Anonymous #1 1w

I think this is less about her anyway and the fact that everyone’s so quick to defend her and explain why she doesn’t owe any sort of statement, explanation, or apology

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Then that’s cringe if she hasn’t apologized.

11

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Extremely. No statement at all. Simply deleted her twitter account

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

You didn’t agree with me that holocaust denial was cringe, that’s rlly messed up bucket.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Then teach them in school instead of going after people who already think it’s wrong. Or just get people to say sorry lol.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Oh then I’m fine with saying she should apologize and own up to it.

4

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Tbf you have no right to talk about genocide with your stance on Gaza and also we were literally on a post bashing holocaust deniers and people who don’t fucking know what genocides are you

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

I’m memeing, chill. What’s my stance on Gaza?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

If I’m not mistaken you don’t consider what is happening in Gaza a genocide is bucket wrong or…?

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

Probably I don’t think I’ve ever had a strong conviction on one side or the other. I’ve been pretty consistently anti Benjamin and pro ceasefire. I don’t think it’s as clear cut compared to the holocaust bc Hamas does things to increase civilian casualties like using civilian infrastructure for example. So what about that take makes me unable to say anything about the holocaust?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Criticizing Hamas and calling it a genocide aren’t mutually exclusive. On Israel’s part the intent to destroy a group is pretty clear atp

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

This is why we are not friends and why I don’t believe you have any right to talk about genocide

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I never said they were I’m saying hamas’s action hurts the genocide claim bc it’s hard to determine legitimate targeting of Hamas vs wrong actions.

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

Ok I’m not sure what part you had a problem with but ok.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Hamas exist as Israel boogie man Israel has actually no intentions of destroying that group but use it as justification to commit unholy human rights violations in Gaza and tbh I can’t blame Palestinians for siding with Hamas because that terrorist group is technically the only group that is fighting for their survival against the barbaric state that is Israel

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

But Palestinians have autonomy they can chose to fit into right wing Israel narratives or they can chose not to.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

If you look into the ways right-wing Israeli politicians talk about Palestinians in general, you’ll start to see the intent to destroy an entire group. The US will give Israel whatever they ask, and for some reason Israel asks for 2000 lb bunker busters that cause civilian casualties instead of the Hellfire missiles we used to take out Al-Qaeda leaders while leaving other passengers of a car unharmed. At some point, the high number of civilian casualties is a choice

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Is Hamas violating international law by using civilian infrastructure? Yes. Is Israel violating international law by bombing that civilian infrastructure even when they know civilians are inside? Yes. One is a terrorist organization and the other is getting billions of dollars of taxpayer money, so we can hold Israel to a higher standard

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Bc al Qaeda didn’t have network of tunnels under cities. Or at least to the same extent as Hamas.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You can bomb civilians if they’re in building being used for military purposes under international law.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

That’s why hamas’ actions hurt the genocide claim. I agree some of the Israeli leadership’s statements should be used as evidence against them bc it is. But at the same time when both sides are engaging in bad faith it kinda makes certain claims hard to distinguish in my opinion. I still think Israel should be held responsible I still think Israel is bad regardless of the genocide claim, withholding aid for three months should be illegal, it’s 100% immoral.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

So the total destruction of Rafah is justified you know that city that is now flattened like a God damn pancake?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

No, you can’t, unless there is a significant military advantage gained by doing so and you take all measures to provide care for civilians and limit harm to them. Which means not using a bunker buster on an apartment building, but they keep doing so

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

The rafah bombing can be justified under international law it depends on how the bombings related to legitimate military objectives.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

They’ve clearly stated that they think 10 civilian deaths for the death of one low-level Hamas operative is an appropriate trade-off. If it’s high-level they’re fine with at least 25

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Hey let’s not forget when Israelis intentional lead civilians into areas that were aimed to be destroyed because that totally is rational and justified:)…

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

They’ve done nothing to prove it. They almost never name who they killed either

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Exactly so you can, you can’t just build a military tunnel under a civilian building and be untouchable. If that was the standard then that would encourage everyone to build tunnels under civilian building which is obviously bad.

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

I never said it was justified I said could be, I’m trying to get you to engage with the criticism.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Yeah I don’t think Israel gaf about cooperating with international organizations which I think is wrong.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Then you use robots, have them dig into the tunnels, and take out Hamas members. This isn’t Fallujah and it’s not the 2000s, but somehow Israel has a similar civilian casualty rate despite the advancements in technology since then. It’s not a Palestinian kid’s fault some terrorist organization dug tunnels under his house

1

Anonymous #1 1w

And that can be valid under international law, again you don’t want people to be hiding their leadership in civilian populations by saying they’re untouchable if you do that. If Hamas had a military base outside a city I would say it’s wrong to have that civilian to combatant ratio but they don’t. They use civilian infrastructure.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You have American college students going over there, sniping kids because they crossed some imaginary line that the IDF thinks is “too close”, and then they snipe the dad who runs over to his son’s dead body because he’s apparently guilty by association

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I’m going to hold your hand when I tell you where the Israeli MoD HQ is

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Idk what sane person puts a military building 2 blocks away from a hospital

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

You are proving my point that you have no right to talk about genocide and it really does disgust me especially how you say that misleading civilians to get massacred could be justified…

1

Anonymous #1 1w

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09/the-gaza-family-torn-apart-by-idf-snipers-from-chicago-and-munich

1

Anonymous #1 1w

There’s a difference between having an administrative building in a city vs active combat in civilian buildings or under civilian buildings. I feel like I shouldn’t have to explain this. If Hamas targeted that building I wouldn’t care so idk what the contradiction is supposed to be?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Idk even know what you’re referencing with the sniping thing. Brave take randomly snipping people is bad.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Ehh that’s debatable. That building is literally where the operations are run from when they use drones and stuff. Some people in there are arguably combatants, but they’re just sitting in an office chair

1

Anonymous #1 1w

They’re supposed to march into Gaza with robots tear down a building while keeping the robots functioning then go inside the booby-trapped tunnel and clear them out? that’s supposed to be more realistic then them bombing a building after dropping a knock bomb or sending a text, which they’ve done before ? Can you name a combat zone where they used robots like this? I’ve never heard of that.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Their AI targeting system has a 10% false positive rate and they still only review each target for 20 sec before approving it. One of the systems literally waits until they get home to their families and bombs them when they’re inside their house, obviously causing civilian casualties. Apparently they can’t be taken out when they’re in the street? https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ This is clear intent to destroy the population

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Ok sure if that’s true I wouldn’t care if Hamas bombed that building. That would be a military target. I’m assuming it’s mainly administrative so it would make more sense to have in a city.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I think I might’ve distracted you, my bad. The point is the *intent*, because at this point it has gone far beyond negligence

1

Anonymous #1 1w

The US would give them anything they wanted, but they purposely use bombs known to cause collateral damage because it’s cheap. The US wouldn’t use these in urban warfare today because of the collateral damage they cause

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I also really misremembered the ratio in the beginning of the war. Up to 20 for low-level, and hundreds for high-ranking ones

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Mind you, the US’ level of acceptable civilian casualties a decade ago was usually 0. For Bin Laden they allowed up to 30.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Yeah your probably change it given the combat scenario I’m guessing.

1

I linked it earlier. They’re anonymous former IDF soldiers, some who were in the elite intelligence unit, speaking to an Israeli magazine called 972 https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

I never said that. It’s cool you want to beg the question if they’re “misleading people” the IDF told people to evacuate eastern Rafah. Don’t make up my positions, I’m being pretty specific with my wording.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Idk all of these things are super relative, for example maybe it was more harmful to bomb them in the middle of the street vs in a building. My entire point is it’s hard to compare this conflict to other conflicts bc imo Hamas does everything they can to maximize civilian casualties. Or they could have a tunnel system they use to travel I have no idea.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

If they wanted to maximize civilian casualties why not make it a ratio 1,000 to 1. Again this entire debate is difficult bc neither the Israelis nor Hamas are engaging in good faith in my opinion.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

The article clearly says that they didn’t care about the target when they were in a military building. They specifically waited for the target to come home

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Again relative I imagine you wouldn’t want to target someone while they’re in a bunker under a civilian building. It’s relative to the situation and what the “military building” is.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

They said “easier”, not “safer”. The system is literally called “Daddy’s Home”

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

I implore you to read the article before responding any further, because atp it feels like I’m talking to a MAGA member

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Yeah ofc they’re saying easier they’re critical of the system. That’s why I’m saying I’m curious what the rational is on the other side. It’s possible it is just trying to stack casualties but I would need more info to say conclusively.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

I’m responding to the article. What am I not responding to? Oh it’s called “daddy’s home” nevermind if that’s name then this 100% a genocide so true I should read the article. I feel like the analysis should be a little deeper than saying “doesn’t this have a bad name?” Yeah it does.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

Did you read the entire article in its entirety? Because some of the questions you’re asking are literally answered by the article

1

Anonymous #1 6d

What have I said that’s been answered by the article?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

Is that a yes or a no? Did you read it?

1

Anonymous #1 6d

No I haven’t bc I’m doing other stuff I’ll read if you want me to, but you can also just state what I said that was answered in the article. I read the sniper one mostly.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Earlier you asked who the sources were. You keep saying “I’m guessing x” and “I’m guessing y”. Your question about whether safety was the reason would’ve been answered — they never said anything about safety, just about ease. That’s why they took out an apartment building with hundreds of residents for one Hamas commander when a hellfire missile would’ve been a precise strike. The entire program was *supposed* to target people’s houses. You keep bringing up “relativity” when that was…

1

Anonymous #1 6d

…addressed. For the US, someone as high-value as Bin Laden was only worth getting if there were under 30 civilian casualties. For anyone else the ratio was 0. That was with the technology of the 2000s and 2010s. I find it hard to believe that hundreds are acceptable in this day and age when you’re using cutting edge systems with the world’s top intelligence agency

1

Anonymous #1 6d

No it wouldn’t have been, this is basic media literacy. Don’t call me maga if you’re saying this. Do you think the soldiers who are the source of this or for or against this system? They’re obviously against it that’s their bias so ofc they would say it’s “easier”. We’re also begging the question of what easier means unless they say that in the article.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

With this decade’s technology, we took out several Al-Qaeda leaders with no civilian casualties, despite one being in a car with two other people. There’s no reason for Israel to be given this much money and they don’t even have the care to reduce civilian harm

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

I’ve already shown you this paragraph. The system wouldn’t be called “Daddy’s Home” if it wasn’t specifically designed around targeting residences

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Relatively wasn’t addressed to they speak to what military base they wouldn’t attack the target in? True they should have used the robots you invented a few replies ago. What’s different then? What have mentioned multiple times in this convo? Yes, the time period wouldn’t be a factor what would be?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

Yes, I want you to read it, that’s why I linked it. If you’re doing other stuff, go get that done. Don’t worry about responding here if you have other stuff to do

1

Anonymous #1 6d

We’re disagreeing if it’s around residence. We’re disagreeing on why it may or may not be designed around that.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Ok I’ll plan on reading it sometime tomorrow. Maybe don’t reference an article if you’re unable to articulate what’s on it, most people are able to do that. I didn’t think that would be the expectation.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

*we’re not disagreeing if it’s around residence*

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

I think I’ve articulated the key points of the article for you already. You’re speculating about their reasoning for doing certain things without reading the article, as though the article can’t possibly explain those to you and paint a picture of overall lack of regard for Palestinian civilians. At some point you have to understand that it’s tiring for me to answer every question you have when the article is right there, and sums up some of these things better than I can

4

Anonymous #1 6d

I’m happy to find more resources for you, but imo, asking me questions and speculating about why they did things a certain way without having read the entire article (which isn’t that long) comes across as acting in bad faith. I’m not asking you to “read Engels” or “read theory”. I found specific resources for you and summarized the key points for you. If, after reading the article yourself, you still have open questions, feel free to ask

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Sure I feel like it’s very obvious that you’re purposefully not engaging with criticism. Again when I read an article I’m able to articulate things from the article otherwise I wouldn’t reference it. I feel like that’s pretty basic. I stand by everything I’ve said after reading the relevant sections if I made a point that was addressed you can point it out.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 5d

Can you summarize your criticism? I re-read some of this exchange and most of it boils down to “well maybe” and “I guess”, which doesn’t seem like criticism, but speculation. The only criticism I see is that you allege they’re biased against the system, but I don’t understand how that’s a legitimate criticism. Wouldn’t that mean all whistleblowers are biased?

1