naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29415 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
That applies fine to the grunts on the ground -- considering the leaders of Hamas, one could easily say there is no difference. After all, the fighters also attacked many legitimate military targets; when you let a bunch of armed fanatics loose on a population they've been trained to hate since birth, there's bound to be some 'collateral damage', they might say. (much as when you bomb a rocket emplacement in a city)
(also I remain interested to see where all this killing toddlers stuff is coming from -- it certainly seems like something Hamas people might do, but I've yet to see any actual documentation of it)
But they signed off on the operation? Why are we assuming that when a vast majority of the targets were civilian that Hamas leadership was only interested in legitimate military targets but grunts fucked it up? No the easier explanation is that what the grunts spent a majority of their time on is what the leadership desires (and amplified).
There's a particular image floating around of a car seat with a blood stain where the head would rest and next to it an infant dress with blood along the top half. And this news report. Of course Journalist reliability and the reliability of their sources is always a factor.
So I haven't seen the image, but that report is just what I'm talking about -- a literal carbon copy of WWI 'bayonetting babies' propaganda, accompanied by a picture of some bodies that clearly are not babies.
Source: Israeli intelligence agents reached out to a 2-bit freelancer, and she crosschecked some photos of the event. Which of course can't be shared. This tweet is clearly a fabrication, whether something like that happened or not.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That applies fine to the grunts on the ground -- considering the leaders of Hamas, one could easily say there is no difference. After all, the fighters also attacked many legitimate military targets; when you let a bunch of armed fanatics loose on a population they've been trained to hate since birth, there's bound to be some 'collateral damage', they might say. (much as when you bomb a rocket emplacement in a city)
(also I remain interested to see where all this killing toddlers stuff is coming from -- it certainly seems like something Hamas people might do, but I've yet to see any actual documentation of it)
So when they used hang gliders to attack a musical festival that was just the grunts?
Probably not whoever's in charge of Hamas doing it personally?
But they signed off on the operation? Why are we assuming that when a vast majority of the targets were civilian that Hamas leadership was only interested in legitimate military targets but grunts fucked it up? No the easier explanation is that what the grunts spent a majority of their time on is what the leadership desires (and amplified).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a particular image floating around of a car seat with a blood stain where the head would rest and next to it an infant dress with blood along the top half. And this news report. Of course Journalist reliability and the reliability of their sources is always a factor.
So I haven't seen the image, but that report is just what I'm talking about -- a literal carbon copy of WWI 'bayonetting babies' propaganda, accompanied by a picture of some bodies that clearly are not babies.
Source: Israeli intelligence agents reached out to a 2-bit freelancer, and she crosschecked some photos of the event. Which of course can't be shared. This tweet is clearly a fabrication, whether something like that happened or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link