Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(03-04-2024, 02:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I feel like not pre-judging Hamas is more more interesting.
The people who run into civilian populations with the express intent of raping and/or murdering civilians specifically, beheading and burning children and babies... pretty safe to pre-judge as untrustworthy folks.
You, uh, really seem to like defending Hamas.

(03-04-2024, 10:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: I feel he is right to not trust Hamas, however he also seems, IMHO,  to disregard any reporting that my put Israel in a bad light or show the civilians on the strip as victims.  Even when the IDF issues the report.
There is a narrative he needs to be true and anyone who challenges it, even just for specific events, are "buddies" so he can lump them together as "terrorist sympathizers".

Lol, looks like SSF is susceptible to the "buddy" charge as well, should you wish to respond in kind with something pointless and diversionary.

And you are right, it's about keeping a narrative pure, black and white, and protecting one side. Like Israel could not possibly commit
a war crime if Hamas raped and killed civilians. It's not about examining evidence; it's about keeping the one-sided narrative going with pre-judgment.

In this case, we are asked to ignore Israel's long history of shooting civilians, including family groups waving the white flag
( e.g., https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/when-white-flags-turn-red-gaza ), so as to compare a now sanitized IDF 
"professional" military against Hamas "dogs" and their undocumented "known MO"; then conclude what we want to believe,
rather than looking at visual evidence and comparing accounts. 

And then accuse anyone who takes the evidence route of a double standard. Somehow.

(03-04-2024, 10:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Like I said I can believe that both the October attack and what is happening on the strip are awful things that need to stop without being a supporter of Hamas or hater of Israel.

It seems simple enough: 

if person A robs a 7/11 and murders someone, and person B just robs a 7/11, why are you "supporting A" if you say B is guilty of robbery?

But some cannot manage the "both and," and cannot abide you doing it. There is an ideological line you must toe.
In this case, someone appears to think it "equivalence" and "defense of Hamas" to recognize what Israel actually does.
And so whatever the cost or tactics needed, what Israel does cannot be recognized. So we have an ideological and conceptual block to evidence.

When the basis of rational argument (e.g. evidence and reasoned discourse) isn't serviceable,
then the ideologue must turn to personal attack via denunciation--you support "them"--
in hopes of controlling the flow of information and blocking discussion.

Psst remember this?:

(02-20-2024, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is a tendency now to view anyone who diverges from you politically, on even the smallest topic, to be an enemy.  Ideological purity is a requirement.  That's why we have two prominent posters who can't think of a single Democrat policy they disagree with.  That should be literally impossible.