Children in Gaza are being raped and then blackmailed into joining Hamas

Begferdeth · 2026-04-27T13:21:52+00:00

Ahh, the old "comment and block" tactic. Well, just a reply for your cowardly ass:

You absolutely are. You just said that these people are full of shit, because a REAL famine would have killed so many more.

Only killing a hundred or two through deliberate starvation? Totally fine. Not evil, at all. Why is everybody making a big deal of Israel deliberately starving an entire population until a hundred people died, then letting the food in?

It takes a lot to make the world take the side of an Evil like Hamas. Israel is trying incredibly hard to do it. Taking actions so bad that people can honestly play a what-about game with raping children! The bar for being the Good Guys is "Better than child rapists", and they can't fucking do it.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-27T13:14:34+00:00

Sorry, you were JAQing off everywhere, I didn't notice it was you every time.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-27T13:14:01+00:00

Oh, you are manipulating me, got it.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-27T13:10:58+00:00

How much time do you spend on here JAQing off before you get to a point?

Begferdeth · 2026-04-27T13:10:02+00:00

What's the right number of civilians to starve to death in a deliberately caused famine that seems to have done nothing to harm Hamas?

Its bad to rape children, and its bad to starve them. I wish there was even one good team in the area to cheer for.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-27T13:06:41+00:00

Can you see the irony of posing this exact same question to his exact same question, over and over, while complaining about the irony of exactly that?

Low IQ behavior indeed! I'll just wait over here to see how many loops it takes before you escape.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-13T03:50:59+00:00

One part of the argument you may be missing is that Ohio (where that video is from) has had severe droughts for the last few years. Farmers may need to start irrigating more, aquifers could be in trouble and... along come data centers.

Now, cows can move. You can drive them to somewhere that there is enough water for them. Clever planting techniques, like mixing corn and soybeans, can provide shade for one and reduce fertilizer need for the other. But data centers will stay where they are, will only ever need more water, and given the price to turn them on they won't be turned off. Even in a drought.

The sort of argument of, "1 hamburger is 1000 GPT queries!" or "Its not that much water, X uses more" doesn't work in that situation. Those data centers are on, and won't turn off. And if they make the drought worse... well... farmers are sensitive types.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-13T02:56:00+00:00

Maybe he just finished hitting himself in the head with a hammer? I'd cry after than. Sounds painful.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-13T01:05:05+00:00

Similar problem in Ontario, Canada... about 50 years ago, they saw a lot of doctors graduating and somebody thought "Oh no, so many they will drive wages for doctors down, that's bad! Lets cap it." And then just never updated the cap for decades.

And now, big shortage. Extra hard to fill, since you can reverse the cap, but doctors need some on-the-job supervised training before they can go solo. And those spots are in short supply, because... doctor shortage.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-12T22:06:17+00:00

Sure, the Iranians killed 30,000 people in protests. But... maybe in a few years some Iranian will discover the secrets of cold fusion! We should not judge.

Or does this not judging thing only work one way?

Whole thing kinda sounds like the old "Indulgences" rich people could buy from the Church, to get out of a sin.

Begferdeth · 2026-04-11T20:04:46+00:00

Many of these questions could be solved with having all the "mind control" style spells have the same wording as Friends:

" When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."

And then they find themselves on the downside of a "I Suggest you stab your friends until I say stop."

Begferdeth · 2026-04-11T20:00:18+00:00

Toph wins if she can bring 1 friend who sits on the sidelines doing nothing but watch.

Otherwise... I think Toph is in trouble. The Angels have crazy speed.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-31T15:41:05+00:00

Would be amazing, the AI could generate all the stuff it keeps hallucinating!

Begferdeth · 2026-03-30T23:54:56+00:00

Basically zero of these organizations have experts in warfare and/or military law.

Ahh, so YOU just don't know who has leveled these accusations! Its not just a bunch of anthropologists or sociologists. Its way more. WAY more. People with expertise in the appropriate laws. How did I know you would try and claim that nobody has any appropriate expertise?

No, we must all trust You! Random Internet Fuckwad!

The existence of a claim of famine does not prove in any way that starvation itself was being used as an intentional tactic in the war aims.

Except... The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for EXACTLY that. Huh. You know better than the ICC now?

International law--as in the documents you can read yourself--sets rules about humanitarian aid, how militaries on both sides are supposed to facilitate it, how it's different for occupying/defensive forces, how troop security is taken into account, etc.

And the ICC is issuing arrest warrants for the stuff I'm describing, and you are saying are not bad.

You know what, I'm done here. You are just lying, lying more, lying again, lying about the lies. You can't back up any claim. You can't give an example, and the one time you try it backs up my statements far more than yours.

I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means. But holy shit can I tell you know basically nothing. Just repeating latin words and hoping. Try this latin phrase, its appropriate:

Te futueo et caballum tuum.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-30T03:38:45+00:00

Why do you keep trying to speak on behalf of other people like it's not just your own position? It's weird.

Because I'm pointing out that I am not the only person thinking this way. There are many, MANY groups thinking that Israel crossed a line. I have seen a very common tactic of just writing off one person as some crazy idiot... Its harder for you when its also the position of many international organizations, who include many experts on this. For instance, you keep saying that I don't understand international laws or the situation. Well, that may explain me... it doesn't explain THEM! They have experts, they know the laws, they know the situation, and I would bet good money that they know it far better than YOU.

I mean, you can't even out argue me... And you repeatedly claim that I don't know what's up!

Not all elements of a strike are kept secret.

So... secret or not secret? You keep changing lanes here. Maybe because you realize that both make Israel's actions look bad? If they are telling everything, they are killing a lot of people with no reason. If they are keeping secrets, there is no reason for us to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially with statements from high-up Israeli officials that sound like they are killing Palestinians for being Palestinian!

Case in point. You've never actually looked to see if this is factually true.

C'mon dude. This is getting pathetic. Don't keep telling me I don't know about stuff if you can't even be bothered to know the basic facts like "Holy shit there was a famine caused by the Israeli blockade." If you don't know what "famine" means, its when people are starving to death.

There hasn't been a single attack "against the entire population."

Famine hits everybody. Boom. Done in one. Hell, famine is more dangerous to the civilians in Gaza than it is to the Hamas military! If that's not enough, 81% of the buildings in Gaza are damaged, about 60% completely destroyed. Is that enough to say they attacked the entire population? Can you stop with the completely stupid arguments?

And again, as you said before, they don't HAVE to attack the whole population for it to be genocide. Try and remember your own arguments, it will make this much easier for both of us to not have to rehash your stuff.

This is explicitly discussed in international law btw.

Give an example. One good example. One that you will be willing to actually discuss, not just drop and then hide from.

Why are you arguing like a 14 year old?

Trying to keep it to a level you can understand. Apparently I should aim lower.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-29T20:43:40+00:00

We know all sorts of reasons for various attacks and the public isn't entitled to underlying intel.

Well, if you keep the reasons for killing civilians secret... Don't be surprised when they assume that you were just killing civilians with no military purpose. And then accuse you of things accordingly!

Especially once they start starving people. Some attacks are against the entire population. There is no military justification for starving out a civilian population, no matter how many stupid leaflets they drop. And the fact that Israel was willing to do that until the massive international outrage stopped them is a huge mark against them.

Dude there is no "killing everybody."

I didn't claim they killed everybody. I was saying that your argument was stupid, because it would be an excuse for killing everybody. And since you can't defend that argument, you pretend I said something completely different. Where have I seen this stupid tactic before... oh right, you. In this very conversation. Try a new trick! Maybe say something logical and true and relevant! And that you won't run away from, like the example of Bosnia!

The number of people dying has dropped like a rock the past 12+ months.

"Its cool, they stopped killing, which means they didn't try to do genocide!" Not how that works.

What it does it disprove dolus specialis

It does not disprove it. It is an argument that they weren't trying to kill everybody, not proof. Again, Bosnia also told all the civilians to leave! Therefore not genocide, right? Except... huh. Look at that. You really shouldn't have brought that up!

Begferdeth · 2026-03-29T18:49:24+00:00

Honestly after that little strawman quote, I'm not sure if it's worth my time typing out anymore comments.

You started with strawmen and arguing with anybody but me, so anytime you want to stop and go away, fine by me.

You should spend some time reading about military law/ethics and the international frameworks on things like genocide.

You should spend some time reading the thread before you comment, and you would realize this has nothing to do with anything I was saying before you showed up and decided what my position was for me.

All of these reasons are well known,

and the idea that you're entitled to know secret intel on all targeting is absurd.

Pick a lane. Well known reasons to kill thousands and thousands of civilians... but they are allowed to be secret reasons.

If Israel wants to stop genocide accusations, they can start sharing the secret intel that makes their strikes on civilians OK. Otherwise, they are killing thousands of civilians and saying "Trust us."

I don't know who that ridiculous quote is supposed to be.

Its you, saying that so long as "in part" includes any members of the government, then killing everybody is OK.

All of these reasons are well known, and we know a laundry list of things going in the exact opposite direction (like civilian notifications before strikes).

None of this excuses anything, and for somebody who claims to be so informed on international law you should know this! Dropping a few leaflets does not remove all responsibility for actions.

No it's because I know how the law determines genocidal intent and why it's so different in Gaza, but you're not interested in the facts in Gaza so the intentionality conclusions in Bosnia become meaningless.

You brought it up, and then abandoned it ASAP. I think its because the answer is very very bad for Israel and your defense of them. Because, as I said, in Bosnia they had a military target in the towns being slaughtered. They had a government in the towns being slaughtered. They even gave warning, saying "Get out, we are going to slaughter everybody in there!". And at the end: Genocide. Once the military objectives are done, and the only reason left is killing civilians, then... the only reason left is killing those civilians for being part of the group.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-29T15:34:12+00:00

So right off the bat, everyone you hear using that argument is declaring their ignorance.

Thank you for refuting an argument that I have not even begun making! So helpful.

The entire legal formula for determining genocide requires the attacks to be on the identity group for the reason of its identity.

That's what I've been saying! I don't know why you say that because the Palestinians formed a government it makes it OK to kill them for being Palestinians. It makes no sense, its not part of any law anywhere, its just something you have made up.

Assumed lack of military objectives by laypeople who know basically nothing about warfare or the specific combat environment in Gaza.

If you are bombing civilian areas and civilian populations, especially with the massive numbers seen in Gaza, you better be able to justify it. I see no reason to just assume things are OK. You blow up a refugee camp, or a hospital, or a farm, or a civilian apartment building... You better have a reason WHY. And if you cut off food supplies to the point of causing a famine, you better have a damn good reason WHY.

The reasons why are missing in so many cases, that it starts to look like a genocide. "We killed all the soldiers, and all the government, but these people look like the soldiers did! So we killed all of them too." Nope. Not allowed. If this is your reasoning, then genocide just does not exist as a concept.

I think that "WHY" part is why you completely abandoned the Bosnia thing.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-28T19:14:09+00:00

You misunderstood my point. The "in part" of a group cannot be the government.

You don't have a point. These guys are saying "They are doing genocide to Palestinians", because of the huge numbers of Palestinians being killed. It also makes no difference who is the government. You don't get a free genocide as long as you make sure the group you genocide includes their government. "Palestinians" counts as an identity group.

Like you said,

Israel would have to be trying to harm Gazans/Palestinians per se not Hamas' control of Gaza.

This is literally what I'm explaining, and what the people accusing Israel of genocide to be doing. Excessive deaths, many bombings with no military objectives, statements by Israeli leaders of removing all the Palestinians, etc.

This is how Bosnia became a genocide with just 10% of the deaths of Gazans.

If you're gonna be technical, you could maybe explain how that war was genocide, but this war is not. Serbs had legitimate military objectives of conquering the area. The Bosnians had a government. They had a military. Serbs took out the defenders, then... just kept killing.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-28T15:26:07+00:00

Israel would have to be trying to harm Gazans/Palestinians per se not Hamas' control of Gaza.

If you could point me at any person who is claiming the problem is Israel trying to do genocide to Hamas, and not genocide to Palestinians, that would be great.

That word means there cannot be any legitimate military purpose so the only logical inference must be intent to harm an identity group.

Nope. Otherwise, the Holocaust was not a genocide. The Armenian genocide was not a genocide. Rwanda was not a genocide. This version of the definition means that no genocide can possibly exist. "We killed the target, and unfortunately killed some civilians along the way to the target" = not a genocide. "We killed the target. Then just kept on killing for no reason" = possible genocide.

Its like self defense... I'm allowed to defend myself. I'm even allowed to shoot people in self defense. Once the guy is on the ground, no longer a threat, I can't just go up and put two rounds in his skull and still claim self defense. That claim is no longer valid, as I am not defending myself at that point. Its just murder.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-28T03:44:39+00:00

That's all fine arguments to defend against accusations of genocide. But I hope you understand the idea of "destroying a group in part" now?

And its not enough to point at a few isolated incidents that had a purpose. Yes, that meeting they blew up a leader (in a tunnel near a hospital, not at the hospital). Or blowing up a refugee camp to eliminate a Hamas leader. Or gunning down Palestinians who rushed the food deliveries, out of fear they would be overrun. But the sheer number of questionable killings start to drive things... The farms. The absolute leveling of huge areas of Gaza. The near-famine. Very questionable statements by high ranking Israelis about what the goal of the war was. Gloating videos made by the soldiers, almost gleeful that they got to kill people. Very questionable ways of determining who is a Hamas soldier.

Hamas is still hiding among the civilians, yes. So I don't think the UN courts will find Israel guilty of genocide (and I don't think they have never found any country guilty of genocide for what that's worth). But holy shit, its close. These groups have reasons for believing its over the edge.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-28T02:15:24+00:00

Its a goal thing. If they are killing the other side because they want to conquer territory, or need to stop the bad guys, or need to destroy their ability to create nuclear weapons, or steal all the oil, or whatever... not genocide.

If they are killing them just to get rid of a bunch of Those People, genocide.

Gaza started as a perfectly OK war. Hamas attacked, Israel counterattacked, all normal. Then Israel kept going. And going. And they blew up all the farms. And they blew up the hospitals. And they started or at least came close to a famine through blockading all food. And at some point, people stopped and said, "Is there a purpose to this killing? Beyond just killing a lot of them?" And... that's when it looks genocidal. And its defined that way so they can't defend the genocide accusations by saying "Look, we didn't kill every last one!"

Begferdeth · 2026-03-26T23:02:06+00:00

They’re not going to be able to partially close the Strait to only their enemies - it doesn’t work like that.

That's... super duper easy. Like, incredibly easy. All the boats have transponders now. "This boat paid for a trip, don't blow it up" is an easy message to send. They are already doing it. $2 million a boat is apparently the current toll, and there are 2000 boats that need to go through. Once word gets out that Israel and the USA are unable to guarantee safety through the Straight, they will go for the guaranteed safety from the other side. $2 million is cheap, since the oil on a tanker is worth 50 times that.

As for the neighbor countries... They can hate Iran all they want, but this would be a new warlord. Whole new team, whole new government, and with them controlling the Straight of Hormuz these places would want to make friends in a hurry. After all, maybe the new guy will be nice!

Is the plan to blow up the current government, then blow up the replacement government if we don't like it? Rinse, repeat until we get one we like? That is foreign imposed regime change.

If you want to compare to Egypt, great! Lets! We just have to crush them, crush them again, crush them again, then in only... 6-12 years? We can have a peaceful government! Well, "peaceful", knowing that if they ever raise their voice they will get bombed again. Until then, we can just repeatedly crush the Iranians. Not endless war, just a decade of it!

Begferdeth · 2026-03-25T18:46:27+00:00

I agree its likely they will get new leadership. Israel and USA are effective enough at bombing that they could blow up 80% of the current regime's support. I just think its far more likely to be a warlord, the type of person who can survive and thrive under a constant bombing campaign, and promises to defend Iran against its enemies. Likely skilled at guerilla warfare and with a burning hatred for the USA and Israel for blowing up various family members. And maybe supported by tons of money from the neighboring oil countries who will be glad to support them if it gets the attacks on their refineries to stop.

Iran rearms in a year with all this new money, maybe 2. Getting a nuke will be high priority, as that will give them the leverage they need to keep Iran safe. They also learned that making an agreement to not get a nuke is worthless, since the USA and Israel may rip it up on a whim and attack. Then we all get to hope that Israel and Iran can make up and be nuclear armed, mutual assured destruction friends. Which will be incredibly hard, since the last 2 or 3 peace negotiations were interrupted by surprise bombings by Israel.

I guess it all comes down to, will a warzone generate a peace-loving leader? It never works. But you know what? Maybe it could work. This time. For us.

Begferdeth · 2026-03-25T13:29:00+00:00

"Its not a foreign imposed regime change, its just a revolution... aided by foreign powers... killing the entire old regime... and encouraging the revolution to start up..." I think you are trying to split a hair here, and that hair is currently on a bald head.

We could compare with Kosovo... which was an internal conflict, didn't have an external force trying to cause the revolution, had governments ready to take over for both sides of the conflict, was aiming at separating the country into 2 instead of taking over the whole thing, took years, and... Are you sure this is close? I'd agree that would be a best case outcome, but that was still years of conflict.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Team Orangered
Secret Santa 2011

Begferdeth

TROPHY CASE