International Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. VII

[Stump]

Admitted publicly for the first time? That’s bogus. I walked it back relatively quickly and apologized. Oct. 19th.

Post in thread 'Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. II'
https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...-a-state-of-war-vol-ii.4310417/post-172194775

You warned me that it would be used against me in the future - yet it was only you who “used” it against me despite my apology. I certainly didn’t feel the need to repeatedly apologize everytime that you brought it up.

I am happy that you denounce violent Jihadists. I certainly find it strange that you would try to find a more generous interpretation of their actions though and be morally outraged at those that would be less forgiving.

Respectfully, I'm reading along here and finding your position a bit flummoxing. Making light of "moralizing" in the context of a discussion about an armed conflict seems to be a strange take - isn't that what we are all doing here? there are some posters who only want to talk about strategy and weapons and history, but in this particular case, the whole thing is more or less a moral disagreement. Both sides aren't just sort-of moralizing, that's almost all they are doing - yourself definitely included.

And to the disagreement you're having here, it's not about "giving jihadists the benefit of the doubt" - it's important to be critical of the claims and translations that we see, from which everyone is basing their moral positions. I find it particularly strange, given your history of being caught up in a (moral) panic in this thread, that you don't appreciate the value of ensuring the accuracy of reporting, given this:

...admitted as such that a friend had told me he had seen it. We were all freaked out and believing the worst and there was a deluge fof awful content - we were being gaslit by the world including by you and continue to do so.

"gaslighting" works on both sides - and is also, not the word I would use to describe hallucinating and saying I had seen things which turned out to not exist.

It's frankly very difficult to take you seriously when you're throwing around accusations of moralizing, when that's exactly what you're doing, and then criticizing people's well-intended attempts to verify information when you're guilty of reporting personal experiences with things that did not actually exist.

 

[Samjj]

Respectfully, I'm reading along here and finding your position a bit flummoxing. Making light of "moralizing" in the context of a discussion about an armed conflict seems to be a strange take - isn't that what we are all doing here? there are some posters who only want to talk about strategy and weapons and history, but in this particular case, the whole thing is more or less a moral disagreement. Both sides aren't just sort-of moralizing, that's almost all they are doing - yourself definitely included.

And to the disagreement you're having here, it's not about "giving jihadists the benefit of the doubt" - it's important to be critical of the claims and translations that we see, from which everyone is basing their moral positions. I find it particularly strange, given your history of being caught up in a (moral) panic in this thread, that you don't appreciate the value of ensuring the accuracy of reporting, given this:


"gaslighting" works on both sides - and is also, not the word I would use to describe hallucinating and saying I had seen things which turned out to not exist.

It's frankly very difficult to take you seriously when you're throwing around accusations of moralizing, when that's exactly what you're doing, and then criticizing people's well-intended attempts to verify information when you're guilty of reporting personal experiences with things that did not actually exist.

You have written respectfully so I will respond in kind.
I think you have misunderstood my position.

Moralizing of this conflict is normal. This is a highly morally contested subject, as I said here -

In every conflict and particularly war, sits a moral framing - which has been pretty much the entire purpose of discussion of these threads.

The poster that I was responding to, did not understand the significance of the discussion of "morality".

Moral outrage about bizarre subject matter - such as "did the Jihadi say sex slave or young girl before or after he kidnapped her and presumably raped her" is what I am commenting on.

Gaslighting regarding the events of Oct 7th happened in live to varying degrees and it is still going on.
If you're going to "fact check" make sure you're not adding more misinformation to the pile. Moral posturing about truth seeking while simultaneously posting other false information is not a good look.

 

[Stump]

You have written respectfully so I will respond in kind.
I think you have misunderstood my position.

Moralizing of this conflict is normal. This is a highly morally contested subject, as I said here -

The poster that I was responding to, did not understand the significance of the discussion of "morality".

Moral outrage about bizarre subject matter - such as "did the Jihadi say sex slave or young girl before or after he kidnapped her and presumably raped her" is what I am commenting on.

Gaslighting regarding the events of Oct 7th happened in live to varying degrees and it is still going on.
If you're going to "fact check" make sure you're not adding more misinformation to the pile.

I think I understand your position - that splitting hairs about the regional uses of words recorded during a video of bloodied hostages being lorded over by ak-47 militants is inappropriate; that the hostage situation itself is enough of a clear moral crisis and dissecting the precise use and meaning of words overheard during this video is to risk defending a clearly morally outrageous situation. If I've missed anything, please let me know.

I think there's another point, that I'm trying to make - that we should be clear about what we are seeing. A similar line of reasoning could be drawn in the decapitated babies reports that turned out to be false. Again, the overall action of storming out and maurading, killing and abducing - this is clearly the (moral) issue here, and the specific, inflammatory details that may or may not be true, are marshalled in order to galvanize and bifurcate the moral landscape. This gets us nowhere and is almost certainly a huge part of the perpetuatual generations of murder.

 

[Samjj]

I think I understand your position - that splitting hairs about the regional uses of words recorded during a video of bloodied hostages being lorded over by ak-47 militants is inappropriate; that the hostage situation itself is enough of a clear moral crisis and dissecting the precise use and meaning of words overheard during this video is to risk defending a clearly morally outrageous situation. If I've missed anything, please let me know.

I think there's another point, that I'm trying to make - that we should be clear about what we are seeing. A similar line of reasoning could be drawn in the decapitated babies reports that turned out to be false. Again, the overall action of storming out and maurading, killing and abducing - this is clearly the (moral) issue here, and the specific, inflammatory details that may or may not be true, are marshalled in order to galvanize and bifurcate the moral landscape. This gets us nowhere and is almost certainly a huge part of the perpetuatual generations of murder.

It seems that you have understood me well.

The statement from me specifically towards Anewt stemmed from his repeated moral outrage regarding dissemination of false information. The obviously bizarre nitpicking of the intended usage the word of sex slaves/young women in the context seemed inappropriate as you have observed. This accompanied with another piece of false information which seemingly was intended to support a more "forgiving" look at these marauders, required commentary.

 

[The_Renaissance]

This is on the people bombing civilians, Israel. Hamas leadership is in Qatar, why isn't the IDF being sent there?

The hostages have been offered up, and again for the 9000x time Netanyahu doesn't care about the hostages. It's never been about the hostages.

Isreal doesn't want the hostages because they don't want to stop what they are currently doing.

No they haven't. Hamas offered the bodies of hostages last time. There's probably like 10 hostages still alive. Not saying Hamas killed them all either, war is war. Collateral damage probably in many cases. The ones still alive will be female and have been raped hundreds of times to date.

 

[Anewt]

Edit. Can't be bothered

 

[Siver!]

Gaza war: Israelis attack aid convoys sent for Palestinians

Israeli protesters have tried to block border crossings, or even attacked aid convoys bound for Gaza.

www.bbc.co.uk

Right win Israeli scum continue to attack aid.

Just hideous people. Awful, awful shitbag human beings.

Imagine supporting them and defending them on here.

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

Gaza war: Israelis attack aid convoys sent for Palestinians

Israeli protesters have tried to block border crossings, or even attacked aid convoys bound for Gaza.

www.bbc.co.uk

Right win Israeli scum continue to attack aid.

Just hideous people. Awful, awful shitbag human beings.

Imagine supporting them and defending them on here.

Who's supporting and defending them?

Or are you just equating a few fringe right-wing Israeli activists to all Israelis?

 

[Siver!]

Who's supporting and defending them?

Or are you just equating a few fringe right-wing Israeli activists to all Israelis?

The Israeli government for one. If they were attacking stock going to an Israeli store for non-emergency mundane reasons, they'd all be in jail.

 

[Hog-train]

Who's supporting and defending them?

Or are you just equating a few fringe right-wing Israeli activists to all Israelis?

Israeli soldiers and police tipping off groups that attack Gaza aid trucks.

Israeli soldiers and police tipping off groups that attack Gaza aid trucks

Exclusive: Members of security forces giving settlers who intercept vital supplies information on location of convoys, group says

www.theguardian.com

 

[Anewt]

Who's supporting and defending them?

Or are you just equating a few fringe right-wing Israeli activists to all Israelis?

Would you call this support?


"Theyre not actually contributing to the humanitarian crisis beyond terrible PR."

Or just terrible deflection?

 

[Samjj]

Would you call this support?


"Theyre not actually contributing to the humanitarian crisis beyond terrible PR."

Or just terrible deflection?

Lol you’re going full bad faith on me now, huh? Touched a nerve with you?

I obviously don’t support violent settlers preventing aid from getting into Gaza. It is morally reprehensible and the lack of government enforcement likely reflects some sort of quiet support from certain coalition members. Not hard to guess from where.

As I previously said, it is just not a primary contribution to the humanitarian crisis.

In their stated goals to block aid from entering Gaza, they do a very poor job. The convoys which are halted represent a very small (even fractions) of a percentage of the total aid which enters Gaza. Beyond being totally inhumane and ineffectual, it is a huge disservice on the international political front.

Logistical distribution within Gaza and ensuring widespread distribution among civilians is a far greater obstacle to solving the humanitarian crisis.

 

[Anewt]

I obviously don’t support violent settlers preventing aid from getting into Gaza. It is morally reprehensible and the lack of government enforcement likely reflects some sort of quiet support from certain coalition members. Not hard to guess from where.

This is vastly different to....

Not remotely a whataboutism.
They are so far removed from being the primary obstacle to aid distribution in the strip and are not actually contributing to the humanitarian crisis beyond terrible PR.
You’re a Hamas apologist. Period.

Good to read

And yes you struck a nerve. To be accused by you in regards to misinformation when im discussing language and i use 5 6 sources and provide them . From you? Who outright lied to defend your misinformation has put you in my shit books.

Full bad faith? You've already taken it there samji

 

[Samjj]

This is vastly different to....




Good to read

And yes you struck a nerve. To be accused by you in regards to misinformation when im discussing language and i use 5 6 sources and provide them . From you? Who outright lied to defend your misinformation has put you in my shit books.

Full bad faith? You've already taken it there

I get that you’re mad. It doesn’t make you right and certainly doesn’t justify you lying. Have a good one.

 

[Hog-train]

I get that you’re mad. It doesn’t make you right and certainly doesn’t justify you lying. Have a good one.

Poster: shows videos of settlers sabotaging humanitarian aid trucks and evidence of police tipping then off.

Your immediate response: "Oh it's not a large amount. It's just terrible PR. Nothing to see here."

That's called MINIMIZATION. That's called making EXCUSES.

Most objective people's response would be saying how horrible that is. Your immediate response is minimization.

Then you show lack of self awareness by accusing other people of the very things you're exhibiting: bias, whataboutisms, gaslighting, making excuses, etc.

 

[Hog-train]

Pretty good assessment of the MILITARY situation on the ground and not political.

 

[Anewt]

I get that you’re mad. It doesn’t make you right and certainly doesn’t justify you lying. Have a good one.

Once again from you that's hilarious. What have I " lied " about?

 

[Rholk]

Not every retard sceeaming Allah hakbar makes it:


I can kind of get the politcal hate on the entire operation, but jesus christ every modern military will be studying this war and how the hell israel has managed to fight such an effective war

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

every modern military will be studying this war and how the hell israel has managed to fight such an effective war

 

[Samjj]

Poster: shows videos of settlers sabotaging humanitarian aid trucks and evidence of police tipping then off.

Your immediate response: "Oh it's not a large amount. It's just terrible PR. Nothing to see here."

That's called MINIMIZATION. That's called making EXCUSES.

Most objective people's response would be saying how horrible that is. Your immediate response is minimization.

Then you show lack of self awareness by accusing other people of the very things you're exhibiting: bias, whataboutisms, gaslighting, making excuses, etc.

Oh, look another misrepresentation of the interaction that we had. Why don’t you just quote the posts of our interaction instead instead of summarizing and misquoting source material as you love to do.

The worst and most cynical interpretation of my stance would be called minimization or deflection. A more accurate description would be challenging your narrative that “The evil Israeli peope are starving Gaza!”. The reality is that the humanitarian crisis has very little to do with settler violence - that was the crux of the argument which was a counter point to your one sided take.

But hey, you’re the same poster on here who claims that the Jewish lobby has bought and sold American politics, so why would I even bother engaging with you?