@garlic_bread_rucola writes: "You have not documented they run the .... Commission ....."
Yet again, so what?
I didn't ever claim that they "run" the commission and that is hardly relevant to the point. They were weirdly put ON the Commission, and that doesn't exactly display unerring judgment, does it? Mistakes get made. We can't always enshrine what we prefer.
The point really does seem to be a stranger around these parts.
And repeatedly and vaguely accusing me of "fallacies" and "lies" while avoiding most of what I write or ask, and while failing to get specific, gets a bit tedious, too. But I've been through middle school, so I do have some experience in handling such approaches. Attempting to discredit the messenger to distract from his or her message is an old approach still very much in use.
Have a nice day, ladies and gentlemen. But please, rethink your attempted "gotchas" before you bother to post them. This gets tedious, and it's hard not to respond when I am called out.
It's better to follow @tpr's example: he or she tries to stick to the substance, and I appreciate it even though we often disagree. However, I would agree that if a missile accidentally hits a school (and it would obviously be an accident unless the school was at the time full of combatants using it for cover) it would be a tragedy. War unfortunately sometimes produces tragedy. It's a good reason not to start them unless trying to avoid far greater tragedy. Like, say, avoiding a continuation of the Holocaust.
By the way, it might be helpful to reread the title of the thread. I do not appear in it.
A Tomahawk missile has a circular error probably of 10 m.
So if it was an accident, then an accident in target designation, possibly by Super Intelligence.
Likewise bombing bridges has nothing to do with reasons given to go to war.
Bridges can have much military significance. World War II offers many examples.
But I suspect bombing bridges in the specific case would be to demonstrate, in a relatively humane way (since bridges do not live), that the cost of clinging to high nuclear enrichment and trying to close the Strait could be made quite high.
But it didn't go on extensively or for long (although it obviously COULD have), as it appears that a more targeted and reversible economic approach -- a blockade -- proved likely to be more effective and at less cost to the permanent infrastructure. After all, Trump doesn't dislike the Iranian people themselves, it seems -- nor do most Americans. It is their government and its pursuits and associations that trouble.
And as for any destruction to a school -- we don't all have access to the necessary information gathering ability to evaluate it conclusively. But if it was not filled with combatants, it would obviously be a mistake of some sort. Unfortunately, mistakes do happen, and nobody takes pleasure in them. To the contrary.
Do you think the recent, repeated attacks on civilian airports in Iran's neighbors were mistakes? Several innocent civilians have died in those attacks. I'll note that it was not America or Israel engaging in those attacks -- just in case some reader might become confused about that.
https://msf.org.uk/issues/gaza-genocide
Hey look ! Doctors without borders also states that there is a genocide in Gaza.
Pretty sure that noflaps now comes to his senses and agrees.
Or maybe he has some personal problems and is too old and stubborn to change his mind.
"attacks on civilian airports in Iran's neighbors"
* The Houthi attacks on Riyadh airport are different: Saudi Arabia fights against the Houthi.
@wowbagger writes: "Or maybe he has some personal problems and is too old and stubborn to change his mind."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is personal attack necessary? Is it helpful? I hope readers generally notice which side often tends to use personal attack and insult and which does not.
Strong arguments don't require personal attack and aren't furthered by it. Indeed, personal attacks tend to accompany weak arguments, or often appear by themselves when no argument at all is available.
Similarly, there's an old saying among lawyers that "when you don't have the law or the facts, pound the table." That tends not to work well, either.
And you may view "Doctors Without Borders" as a source of perfect opinion and indisputable fact if you choose, but the rest of us are not bound by your choice. I admire their dedication, but nobody's perfect.
Israel has allowed food and water into Gaza in great quantities, and has warned of impending attacks at times, to give civilians an opportunity to clear.
But October 7 caused Israel to move against those governing the forces that attacked them, and if those governing forces tend to stay among civilians, THEY would seem to be putting those civilians in danger. It's a choice. Like surrendering and stepping down from power is a choice that COULD be made.
But perhaps that can be avoided if many "celebrities" and "news personalities" can be rallied to condemn Israel? Fashion is a powerful force within democracies. And brief soundbites and insults are a lot easier to write (and to read or to hear!) than are lengthy explanations or arguments.
Indeed, that principle is active all over politics right now! Just notice the number of candidates who oddly don't mention their actual political parties in ads and just claim to be, like, "independent" (really!) and to make lots of nice noises. But notice how they vote, after elected. The Democrats tend to vote in a block, with very few exceptions.
In world war II, Britain and America and other allies attacked German and Japanese cities, in the attempt to bring down leadership and infrastructure. You can call that "genocide" if you wish, but after the war the Allies, and especially the US, acted in a very humanitarian way toward the beaten populations -- showing that it was NEVER about genocide, but simply about winning a war against those who attacked others first so that such attacks could be ENDED for good.
Indeed, although it's not well known among younger people, during World Wara II the US lost a lot of airmen unnecessarily by insisting on low-level bombing during daylight, which RAISED American casualties quite a bit, in order to not just drop bombs indiscriminately and inaccurately from high up and at night (which was safer for the airmen, but much more dangerous for the civilians below). Yes, high up, nighttime bombing would have killed a lot more civilians unnecessarily, and the US declined to do that. Instead, they lost more of their own airmen in order to be able to hit real targets more consistently and accurately.
Don't believe me -- check the history yourself.
You, and many of your peers, can keep telling yourself that Israel intends genocide -- but we are not obligated to agree in the face of some contrary evidence, and there is CERTAINLY some contrary evidence. Not all will agree, but a steadfast adherence to a favored orthodoxy, relying merely on appeals to "authority," does not present an overwhelming argument. It displays, however, the likely presence of plenty of favored preconception.
Who funds the Houthi, @tpr?
Have you considered that?
I don't believe it's an unrelated mystery.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/
Hey look ! Amnesty international concludes that Israel is committing genocide in gaza !
Well, I think that even noflapsy is now convinced.
Some people have trouble to change their mind but noflaps can be persuaded when a VARIETY of sources say the same thing.
(Although he rather listens to his favorite celebrities)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-says-eus-former-top-diplomat
Hey look ! Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell says Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
“carrying out the largest ethnic-cleansing operation since the end of the second world war"
I am sure noflaps reads all the links I gave him, he always says he wants to be informed by a VARIETY of sources.
https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide
Hey look ! A major Israeli human rights organization writes about 'our genocide', the military onslaught in Gaza.
Here's the full report in pdf :
https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/202507_our_genocide_eng.pdf
Do you want more sources noflaps ?
(Yes, I know you don't like sources because you never give one yourself but anyway)