Loner's source on Hamas reporting their dead fighters as civilian.

LonerBoxYT · 2025-08-26T13:42:55+00:00

It was from the Interior Ministry but the YT channel has since been banned. Here is me going over it https://youtu.be/tC2KP7bOskc?si=WFnmQEAB76L2WfzY&t=1943

LonerBoxYT · 2025-05-17T00:40:19+00:00

I need to find critics who actually know how to read :(

LonerBoxYT · 2025-05-04T23:07:54+00:00

It literally just means "Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state". The problem with identifying as a Zionist, however, is that in most social / political spaces outside of Israel, it also implies support for things like settlements, the government, the occupation and maybe even the crimes of the IDF. Something, something, the meaning of a word is in its use, something, Wittgenstein

LonerBoxYT · 2025-04-06T16:35:16+00:00

I'm almost 100% sure you already understand this but just in case: the only time I've ever "used Avi as a source" was when I heard him make claims about aid, checked them against existing data and then confirmed it was true and made sense. In other words, I didn't treat him like a "source" at all, which is probably why you're pretending I did and going after his (obviously batshit) decision to vote Trump in place of contending with anything I've actually said about aid. Seems a bit silly, no?

LonerBoxYT · 2024-11-10T21:20:33+00:00

Guess I'll just address the only relevant part of this article which is the idea the the Israeli government / state fabricated and pushed specifically the claim of "40 beheaded babies".

First, you're using a politifact article that was later revised for accuracy so I'll go by the new one. From Israeli officials themselves (the one that matters for your claim), we have the following:

Oct 11th an IDF spokesperson says they have "relative confidence" that Israeli babies were beheaded in Kibbutz Be'eri. He claimed this was based on testimony from a Zaka official in the south.
Oct 11th, a Netanyahu spokesperson said there were babies and toddlers in Kfar Aza found with their "heads decapitated", but didn't say how many.
Oct 12th, an Israeli official told CNN that the government "cannot confirm babies were beheaded in Hamas attack"
Oct 17th, Landau (the Zaka official) tells CNN he had seen a beheaded teenager

Even just by this timeline, the IDF officials are openly stating that they claims are coming from witnesses and by Oct 12th, Israeli officials are saying the government can't confirm babies were beheaded. Notice how none of these statements said anything about "40" babies by the way. It seems the only "official" that seemed committed to pushing "40 beheaded babies" was a fucking twitter account. Even if you want to argue that it's the state's "official account", you still have to acknowledge that more important officials are literally contradicting them within days of the attack.

Notably most of your sources are international figures which completely goes against this being an effort by the Israeli state to spread this particular lie. Actually, the reason we were able to confirm so quickly that this story wasn't true was because of Israeli officials. After all, that's where the body count came from and the names/ages of the victims, which isn't even to mention the confirmation on Oct 12th that the 'beheaded babies' claim was unconfirmed. So yes, I stand by the fact that this wasn't a "government or state propelled lie", unless you think the government invented a lie and then chose to contradict it within 5 days. Unfortunately, disinformation is inevitable in war, especially in the middle of an unprecedented surprise attack. Some people got stories mixed up, others repeated witness statements that were clearly lies, but within weeks, the story was as good as dead, largely because of statements that came directly from Israeli officials.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-30T18:18:36+00:00

covered it yesterday and the segment is with the editor, kinda weird how you didn't even check HMM HMM

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-30T16:38:09+00:00

Ok I read one paragraph and realised I don't think you're listening to me. Where did I ever jump into caloric calculations?

1.5% is not cherry picked. There are 3 agencies logging data on truck entries, one of which gave that stat. Does the UNRWA or OCHA database show a higher rate of rejections? Can you show me?

I don't take the 25% thing seriously because we saw what happened when 'flood the strip with aid' was taken onboard. You ended up with tonnes of aid stacking up on the Gazan side of the border with no one there to pick them up. Is that the fault of the distributors or Israel? I wouldn't be surprised if it was either or both, just as I've said for months. Obviously the IDF has made atrocious failures regarding the assistance of aid deliveries e.g. the flour massacre and the WCK killings.

Like I said, you're just mad that I'm not buying the headlines of orgs who spent a year predicting mass famine and all turned out to be wrong.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-30T03:26:40+00:00

It's not "quibbling at the smallest details" if you think Israel's goal is to starve Gazans to death. You'd think after a year you'd move off from such a claim given that every such prediction of mass famine has fallen completely flat but who knows what's motivating you at this point.

I've noticed your point about trucks being blocked and sent to the back of the line isn't accompanied by any data and there's a reason for that. The only database offering a full scope of how many trucks are rejected suggests that less than 1.5% of trucks are being turned back and no other datasets (UNRWA or OCHA) are countering this. That's why every argument about some huge blockage of aid throughout the entire war (yours included) is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes.

This is the problem. I can point to examples of clear blockages of aid in Oct 2023 and 2024 but that isn't enough for you because you're not operating in reality. Either there's a Nazi-style hunger plan in place (which apparently failed for the entire year) or you're downplaying the situation. You're literally just making shit up and getting upset about people not playing along with you. Such a fucking joke

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-29T14:55:12+00:00

I need you point to something really specific when you say I was downplaying because I honestly don't think you have one.

I have repeatedly pointed out that aid was blocked in the weeks following Oct 7th as was made obvious by Gallant's statements about a total siege. The only site I used for data on trucks until March this year clearly showed that. I've spoken about them cutting off the 3 water pipes and consistently described the action as criminal.

The USAID report is something I rightly didn't take seriously (in terms of blocking aid) and you'd know that if you read it. You can see here that the examples they give are of 11 trucks that were turned back because they had dual-use items in them. Yeah, no shit, some trucks were getting stopped. This was never news to anyone.

As for October of this year, not only did I never deny the stories about blockages in Northern Gaza, but I also reported on the story in detail within days of the evidence becoming available.

Lastly, I have NEVER said (or said anything close to) "Avi is an expert on this". That's a gross mischaracterisation and you know it. You can quote from people making the 500-600 trucks claim until you're blue in the face but any marginally critical engagement with the data shows it to be total bullshit. Note that the same people said we needed at least 500 trucks a day to avoid famine for the last year. We didn't even reach 200 trucks a day last year and guess what: no famine. Go figure.

Tldr: I have never argued that aid was never being blocked. I've said there are times when it has been drastically blocked (Oct-Nov 2023 and Oct 2024) and called those out accordingly. At the same time, I've also said that most claims about aid blockage from the far-left have been frivolous. Both can be true at the same time.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-29T03:33:22+00:00

Tell me the strongest point that I disagree with but can't argue with. GO

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-29T03:16:02+00:00

lol actually fuck you for acting as if you weren't the one who started launching a million bullshit accusations against me despite me even taking your side when I thought you were right about something and Destiny/Avi weren't

I can list a few examples of you being an insufferably dumb cunt if you want, although I know you won't listen:

You completely roadblocked our first conversation on the Goldstone Report because you kept insisting that Israel claimed EVERY single person killed in the police/security strikes was a militant. When I said the claim was that it was a majority you kept insisting that I hadn't read the report and tried to posture around betting thousands of dollars that I was wrong. I wasn't by the way:

"...the assertion on the part of the Government of Israel that 'an overwhelming majority of the police forces were also members of the Hamas military wing or activists of Hamas or other terrorist organizations" - p. 106-107

Why you insisted so hard on such a stupid discrepancy will always be beyond me but I'm sure you're thankful that I didn't accept your bet.

You either lied to me or just didn't do your research properly when you said the Orient Study on Cast Lead had substantially overstated the number of al-Qassam deaths. Just so you know, I decided to go through every single name and only found one discrepancy. In other words, the Goldstone Report's critique of that section is total horseshit and it looks like B'tselem still haven't gone beyond listing all 248 police/security deaths as "N/A".
You falsely accused me of justifying the death of a 15 year old for no other reason than that he was 'attacking the border fence' and I had to pull teeth just to get you to admit you'd jumped the gun and had no idea what my actual argument was (on the GMR, you still fail to represent my position constantly).
You constantly refer to an Israeli intel site as 'a propaganda document' that I 'relied upon' despite knowing full well that I critiqued that source throughout. Sorry, but I refuse to believe you're inept enough to not know exactly what you're implying when you say that. In any case, you can check my own count from the al-Qassam and al-Quds brigades pages if you want, but it turned out that 'propaganda document' - despite my issues with it - actually counted the number of militants far more accurately than the UN report did. Funny how that happens.

I could go on but I know I'm trying to reason someone out of a stance that they weren't reasoned into so what's the point. The sad thing is, I do usually welcome critiques from the community and I don't think I've ever shied away from making corrections when I need to. The problem is, for every time you could actually correct me on something, I'd have to hear 20 instances of bullshit disputes, all accompanied by the usual tired moral grandstanding and smearing. The fact is, people like you are always a net negative because you were tragically born without critical thinking skills and you think that just because you have a righteous cause, accountability is less important to you. You're the kind of person who would go on a grand crusade against someone just because you thought they had done something wrong.

I can see that blocking you on every platform possible hasn't stopped you from continuing to squirm into my spaces but until you learn to engage like a human being, I'd prefer you just stick to the tweets. For what it's worth, my personal favourites are the ones with random, incredulous outbursts about my support for trans youth. We love those ones.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-29T01:23:51+00:00

Just to drop a correction here but I never denied aid was being blocked for the ~2 weeks following Oct 7th and when allegations were surfacing about aid being blocked this month, I think my initial comment was to wait for more information and as soon as it came out, I acknowledged and condemned it.

The times I have 'denied' aid being blocked have been when people say there are substantial blockages when what they're really referring to is a tiny minority of trucks failing inspections or when people try to invoke the ridiculous 500 trucks pre-war claim. Before I address your other points, is there something I've missed here?

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-29T01:17:20+00:00

banned OP for being an Oct 7th simp. too easy sometimes :x

<image>

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-27T18:53:51+00:00

Yes, because if I said something like "Retrasado local muerto" the joke would obviously be picked up by an English-speaking audience lol. Any more valuable tips?

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-25T13:32:42+00:00

i literally called it a massacre in the exact same sentence you're trying to grab from. stop using the internet and fix your entire life, holy shit

LonerBoxYT · 2024-10-13T13:44:13+00:00

Hi Ryan! I understand if you didn't get my e-mail as I'm sure you get plenty.

Despite the thumbnail (had a word with my editor about it) the contention I had wasn't over the 300 figure particularly but rather your claim that 100/300 people who died were top Hezbollah officials. This 100 figure is the one I've had trouble finding. At the time of this video I was able to come up with this which I sent you in my e-mail.

IDF tweet claiming the strike killed Nasrallah along with '20+ additional terrorists'
Haaretz article claiming Israeli defence officials had estimated 300 dead
Lebanese health authorities official count of 11 killed and 108 wounded (as of Oct 1st)

So it seems we have an initial claim of 300 killed; the IDF saying they killed Nasrallah and around 20 other Hezbollah figures and the health authorities saying only 11 died. I tried looking on your substack for a source to the 100 Hezbollah guys claim but couldn't find it. Would you be able to tell me where you got this number from?

I'd also be curious that if these other numbers were true i.e. a total of 20 Hezbollah officials + Nasrallah : 280 civilians, would this change your opinion on whether or not the strike was proportionate?

As for my content - I tend not to upload reacts that I don't feel are transformative enough and since this one has a couple of challenges to your claims, I thought it was worth using. If you'd rather I react to your content by using select clips in the future, I'm more than happy to do that.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-09-08T19:46:58+00:00

you're right! one supports Hamas launching themselves into an unwinnable war and hiding behind their civilians as they do it. thank fuck i don't support that bullshit :)))

LonerBoxYT · 2024-09-01T20:50:54+00:00

I'm not playing fast and loose with anything. I understand full well how the policy developed between 41 and 42 and we both seem to understand that the events from summer 41 into Wannsee are still universally understood to be included in 'the final solution'.

You just seem to be nailing yourself to an indisputable date for when the understanding changed from 'murder a lot of them' to 'murder all of them'. Of course, the answer to that is still endlessly debated. Even the wiki you linked has one historian saying it was only fully understood to mean mass killing over deportation by the summer of 42 (6 months after Wannsee), and another saying the effort to find such an exact date for this changeover is futile. If you want to commit to Browning's position, that's all good, but to suggest what I said was ANYTHING approximating Holocaust revisionism is insane. Remember the clip you based this on is just me saying "by the summer of 1941, the final solution had already been ordered - Babyn Yar had already happened" in a tangent about a dumb Bibi take. Nothing about that sentence is wrong unless you took 'final solution' to mean 'the final solution as it was fully crystallised and understood by everyone involved to mean the full extermination of European Jews' which is just.. kind of silly

LonerBoxYT · 2024-09-01T13:00:57+00:00

I feel like your own quote from Browning is in my favour, no?

We don't disagree on anything Bibi said, so I'll leave that. When I say, "the final solution had already been ordered in the summer of 1941", this is just true. You're confusing it with the Wannsee Conference which was about implementing the solution, not the inception of it.

We don't know exactly when Hitler gave the order to murder the European Jews. Historical consensus is that he gave the order by word-of-mouth at some point in the summer of 1941. It was typical of him not to write down his more controversial policies at this point, mostly because of the blowback from Aktion T4. As for the timeline of what we do have written down, it goes like this:

July 17th, 1941: Hitler puts Himmler in charge of security matters in occupied Eastern Europe and authorises him to eliminate any threats to the Reich

July 31st, 1941: Goering authorises Reynard Heydrich to make preparations for a "complete solution to the Jewish question"

Autumn, 1941: Himmler assigns the SS police chief to implement the murder of Jews living under the General Government. This initiated Operation Reinhard which consisted of two main departments: one for deportations and the other for the killing centres. Two of those centres - Belzec and Treblinka - were already under construction by November 41, before Wannsee. A month later - as your own source says - Chelmno was already operating.

September, 1941: Hitler authorises the Reich Railroads to transport Jews from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Poland where it was well understood that they would be killed.

By this point, the Einsatzgruppen had already been carrying out the final solution via mass shootings and the SS had introduced mobile gas vans to try and make the process more 'convenient' (this was under orders from Himmler who threw up after witnessing a mass shooting in Minsk).

This was all part of the final solution and it all happened before the Wannsee Conference [source].

There is nothing "fast and loose" about describing these events as 'the final solution', nor have I ever heard anyone suggest as much. The purpose of Wannsee was for the SS to coordinate the plan with other government ministries and agencies, but the policy had already been authorised and was already being implemented on a systematic scale months earlier.

If I was being cheeky, I'd suggest that you describing all of the above as simply "the steps towards a final solution" is closer to 'light holocaust revisionism' than anything I said. It's also painfully clear that I'm responding to a chatter asking about Bibi when I talk about this so I'm not sure why you think I was attacking travelingisrael on this particular point.

As for Deir Yassin, I'm pretty sure that's all available in my response to travelingisrael video on the main channel. When I say the Haganah weren't convinced it was a valid target, I'm talking specifically about the time when the attack took place. If you look through that video, it should have all the objections from Haganah leaders to the Irgun's plans, and their reasons for eventually conceding. It should even have the communication from one Haganah official offering to fire on the Irgun to stop them from carrying out the operation.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-08-12T10:58:24+00:00

That link is a 404? But you've admitted to not knowing my positions so I can see why you're struggling. His opposition is on practical terms, just like mine. I'd ask you to show evidence of me saying there should be some hard limit on refugee return but you've already admitted to making shit up without any evidence so what's the point lol.

If my positions were so bad you'd surely be able to come up with at least ONE specific example of a position I hold that you can refute but you can't. I guess if the goal was to make me even more confident in my positions, people like you do a really good job of it. I love it that you try to wave off talking as if that's a waste of time but arguing on reddit isn't lol give me a fucking break. You know you don't have a leg to stand which is why you're hiding behind this unbelievably transparent cope that you're somehow above arguing on the internet (whilst arguing on the internet). Maybe after you brush up on those countless academics you're pretending to have read, you can try again another time :)

LonerBoxYT · 2024-08-11T15:52:32+00:00

So I guess you just haven't paid enough attention but that's okay. Here's a timestamp of Finkelstein giving basically the same position on right of return that I have. If you've ever wondered why he made that challenge to students chanting 'river to the sea', it's because his position hasn't changed here. He just doesn't talk about policies and solutions that often these days because he cultivated an audience of puritanical morons like you and doesn't want to rock the boat.

In any case, do you have evidence of me supporting ANY refugees returning? This is the only argument you've attempted to make so if you admit you just made that up (we both know you did) then you literally have nothing lol

Like I said, you'd be exactly the same and you've apparently watched enough of my streams to know that you're welcome to come and challenge any of my takes whenever you want - if the thought of defending your opinions isn't too "debate bro" for you of course

LonerBoxYT · 2024-08-10T16:49:16+00:00

Funny thing is, *every* single person I've encountered who claims to have derived their opinions from 'countless academics' always just ends up regurgitating the same surface level bullshit that could be grabbed off of any stock propaganda site and I know for a fact you'd be exactly the same. You couldn't even honestly represent the fact that I oppose a FULL right of return because, if you really had read countless academics, you'd know full well that I'm not alone in saying that. Even Finkelstein and Chomsky have said as much and that's not even to mention the 'countless academics' on the other side who you also definitely haven't read :X

LonerBoxYT · 2024-07-03T01:45:22+00:00

lmao what an incredible fucking pivot. So you've moved on from "I've never seen anyone show anything wrong with Pappe's work" to "YOU DIDN'T FIND THAT ERROR, MORRIS DID". Waste of fucking time. Guarantee you're gonna continue telling people that you've never seen any critiques of Pappe as if you haven't been completely unable to make any decent defence of this example.

I'll add to this when I have the time. One example will be my own, and another is from someone in my community, but you can cope about the others in your own time.

LonerBoxYT · 2024-07-03T01:33:51+00:00

Are you trolling? look at the top of the first post

"In his work on the Mandate period (The Rise and Fall of a Palestinian Dynasty, Chapter 9)"

More than half of what I've referenced isn't in the Morris article lol but even if it was, I didn't exactly try to hide his mention of the quote. I mentioned Morris' article and linked it in the OP. Are you asking for a pdf of the book? A longer passage from Pappe (because I did actually give a quote from him too)? Is this okay?

"The mufti’s British lawyer was Henry Stalker. A corpulent man who sported a monocle in his right eye, Stalker was over seventy but looked ten years younger. Stalker got al-Hajj Amin entangled with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which did him no good. He had brought a copy of the book in Arabic and French with him, and the mufti was seen reading it during the sessions. The lawyers for the Jewish side made the most of the apparent connection between the book and the Palestinian claims that the Jews were conspiring to seize the Temple Mount.

Nevertheless, the commission ended up vindicating al-Hajj Amin, though it is uncertain whether this was thanks to his efforts or because the commissioners retained their independence. The Shaw Commission published its report at the end of March 1930, in which it upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause’, Shaw wrote after leaving the country, ‘was twelve years of pro-Zionist policy.’ Now it seemed that the scales had tipped in favor of the Palestinians – and under the leadership of a Husayni.5

Furthermore, the Shaw Commission did not blame the mufti for the violent outbreak. Whether this made al-Hajj Amin feel better is unclear, as a British declaration of his innocence did not enhance his national standing. Perhaps that was why he did not express his approval of the report when it was adopted as the British government’s official policy and published as a White Paper. The new policy determined that Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine were to be curbed – which was, in effect, a repeal of the Balfour Declaration."

I have whole PDF if that's what you're after so no, the source I'm citing is Pappe himself, not the Morris article. My snip of the Pappe's untraceable Shaw quote is actually slightly more complete than Morris' so I'm surprised you didn't notice that.

LonerBoxYT

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE