But you just admitted that is a job for the courts, not for twitterBecause that is the only way they can prove the allegations against them are wrong.
But you just admitted that is a job for the courts, not for twitterBecause that is the only way they can prove the allegations against them are wrong.
Not quite true.Western militaries have lawyers there approving the strikes so even when mistakes are made, they are not a war crime unless there is intentionality.
Yes, many humans use actual data to form their opinions, not just their anti-semitic conspiracy theories like you did when you claimed a bunch of Biden hire were secretly Israeli citizens.Are you saying your opinion is shaped by your access to that data?
...
But if we were to discuss it, and if we were to make a judgement outside of the courts, then they need to present evidence that their strikes met the criteria for proportionality to be acquitted in the court of public opinion.But you just admitted that is a job for the courts, not for twitter![]()
A strike on it's own would be a war crime if they knew that there were too significant a civilian toll but chose to go ahead.Not quite true.
Intentionality would be genocide.
Not all war crimes are genocide.
They "need to"?But if we were to discuss it, and if we were to make a judgement outside of the courts, then they need to present evidence that their strikes met the criteria for proportionality to be acquitted in the court of public opinion.
Of course that is something they wont.
But in a war with so much damage, they unfortunately wont be given the benefit of the doubt. .
True....
In a war like this it is fair to assume that the truth is likely in the middle.
If they dont want public opinion to accuse them of war crimes, then they do need to.They "need to"?
Sorry but the only "need" is for people like us discussing them is that although we can post our opinion, we should be willing to admit that we don't always have the information to know we are right.
Why do you keep lying about the Lancet?The Lancet published a letter that argues that Israel has likely killed 300,000 Palestinians.
...
So you're now talking about manipulating public opinion instead of law and yes, the Palestinians do a much better job of capitalizing, especially on social media.If they dont want public opinion to accuse them of war crimes, then they do need to.
Willingness to admit that we dont always have the information to know we are right, includes, admitting that there may have been possible war crimes.
Which is what I have done.
If the truth is presented, where is the manipulation?So you're now talking about manipulating public opinion instead of law and yes, the Palestinians do a much better job of capitalizing, especially on social media.
Everything in media is manipulation. Maybe your more comfortable with the term bias but most people are quite aware that messaging is often pushed with an agenda. That's why countries like Russia put so much into their troll farms.If the truth is presented, where is the manipulation?
And intentionally did not comment on anything at all written in that letter. Placing that letter in the letters to the editor section is not a validation. Nobody who was authorized to speak on behalf of the Lancet, did so.The Lancet published a letter that argues that Israel has likely killed 300,000 Palestinians.
When you say 'random' you mean, the UN, ICC, ICJ, Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, CBC, Haaretz and a million others.But some random tweet is obviously enough for you.
But surprise some racist clown like you has a different standard of evidence for Jews, Arabs, and elitists like yourself.
So you never have to prove any claims that you were targeting a terrorist.Every post where you said Israel "targeted" civilians when you've admitted you don't know what information Israel was acting on.
If he read any serious publication and semi serious publication that included letters to the editor, he would quickly understand they they often print letters that are not line with their general direction as well as letters critical of articles.And intentionally did not comment on anything at all written in that letter. Placing that letter in the letters to the editor section is not a validation. Nobody who was authorized to speak on behalf of the Lancet, did so.
Are you claiming that if trump wrote a letter to the Lancet and they published it, it means that they are vouching that what trump says is the truth? Because that is what you're claiming.
The numbers will be much higher soon.If he read any serious publication and semi serious publication that included letters to the editor, he would quickly understand they they often print letters that are not line with their general direction as well as letters critical of articles.
His continued insistence AFTER we showed him the link and the cut and paste from lancet itself shows both a sad lack of knowledge that anyone over the age of 25 who is well educated should have as well as a lack of ability to understand even simple concepts [or just blinded with hate.
I'd say terb could use some rules about both trolls [Mitchell cough cough] and rules against people who to use a phrase buried someone in the rules are not engaged in sincere debate. However since the rules on hate speech are obviously not enforced, why bother.
If you cared, you'd call for a Hamas surrender.The numbers will be much higher soon.
You already said a ceasefire is the only way for both sides to stop the killing.If you cared, you'd call for a Hamas surrender.
But you don't.
I have repeatedly said that waiting for a ceasefire results in more Gazan deaths, not a ceasefire itself.






