Israel presents its defense against claims of genocide in Gaza

[Rebound]

This is fascinating, and perhaps a first: A nation is on trial for going to war after being attacked. Israeli lawyers made a well reasoned defense, for instance:

“In Israel’s defense on Friday, its lawyers said that the Israeli military had worked to preserve civilian life, giving noncombatants two weeks to leave northern Gaza before Israel invaded the area in late October and, after freezing aid delivery at the start of the war, later enabling its daily supply. 

“Israel’s efforts to mitigate the ravages of this war on civilians are the very opposite of intent to destroy them,” Galit Raguan, one of the six representatives, said during the hearing.

“If Israel had such intent, would it delay a ground maneuver for weeks, urging civilians to seek safer space and, in doing so, sacrificing operational advantage?” Ms. Raguan asked. “Would it invest massive resources to provide civilians details about where to go, when to go, how to go, to leave areas of fighting?”

“Israel’s lawyers argued that it would set a dangerous precedent if the judges ordered Israel to halt its offensive. They said that could allow international law to be used as a means of preventing states from defending themselves against terrorist attacks committed by groups like Hamas.

The Israeli lawyers also said it was Hamas that was guilty of genocidal acts on Oct. 7, and they blamed the group for bringing destruction on civilians in Gaza by embedding their fighters in residential areas.

Heavy symbolism hung over the proceedings, as Israel’s representatives addressed the paradox of Israel, a state created to protect Jews from genocide, standing accused of the same crime.

“For some, the promise of ‘never again for all peoples’ is a slogan,” said Tal Becker, who opened Israel’s defense. “For Israel, it is the highest moral obligation.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/world/israel-hamas-houthi-yemen-news/israel-presents-its-defense-against-claims-of-genocide-in-gaza

[robosmith]

Why only one side? Where is the prosecution's case?

 

Quote

What is genocide and what is the case against Israel?

South Africa alleges Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, in the wake of Hamas's 7 October attack.

Hundreds of Hamas gunmen crossed from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel, killing 1,300 people, mainly civilians, and taking about 240 hostages back to Gaza.

Since Israel launched its military campaign against Hamas in response, more than 23,000 people, mainly women and children, have been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

And evidence submitted by South Africa claims "acts and omissions" by Israel "are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group".

This refers both to what Israel is actively doing, such as carrying out air strikes, and what it is allegedly failing to do, such as, according to South Africa, preventing harm to civilians.

And the case highlights Israeli public rhetoric, including comments from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as evidence of "genocidal intent". Under international law, genocide is defined as committing one or more acts with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Those acts are:

• killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Why are Israel and Hamas fighting in Gaza?

How has Israel responded to the allegations of genocide?

Israel has fiercely rejected South Africa's claim.

Mr Netanyahu said: "No, South Africa, it is not we who have come to perpetrate genocide, it is Hamas.

"It would murder all of us if it could.

"In contrast, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is acting as morally as possible."

Israel's military says it takes a raft of measures to avoid civilian casualties.

These have included:

• airdropping flyers warning of imminent attacks
• calling civilians' phones to urge them to leave targeted buildings
• aborting some strikes when civilians are in the way

And the Israeli government has repeatedly stated its intention is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

A spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Mr Sunak believed South Africa's case was "completely unjustified and wrong."

"This legal action does not serve the court of peace. The UK government stands by Israel's clear right to defend itself within the framework of international law."

Can the court make Israel stop the war in Gaza?

South Africa wants the ICJ to order Israel to "immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza".But it is virtually certain Israel would disregard such an order and could not be made to comply.

Rulings are theoretically legally binding on parties to the ICJ - which include Israel and South Africa - but in practice, unenforceable.

In 2022, the ICJ ordered Russia to "immediately suspend military operations" in Ukraine - but the order was ignored.

• Israel says war expected to continue throughout 2024

When will there be a decision?

The ICJ could rule quickly on South Africa's request for Israel to suspend its military campaign.

This would, in theory, protect the Palestinians from what might ultimately be declared genocide.

But a final ruling on whether Israel is committing genocide could take several years.

Why has South Africa brought the case?

AFP

There have been several pro-Palestinian rallies in South Africa

South Africa has been highly critical of Israel's military operation in Gaza.

And as a signatory to the UN's 1948 Genocide Convention, it has an obligation to act, it says.

The governing African National Congress also has a long history of solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

It sees parallels with its struggle against apartheid - a policy of racial segregation and discrimination enforced by the white-minority government in South Africa against the country's black majority, until the first democratic elections, in 1994.

The country condemned the 7 October attacks and called for the release of the hostages.

"Our opposition to the ongoing slaughter of the people of Gaza has driven us as a country to approach the ICJ," said President Cyril Ramaphosa. "As a people who once tasted the bitter fruits of dispossession, discrimination, racism and state-sponsored violence, we are clear that we will stand on the right side of history."

• Israel-Hamas conflict exposes South Africa's divisions

 

Edited January 12, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why only one side? Where is the prosecution's case?

Oh sorry - here it is "It's genocide because Muh Feels!". That's the prosecution case  

[Rebound]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why only one side? Where is the prosecution's case?

Because the prosecutor’s side is absurd. 

The prosecution argues that nations have no right to defend themselves against attack, if they are a Jewish nation.

Prosecution argues that bombs used in warfare must magically kill only uniformed combatants, if they are used by a Jewish nation.

Prosecution does not argue that Hamas has refused ceasefire.

Prosecution does argue that a ceasefire was in place until October 7, 2023.

Prosecution does not argue that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

Prosecution does not argue that Hamas ordered civilians to remain in place after Israel ordered their evacuation.

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Because the prosecutor’s side is absurd. 

The prosecution argues that nations have no right to defend themselves against attack, if they are a Jewish nation.

Prosecution argues that bombs used in warfare must magically kill only uniformed combatants, if they are used by a Jewish nation.

Prosecution does not argue that Hamas has refused ceasefire.

Prosecution does argue that a ceasefire was in place until October 7, 2023.

Prosecution does not argue that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

Prosecution does not argue that Hamas ordered civilians to remain in place after Israel ordered their evacuation.

I found the BBC publication of the prosecutor's case and it seems most of ^these are not mentioned (see edited post).

Edited January 12, 2024 by robosmith

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I found the BBC publication of the prosecutor's case and it seems most of ^these are not mentioned (see edited post).

Buddy, if you look at the whole history of the ME after the Battle of Trench, it has been a systemic genocide by muslims against every other group from the Mediterranean to pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Quote

After the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad was reportedly visited by Gabriel, who directed him to attack the Qurayza.^[17] Despite the tribe's earlier assistance in excavating the trench to impede the Meccans' advance and providing the Muslims with their tools,^[18][19][20] Muhammad later accused them of having sided with his enemy—a claim that they strongly refuted.^[21] At a later stage of Muhammad's siege against them, the Qurayza initially proposed surrendering and vacating their land, while requesting permission to carry one camel load of possessions per person. When Muhammad declined, they subsequently requested to depart without taking any belongings. Muhammad, however, insisted that they surrender unconditionally.^[22][23]

After a 25-day siege, the Banu Qurayza surrendered.^[24] The Muslims of Banu Aws entreated Muhammad for leniency, prompting him to suggest that one of their own should serve as the judge, which they accepted. Muhammad assigned the role to Sa'd ibn Muadh, a man nearing death from an infection in his wounds from the previous Meccan siege.^[24][25][26] He pronounced that all the men should be put to death, their possessions to be distributed among Muslims, and their women and children to be taken as captives. Muhammad declared, "You have judged according to the very sentence of God above the seven heavens."^[25][24] Consequently, 600–900 men of Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to Najd to be sold. The proceeds were then utilized to purchase weapons and horses for the Muslims.^[a]

That was just the start, dude. 

When they say that they're peaceful, they mean that if other cultures are completely subservient and live in a state of legislated religious bigotry, they get to survive. 

[Rebound]

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I found the BBC publication of the prosecutor's case and it seems most of ^these are not mentioned (see edited post).

Correct. I listed what the prosecution did not say.

There are several preposterous points I’d like to refute:

1. The notion that it is “genocide” or a war crime to retaliate militarily as a response to acts of war executed by Hamas. This has never, ever, ever been an argument against warfare. It is absurd. The argument is that Hamas is “allowed” to kill all the Jews they want, with impunity, because any retaliation would mean causing harm to innocent Palestinian civilians. Essentially, if the Court rules that Israel has no right to defend themselves, then the Court is ruling that Hamas is allowed to murder all they want and cannot be punished unless it can be done without harming anybody else. 
2. The history of war is the history of bad leaders causing the deaths of their civilian populations. Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Mussolini, and on and on. When a nation is lead by someone who wages war on another nation, it will likely lead to civilian deaths. There are no “magic smart bombs” that magically kill only bad guys. If there were, Israel would use them.
3. The charge ignores the October 7 attacks and the fact that Hamas still holds over 100 Israeli hostages. “It’s ok to take hostages; Hamas is allowed to do that” is a poor argument.
4. The fact that Hamas deliberately maximizes Palestinian civilian casualties. Example: Israel delayed their invasion by two weeks, so that they could give the Palestinians time to evacuate from the North. Hamas, at that time, ordered Palestinian civilians to not evacuate. A vast tunnel system was found beneath a hospital, and weapons including automatic weapons and rockets have been found stored in kindergartens and other civilian locations. 
5. Hamas has refused a call for ceasefire and has instead stated that they will fight until Israel is destroyed. Ending combat opens the door for further rocket attacks by Hamas. 

War is terrible. But throughout the history of war, innocent civilians die. When you read of the US attack on Houthi rebels, don’t you know that some civilians were killed in the process? When America attacked Iran and Afghanistan and Libya, didn’t innocent civilians get killed? When America bombed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, didn’t 100,000’s of innocent civilians get killed? This is the terrible result of all warfare. SO TELL ME WHY ONLY JEWS ARE PROHIBITED FROM DEFENDING THEIR NATION? ONLY JEWS.  

Edited January 12, 2024 by Rebound

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, if you look at the whole history of the ME after the Battle of Trench, it has been a systemic genocide by muslims against every other group from the Mediterranean to pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

That was just the start, dude. 

When they say that they're peaceful, they mean that if other cultures are completely subservient and live in a state of legislated religious bigotry, they get to survive. 

What you cite describes the treatment of Jews by the Roman empire. Though I doubt the Romans ever insisted they were "peaceful."

How about citing a source that has SOME credibility, like Encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote

At Medina, Muhammad has a house built that simultaneously serves as a prayer venue for his followers. He also drafts a covenant that joins together “the Believers and Submitters [or Muslims] of Quraysh and of Yathrib” as well as some of Medina’s Jewish tribes into a community (ummah) recognizing Muhammad as the “Messenger of God.” However, relations with the Jews of Medina steadily worsen. Eighteen months after the emigration, a revelation bids the Muslims to pray in the direction of the Meccan Kaʿbah, rather than to continue facing toward Jerusalem as is Jewish practice. At about the same time, the Medinan Muslims begin raiding Meccan caravans. When, during one of these raids, they are surprised by a Meccan relief force at Badr in 624, the Muslims, aided by angels, score a surprising victory. In response, the Meccans try to capture Medina, once in 625 in the Battle of Uḥud and again in 627 in the so-called Battle of the Trench; both attempts to dislodge Muhammad are ultimately unsuccessful. After each of the three major military encounters with the Meccans, Muhammad and his followers manage to oust another of the three main Jewish tribes of Medina. In the case of the last Jewish tribe to be displaced, the Qurayẓah, all adult males are executed, and the women and children are enslaved.

In any case, that is ancient history and not relevant to the Zionist movement of the 1800s+

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Correct. I listed what the prosecution did not say.

There are several preposterous points I’d like to refute:

1. The notion that it is “genocide” or a war crime to retaliate militarily as a response to acts of war executed by Hamas. This has never, ever, ever been an argument against warfare. It is absurd. The argument is that Hamas is “allowed” to kill all the Jews they want, with impunity, because any retaliation would mean causing harm to innocent Palestinian civilians. Essentially, if the Court rules that Israel has no right to defend themselves, then the Court is ruling that Hamas is allowed to murder all they want and cannot be punished unless it can be done without harming anybody else. 

I don't believe anyone is claiming ^this, aside from Hamas and their believers.

I do believe that what has happened is more like revenge and an effort to EVICT Gazans.

Israel has a long history of forcing Palestinians to vacate their land to make room for more Jews, esp in the West Bank. 

 

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

1. The history of war is the history of bad leaders causing the deaths of their civilian populations. Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Mussolini, and on and on. When a nation is lead by someone who wages war on another nation, it will likely lead to civilian deaths. There are no “magic smart bombs” that magically kill only bad guys. If there were, Israel would use them.

There are precision guided munitions that don't blow up buildings wholesale.

 

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

1. The charge ignores the October 7 attacks and the fact that Hamas still holds over 100 Israeli hostages. “It’s ok to take hostages; Hamas is allowed to do that” is a poor argument.

Not to my knowledge. Who is "ignores Oct 7th"? Why is it that Hamas can kill 1200 Israelis without wholesale destruction of Israeli infrastructure, but Israel has to wholesale destroy Gaza along with 23,000 residents to retaliate?

 

 

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

1. The fact that Hamas deliberately maximizes Palestinian civilian casualties. Example: Israel delayed their invasion by two weeks, so that they could give the Palestinians time to evacuate from the North. Hamas, at that time, ordered Palestinian civilians to not evacuate. A vast tunnel system was found beneath a hospital, and weapons including automatic weapons and rockets have been found stored in kindergartens and other civilian locations. 
2. Hamas has refused a call for ceasefire and has instead stated that they will fight until Israel is destroyed. Ending combat opens the door for further rocket attacks by Hamas. 

War is terrible. But throughout the history of war, innocent civilians die. When you read of the US attack on Houthi rebels, don’t you know that some civilians were killed in the process? When America attacked Iran and Afghanistan and Libya, didn’t innocent civilians get killed? When America bombed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, didn’t 100,000’s of innocent civilians get killed? This is the terrible result of all warfare. SO TELL ME WHY ONLY JEWS ARE PROHIBITED FROM DEFENDING THEIR NATION? ONLY JEWS.  

Comparing WWII to Hamas is false equivalency. Israel knew about Hamas plans well in advance. All they had to do was station IDF forces around the perimeter and they could have stopped the invasion before major damage.

But the IDF was too busy helping the settlers steal more land in the West Bank and it took them 8+ HOURS to arrive on the scene.

To me, that says they PLANNED to turn it into a major atrocity, cause Natanyahu's extreme right wing coalition WANTS TO EVICT the Gazans, several of which have STATED since.

[Rebound]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

I don't believe anyone is claiming ^this, aside from Hamas and their believers.

I do believe that what has happened is more like revenge and an effort to EVICT Gazans.

Israel has a long history of forcing Palestinians to vacate their land to make room for more Jews, esp in the West Bank. 

 

There are precision guided munitions that don't blow up buildings wholesale.

 

Not to my knowledge. Who is "ignores Oct 7th"? Why is it that Hamas can kill 1200 Israelis without wholesale destruction of Israeli infrastructure, but Israel has to wholesale destroy Gaza along with 23,000 residents to retaliate?

 

 

Comparing WWII to Hamas is false equivalency. Israel knew about Hamas plans well in advance. All they had to do was station IDF forces around the perimeter and they could have stopped the invasion before major damage.

But the IDF was too busy helping the settlers steal more land in the West Bank and it took them 8+ HOURS to arrive on the scene.

To me, that says they PLANNED to turn it into a major atrocity, cause Natanyahu's extreme right wing coalition WANTS TO EVICT the Gazans, several of which have STATED since.

Let me be clear: The war is over when Hamas surrenders to Israel. Because that is how wars work. One side surrenders to the other side. 

Again, Hamas attacked Israel AND declared war on Israel.

When in all history has being attacked mean you just have to let another nation slaughter you, because you’re “not allowed” to defend yourself?  

Your point of view is actually what causes more deaths, because if Israel just executed this war until their enemy surrenders, then the conflict can finally end, instead of dragging along for another 75 years of suicide bombings.  That’s what it took to get the Germans and Japanese to surrender, and it worked.

The war should continue until. Hamas surrenders. Because that is how wars work. 

Edited January 13, 2024 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Your point of view is actually what causes more deaths, because if Israel just executed this war until their enemy surrenders, then the conflict can finally end

That's the simple fact. This conflict drags on because there is never a winner or loser, they just fight for a bit then the UN sends them to their corners till they're ready for another round.

This war must be prosecuted until one side completely surrenders and is dismantled.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Again, Hamas attacked Israel AND declared war on Israel.

Again, Israelis KNEW about the plans and DID NOTHING to prepare for them.

IDF was in the West Bank and took 8+ hours to arrive at the points of the invasion.

Either total incompetence, or purposeful dereliction. I'll assume the latter.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Again, Israelis KNEW about the plans and DID NOTHING to prepare for them.

IDF was in the West Bank and took 8+ hours to arrive at the points of the invasion.

Either total incompetence, or purposeful dereliction. I'll assume the latter.

Simply not true.
And it woudln't change anything anyway.  They still attacked, still started the war - still deserve to die until they surrender

[Fluffypants]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Again, Israelis KNEW about the plans and DID NOTHING to prepare for them.

IDF was in the West Bank and took 8+ hours to arrive at the points of the invasion.

Either total incompetence, or purposeful dereliction. I'll assume the latter.

That is the same BS nonsense that you all claimed about Bush. "Dur Bush knew cuz he a briefing that said Bin Laden is going to attack" Doesn't say when or where or how but Bush should of done something in your heads.

If you think that Hamas forces themselves on the people you are dead wrong, the reason the West Bank hasn't had an election for years is because they know Hamas would win. They don't see Hamas as bad people and they think everything they do is justified.

The Palestinians aren't "innocent" people, they loved what Hamas did, they celebrated. They don't want a 2 state solution, they want a 1 state solution as long as that state is Muslim and all the Jews and Christians are dead.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

That is the same BS nonsense that you all claimed about Bush. "Dur Bush knew cuz he a briefing that said Bin Laden is going to attack" Doesn't say when or where or how but Bush should of done something in your heads.

^False equivalence. Israelis KNEW HOW cause they HAD THE PLANS.

4 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

If you think that Hamas forces themselves on the people you are dead wrong, the reason the West Bank hasn't had an election for years is because they know Hamas would win. They don't see Hamas as bad people and they think everything they do is justified.

Pure speculation on YOUR PART. There was no election because Hamas would not allow one.

4 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The Palestinians aren't "innocent" people, they loved what Hamas did, they celebrated. They don't want a 2 state solution, they want a 1 state solution as long as that state is Muslim and all the Jews and Christians are dead.

^Not supported by EVIDENCE. Maybe SOME Palestinians support Hamas actions, but MOST are sick of suffering for it.

Hamas won't allow elections because they are afraid they'll LOSE.

Edited January 13, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

^False equivalence. Israelis KNEW HOW cause they HAD THE PLANS.

Not really.  They had some preliminary plans, not 'the plan' and they read things like "ok, we jump the wall in dirt bikes and fly in on gliders just like that movie delta force and...."  and they looked at the resources involved and decided it didn't seem like a real plan.  And that was some years ago. 

So the Gazan's got the drop on them because they guessed wrong. It happens. They'll have to look at their intelligence people hard and see where mistakes were made but no, that's not the same as 'they had the plan'.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

^False equivalence. Israelis KNEW HOW cause they HAD THE PLANS.

Pure speculation on YOUR PART. There was no election because Hamas would not allow one.

^Not supported by EVIDENCE. Maybe SOME Palestinians support Hamas actions, but MOST are sick of suffering for it.

Hamas won't allow elections because they are afraid they'll LOSE.

You don’t have evidence that the Israelis knew the attack was coming. It was an intelligence failure, for sure. But it’s conspiracy theory to say that the government let 1,400 of their own people get killed. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

You don’t have evidence that the Israelis knew the attack was coming. It was an intelligence failure, for sure. But it’s conspiracy theory to say that the government let 1,400 of their own people get killed. 

 well - there's SOME sort of kind of almost truth to it.

What the israelis have admitted is that a very early version of the plan fell into their hands a couple years ago i believe.  They did assess it and determined that it was not an actual plan that was in the works, more of a concept paper, like "Someday if we had these kinds of resources maybe this is what we could do" sort of thing. They did not believe they had the resources to carry it out and there was no indication it was actively being worked on so they filed it under 'interresting but unlikely" if you will.  Now - quite some time later, that's more or less what the original plan called for. 

So some have tried to twist it into saying they knew the attack was going to happen.  They did not.  They certainly had no idea it was actively being worked on and there was no information that it was imminent or anything other than a wild fantasy.  And there absolutely was no indication of any kind of timeline.

But - some people gotta stretch the truth -  "They had the complete plans and knew the date and the names of all the participants and their home addresses!!! "  yeah...no.

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, Rebound said:

You don’t have evidence that the Israelis knew the attack was coming. It was an intelligence failure, for sure. But it’s conspiracy theory to say that the government let 1,400 of their own people get killed. 

The evidence is the plans Israeli intelligence had for over a year, which described what happened to a 'T'.

Are you claiming the IDF could not have stopped the slaughter as Hamas broke through the barriers, had they been ON SITE IN FORCE instead of taking 8+ hours to respond, cause they were defending settler's ILLEGAL EXPANSION in the West Bank? 

[Rebound]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

Again, Israelis KNEW about the plans and DID NOTHING to prepare for them.

IDF was in the West Bank and took 8+ hours to arrive at the points of the invasion.

Either total incompetence, or purposeful dereliction. I'll assume the latter.

That is a lie. 
It takes time to deploy armed troops en masse.  

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, Rebound said:

That is a lie. 
It takes time to deploy armed troops en masse.  

They were already "deployed" in the West Bank. An hour and a half drive away.

But clearly there should have been MORE IDF stationed around Gaza given the threat which was known.

[Rebound]

42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They were already "deployed" in the West Bank. An hour and a half drive away.

But clearly there should have been MORE IDF stationed around Gaza given the threat which was known.

And FDR knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor and Bush knew all about 9/11… this is silly. 
 

Hamas is a lot more evil than you know.  The Palestinians were fools to elect them. They finally lost power and then just seized it by force.  Hamas started this war, refuses to surrender until all of Israel is destroyed, and you are blaming the victims.  THEY ARE PLAYING YOU!  
 

Hamas is a brutal terrorist regime. They are not kumbaya hippy love children.  They completely oppose and hate everything you believe in. 

Edited January 14, 2024 by Rebound

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

And FDR knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor

Most likely he did. But wanted to avoid alerting the Japanese we had broken their codes.

Do you know that ALL of the aircraft carriers were OUT OF PORT during that attack?

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

and Bush knew all about 9/11… this is silly. 

^False equivalence. 

Bush was warned, but ONLY 20 or so men knew the actual methods planned for that attack.

You can bet there would have been different actions had it been known that airliners would be used as bombs.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Hamas is a lot more evil than you know.  The Palestinians were fools to elect them. They finally lost power and then just seized it by force.  

Yes, I said that Hamas would not allow elections.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Hamas started this war, refuses to surrender until all of Israel is destroyed, and you are blaming the victims.  THEY ARE PLAYING YOU!

Netanyahu is playing EVERYONE.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Hamas is a brutal terrorist regime. They are not kumbaya hippy love children.  They completely oppose and hate everything you believe in. 

Certainly not everything. I believe Palestinians have a legitimate case for compensation for the loss of their property AND FREEDOM to form their own state.

Edited January 14, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Most likely he did. But wanted to avoid alerting the Japanese we had broken their codes.

Stupidest comment ever.  We had not broken their codes at that point.  They woudln't break the codes till much later just before the battle of midway. long after pearl harbour.

Can anyone explain why the loonies on the left feel the need to make crap like that up?

[myata]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:13 PM, Rebound said:

This is fascinating, and perhaps a first:

When someone is losing sanity piece by piece there will be many firsts. No one thought of accusing the Allies of genocide for acts while defeating the Axis. When criminal tyrants make whole countries hostages of their delusional policies, and wars, there may not be soft and fluffy answers not matter how much one wanted to dream, chit-chat and demand it. Doesn't exist. Out of this reality.

One moral obligation is to not target civilians, deliberately and predominantly, without a justified military objective. That's it. Against this kind of evil, one has the full right to defend themselves by any means and cost. Nothing beats the survival.