really trying not to insult you here...
You weren't trained for either war nor 'peacekeeping' support. You aren't expected to have the weapons and training that these people do. 'putting one across their bow' is actually fairly common in situations like these. Only when all else has failed do they shoot to kill as you were 'trained'. But yes... ANY time you discharge a weapon, you should be prepared for an accident to happen.... but 20+ people by guns (not by falling debris or bombs) likely isn't an accident.

Quote:My hunch is that there is not a complete fabrication. But I would not be surprised if Hamas is exaggerating things and trying to milk the most out of this. But given that IDF troops shot towards the crowds multiple times, I think it is appropriate to question someone who vehemently argues that this was fabricated.

Good thing I never did that. There is ALWAYS a glimmer of truth in any decent lie. As I said... I think there is enough difference between 'firing warning shots at threatening people some distance away from a food distribution center' and 'killing 20+ innocent people just trying to get food' to justify the comment.... ESPECIALLY when again, the two 3rd party witnesses' reports don't support the latter.... but would be consistent with the former.



Again... I'm not really interested in trying to 'armchair QB' a war... especially not an urban one. I'm looking to end it. Only ONE side seems willing to let the other exist.

Neither side seems to want to walk away from it as it presently stands.

Israel certainly isnt seemingly interested in walking away at the current status quo.

Nor seemingly is Hamas.

And both seemingly are intent on wiping out the other. Both Israel trying to 'do in' Hamas, and conversely Hamas intent on destroying Israel. Unfortunately the position of destroying Hamas seems to take the form of destroying pretty much any basis of Palestinian self-rule within the Gaza territory. And that certainly seems to be the path on the West Bank. Not that I support either angle of destruction.

In short, what has to happen, and may never happen, is that both sides need to come to a position that neither side should endeavor violence to the other as a political end or as a kneejerk response to violence - kind of some point where each some generation of both sides not to 'rub out' the other. Kind of similar to N. Ireland -- a point I saw made elsewhere and tend to think is fairly apt.

But, at the current juncture, I dont see the stark merit you make in your last sentence. All the while I support Israel's right to self defend itselt -- *especially* in the light of 7-11

You don’t aim “near” something if you intend to hit it. If that is the intent, you aim AT it.

(06-05-2025 10:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Neither side seems to want to walk away from it as it presently stands.

Israel certainly isnt seemingly interested in walking away at the current status quo.

Nor seemingly is Hamas.

And both seemingly are intent on wiping out the other. Both Israel trying to 'do in' Hamas, and conversely Hamas intent on destroying Israel. Unfortunately the position of destroying Hamas seems to take the form of destroying pretty much any basis of Palestinian self-rule within the Gaza territory. And that certainly seems to be the path on the West Bank. Not that I support either angle of destruction.

In short, what has to happen, and may never happen, is that both sides need to come to a position that neither side should endeavor violence to the other as a political end or as a kneejerk response to violence - kind of some point where each some generation of both sides not to 'rub out' the other. Kind of similar to N. Ireland -- a point I saw made elsewhere and tend to think is fairly apt.

But, at the current juncture, I dont see the stark merit you make in your last sentence. All the while I support Israel's right to self defend itselt -- *especially* in the light of 7-11

You probably didn't mean to do this... but you perfectly described the disconnect.

Israel is a nation. Hamas is a terrorist organization operating within 'Palestine'. As a result, Israel seeking to eliminate Hamas is not the same as Hamas seeking to eliminate Israel. One is Genocide... and it is coming from Hamas.

Hamas will NEVER compromise. They are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. What MUST happen is that Hamas must be eliminated.... not to resurface under a different name. How can you possibly compromise if your primary goal is the 'elimination' of the other side? Member or supporters of Hamas are certainly free to 'cease to be that'... but Hamas must be eliminated... and it has to come from Palestinians. Palestinians must vocally and physically and loudly renounce and reject and 'help 'ferret out' Hamas and its network.

Failing that, we're merely kicking the can down the road by any peace accord.

(06-06-2025 01:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You don’t aim “near” something if you intend to hit it. If that is the intent, you aim AT it.

This.
A perfect example is many of the videos I've seen in LA of the police shooting rubber bullets. They are clearly aiming at the ground, and in one instance, a reporter was hit by a ricochet.... which obviously still hurts, but has far less impact than direct fire. The police, having shot the round, absolutely ARE responsible for what happens when they discharge their weapons... but the intent to avoid serious injury is clear... as riot control/security forced are often taught.

Part of the reason Lad would never be taught other than to shoot to 'stop' would be because he's not as protected from collateral damage from a 'warning shot' as he is if he feels he has no choice but to 'shoot to stop'.

(06-10-2025 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-05-2025 10:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Neither side seems to want to walk away from it as it presently stands.

Israel certainly isnt seemingly interested in walking away at the current status quo.

Nor seemingly is Hamas.

And both seemingly are intent on wiping out the other. Both Israel trying to 'do in' Hamas, and conversely Hamas intent on destroying Israel. Unfortunately the position of destroying Hamas seems to take the form of destroying pretty much any basis of Palestinian self-rule within the Gaza territory. And that certainly seems to be the path on the West Bank. Not that I support either angle of destruction.

In short, what has to happen, and may never happen, is that both sides need to come to a position that neither side should endeavor violence to the other as a political end or as a kneejerk response to violence - kind of some point where each some generation of both sides not to 'rub out' the other. Kind of similar to N. Ireland -- a point I saw made elsewhere and tend to think is fairly apt.

But, at the current juncture, I dont see the stark merit you make in your last sentence. All the while I support Israel's right to self defend itselt -- *especially* in the light of 7-11

You probably didn't mean to do this... but you perfectly described the disconnect.

Israel is a nation. Hamas is a terrorist organization operating within 'Palestine'. As a result, Israel seeking to eliminate Hamas is not the same as Hamas seeking to eliminate Israel. One is Genocide... and it is coming from Hamas.

Hamas will NEVER compromise. They are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. What MUST happen is that Hamas must be eliminated.... not to resurface under a different name. How can you possibly compromise if your primary goal is the 'elimination' of the other side? Member or supporters of Hamas are certainly free to 'cease to be that'... but Hamas must be eliminated... and it has to come from Palestinians. Palestinians must vocally and physically and loudly renounce and reject and 'help 'ferret out' Hamas and its network.

Failing that, we're merely kicking the can down the road by any peace accord.

(06-06-2025 01:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You don’t aim “near” something if you intend to hit it. If that is the intent, you aim AT it.

This.
A perfect example is many of the videos I've seen in LA of the police shooting rubber bullets. They are clearly aiming at the ground, and in one instance, a reporter was hit by a ricochet.... which obviously still hurts, but has far less impact than direct fire. The police, having shot the round, absolutely ARE responsible for what happens when they discharge their weapons... but the intent to avoid serious injury is clear... as riot control/security forced are often taught.

Part of the reason Lad would never be taught other than to shoot to 'stop' would be because he's not as protected from collateral damage from a 'warning shot' as he is if he feels he has no choice but to 'shoot to stop'.

Ham, you also perfectly to described the disconnect by those on the right.

Israel, the state/government, has responded to a terrorist organization by, at this point, excessively punishing the population of the country the terrorist organization operates out of. And while I agree that Palestinians must denounce Hamas, but in the absence of that, Israel should not be cavalier with collateral damage and effectively punish a population for the sins of the neighboring group, regardless of how reprehensible the acts were/are.

That same logic is why Hamas’ terror attack was so gross - they targeted citizens of a country.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, despite how hard both sides try to make it so.

(06-10-2025 06:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2025 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-05-2025 10:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Neither side seems to want to walk away from it as it presently stands.

Israel certainly isnt seemingly interested in walking away at the current status quo.

Nor seemingly is Hamas.

And both seemingly are intent on wiping out the other. Both Israel trying to 'do in' Hamas, and conversely Hamas intent on destroying Israel. Unfortunately the position of destroying Hamas seems to take the form of destroying pretty much any basis of Palestinian self-rule within the Gaza territory. And that certainly seems to be the path on the West Bank. Not that I support either angle of destruction.

In short, what has to happen, and may never happen, is that both sides need to come to a position that neither side should endeavor violence to the other as a political end or as a kneejerk response to violence - kind of some point where each some generation of both sides not to 'rub out' the other. Kind of similar to N. Ireland -- a point I saw made elsewhere and tend to think is fairly apt.

But, at the current juncture, I dont see the stark merit you make in your last sentence. All the while I support Israel's right to self defend itselt -- *especially* in the light of 7-11

You probably didn't mean to do this... but you perfectly described the disconnect.

Israel is a nation. Hamas is a terrorist organization operating within 'Palestine'. As a result, Israel seeking to eliminate Hamas is not the same as Hamas seeking to eliminate Israel. One is Genocide... and it is coming from Hamas.

Hamas will NEVER compromise. They are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. What MUST happen is that Hamas must be eliminated.... not to resurface under a different name. How can you possibly compromise if your primary goal is the 'elimination' of the other side? Member or supporters of Hamas are certainly free to 'cease to be that'... but Hamas must be eliminated... and it has to come from Palestinians. Palestinians must vocally and physically and loudly renounce and reject and 'help 'ferret out' Hamas and its network.

Failing that, we're merely kicking the can down the road by any peace accord.

(06-06-2025 01:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You don’t aim “near” something if you intend to hit it. If that is the intent, you aim AT it.

This.
A perfect example is many of the videos I've seen in LA of the police shooting rubber bullets. They are clearly aiming at the ground, and in one instance, a reporter was hit by a ricochet.... which obviously still hurts, but has far less impact than direct fire. The police, having shot the round, absolutely ARE responsible for what happens when they discharge their weapons... but the intent to avoid serious injury is clear... as riot control/security forced are often taught.

Part of the reason Lad would never be taught other than to shoot to 'stop' would be because he's not as protected from collateral damage from a 'warning shot' as he is if he feels he has no choice but to 'shoot to stop'.

Ham, you also perfectly to described the disconnect by those on the right.

Israel, the state/government, has responded to a terrorist organization by, at this point, excessively punishing the population of the country the terrorist organization operates out of. And while I agree that Palestinians must denounce Hamas, but in the absence of that, Israel should not be cavalier with collateral damage and effectively punish a population for the sins of the neighboring group, regardless of how reprehensible the acts were/are.

That same logic is why Hamas’ terror attack was so gross - they targeted citizens of a country.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, despite how hard both sides try to make it so.

Two wrongs are also not equal.

Hamas adds a wrong every day they have hostages. Times the number of hostages. Including the ones they killed by starvation and maltreatment.

If fighting oppressive invaders who want to annihilate you is wrong, then D-Day was wrong. London withstanding the blitz was wrong. And Guadalcanal was wrong.

And Hamas did not just target citizens of a country - they targeted members of a religion, and an ethnic group.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/gre...60e6&ei=45

I guess she didn't watch the video of Oct. 7.

Fact check

GHF stated, "All aid was distributed today without incident. No injuries or fatalities. We have heard that these fake reports have been actively fomented by Hamas. They are untrue and fabricated." The organization added, "We’re scaling up as quickly as possible, but the truth is stark: for every truck we successfully bring into our network, other humanitarian groups are being looted before reaching those in need."

(06-10-2025 07:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2025 06:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2025 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-05-2025 10:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Neither side seems to want to walk away from it as it presently stands.

Israel certainly isnt seemingly interested in walking away at the current status quo.

Nor seemingly is Hamas.

And both seemingly are intent on wiping out the other. Both Israel trying to 'do in' Hamas, and conversely Hamas intent on destroying Israel. Unfortunately the position of destroying Hamas seems to take the form of destroying pretty much any basis of Palestinian self-rule within the Gaza territory. And that certainly seems to be the path on the West Bank. Not that I support either angle of destruction.

In short, what has to happen, and may never happen, is that both sides need to come to a position that neither side should endeavor violence to the other as a political end or as a kneejerk response to violence - kind of some point where each some generation of both sides not to 'rub out' the other. Kind of similar to N. Ireland -- a point I saw made elsewhere and tend to think is fairly apt.

But, at the current juncture, I dont see the stark merit you make in your last sentence. All the while I support Israel's right to self defend itselt -- *especially* in the light of 7-11

You probably didn't mean to do this... but you perfectly described the disconnect.

Israel is a nation. Hamas is a terrorist organization operating within 'Palestine'. As a result, Israel seeking to eliminate Hamas is not the same as Hamas seeking to eliminate Israel. One is Genocide... and it is coming from Hamas.

Hamas will NEVER compromise. They are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. What MUST happen is that Hamas must be eliminated.... not to resurface under a different name. How can you possibly compromise if your primary goal is the 'elimination' of the other side? Member or supporters of Hamas are certainly free to 'cease to be that'... but Hamas must be eliminated... and it has to come from Palestinians. Palestinians must vocally and physically and loudly renounce and reject and 'help 'ferret out' Hamas and its network.

Failing that, we're merely kicking the can down the road by any peace accord.

(06-06-2025 01:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You don’t aim “near” something if you intend to hit it. If that is the intent, you aim AT it.

This.
A perfect example is many of the videos I've seen in LA of the police shooting rubber bullets. They are clearly aiming at the ground, and in one instance, a reporter was hit by a ricochet.... which obviously still hurts, but has far less impact than direct fire. The police, having shot the round, absolutely ARE responsible for what happens when they discharge their weapons... but the intent to avoid serious injury is clear... as riot control/security forced are often taught.

Part of the reason Lad would never be taught other than to shoot to 'stop' would be because he's not as protected from collateral damage from a 'warning shot' as he is if he feels he has no choice but to 'shoot to stop'.

Ham, you also perfectly to described the disconnect by those on the right.

Israel, the state/government, has responded to a terrorist organization by, at this point, excessively punishing the population of the country the terrorist organization operates out of. And while I agree that Palestinians must denounce Hamas, but in the absence of that, Israel should not be cavalier with collateral damage and effectively punish a population for the sins of the neighboring group, regardless of how reprehensible the acts were/are.

That same logic is why Hamas’ terror attack was so gross - they targeted citizens of a country.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, despite how hard both sides try to make it so.

Two wrongs are also not equal.

Hamas adds a wrong every day they have hostages. Times the number of hostages. Including the ones they killed by starvation and maltreatment.

If fighting oppressive invaders who want to annihilate you is wrong, then D-Day was wrong. London withstanding the blitz was wrong. And Guadalcanal was wrong.

And Hamas did not just target citizens of a country - they targeted members of a religion, and an ethnic group.

No reasonable person can argue that it’s wrong for Israel to defend itself from Hamas. And I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who aligns with your strawman.

The issue I, and others, point out is that Israel’s response extends beyond just harming/killing members of Hamas. Not only is there direct collateral damage from their military actions, they’ve killed NGO workers directly, and have implemented policies restricting aid that are directly impacting Gazans. If Israel had limited their actions to focused strikes, not been so negligent around NGO workers, and not restricted the flow of aid into Gaza, I believe you would see a very different reaction.