"I Am a Palestinian in Gaza and Hamas must Cede Control"

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

That’s patently false but you can prove me wrong. Give us the source that says it’s the necessary pre condition for the identification of genocide.

By, that definition, the Holocaust was not a genocide.

False equivalency.
The holocaust was an attack on civilians where people were deported to death camps to be gassed.
That is not happening in Gaza.
What is happening in Gaza are air strikes and certain conditions that Israel has imposed.
Whether that amounts to genocide, or legitimate military actions or war crimes has to be adjudicated at the ICJ.
Pro-Palestinians should focus on ending the war, than striving to call this genocide.
What if the ICJ rules it is not a genocide?
Where does that leave you?

 

[Klatuu]

False equivalency.
The holocaust was an attack on civilians where people were deported to death camps to be gassed.
That is not happening in Gaza.
What is happening in Gaza are air strikes and certain conditions that Israel has imposed.
Whether that amounts to genocide, or legitimate military actions or war crimes has to be adjudicated at the ICJ.
Pro-Palestinians should focus on ending the war, than striving to call this genocide.
What if the ICJ rules it is not a genocide?
Where does that leave you?

This is just deflection. You were asked a simple question.

Give us the source that says it’s the necessary pre condition for the identification of genocide.

 

[whynot888]

False equivalency.
The holocaust was an attack on civilians where people were deported to death camps to be gassed.
That is not happening in Gaza.
What is happening in Gaza are air strikes and certain conditions that Israel has imposed.
Whether that amounts to genocide, or legitimate military actions or war crimes has to be adjudicated at the ICJ.
Pro-Palestinians should focus on ending the war, than striving to call this genocide.
What if the ICJ rules it is not a genocide?
Where does that leave you?

The ambiguously duo don't even care about Palestinians, hence why a Hamas surrender and release the hostages does not fit their narratives. They both just hate Jews, period. This has been a routine for him since the early days before he changed to Frankfooter

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

This is just deflection. You were asked a simple question.

Give us the source that says it’s the necessary pre condition for the identification of genocide.

There is no pre-condition as such that it has to be ruled at the ICJ for it to be labeled genocide.
But one of the necessary pre-conditions for the identification of genocide is intent.
While human rights organizations or special committees can label something as a genocide, intent has to be proven.
Otherwise it is an allegation.
The only place where you'd prove intent is in a court.
In your case, despite the UN special committee report, you dont even have consensus amongst nations that it is genocide.

 

[Klatuu]

Intent for the purposes of the court needs to be proven in court, but you’ve already conceded the court is not a necessary requirement for an identification of genocide.

Competent and credible organizations have already conducted investigations (including the identification of intent) and published the evidence leading to the conclusion of genocide.

 

[Leimonis]

There is no pre-condition as such that it has to be ruled at the ICJ for it to be labeled genocide.
But one of the necessary pre-conditions for the identification of genocide is intent.
While human rights organizations or special committees can label something as a genocide, intent has to be proven.
Otherwise it is an allegation.
The only place where you'd prove intent is in a court.
In your case, despite the UN special committee report, you dont even have consensus amongst nations that it is genocide.

Yep and here’s the explanation (of why geno, bomboclaat and others are full of shit):


The intent required for genocide is specific intent (also referred to as dolus specialis), and recklessness or gross negligence is not sufficient. Here’s why:

1. Definition of Genocide under International Law

Genocide is defined under Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). It involves specific acts (e.g., killing, causing harm, or forcibly transferring children) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

2. Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis)

Specific intent for genocide requires:

• A clear purpose or desire to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part.

• This intent must go beyond merely committing the underlying acts (e.g., killing or harming individuals); it must focus on the destruction of the group itself.

This high threshold distinguishes genocide from other crimes, such as crimes against humanity or war crimes, which may not require this special intent.

3. Recklessness or Gross Negligence is Insufficient

• Recklessness (acting with conscious disregard of a substantial risk) or gross negligence (extreme carelessness) may result in severe harm but do not indicate the specific desire to destroy a group that genocide requires.


• For example, a military commander acting recklessly during a conflict may commit war crimes, but unless there is proof of intent to target and destroy a specific group, the actions would not meet the threshold for genocide.

4. Proof of Intent

• Specific intent is usually inferred from evidence, such as:


• Policies, orders, or statements that show the intent to target a group.


• Systematic patterns of conduct aimed at the destruction of the group.

5. Legal Consequences

Because of the high standard of specific intent, proving genocide is often more challenging than proving other international crimes. If the required intent cannot be established, the conduct may instead fall under crimes against humanity or war crimes.

 

[Klatuu]

Yep and here’s the explanation:


The intent required for genocide is specific intent (also referred to as dolus specialis), and recklessness or gross negligence is not sufficient. Here’s why:





1. Definition of Genocide under International Law





Genocide is defined under Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). It involves specific acts (e.g., killing, causing harm, or forcibly transferring children) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.





2. Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis)





Specific intent for genocide requires:





• A clear purpose or desire to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part.


• This intent must go beyond merely committing the underlying acts (e.g., killing or harming individuals); it must focus on the destruction of the group itself.





This high threshold distinguishes genocide from other crimes, such as crimes against humanity or war crimes, which may not require this special intent.





3. Recklessness or Gross Negligence is Insufficient





• Recklessness (acting with conscious disregard of a substantial risk) or gross negligence (extreme carelessness) may result in severe harm but do not indicate the specific desire to destroy a group that genocide requires.


• For example, a military commander acting recklessly during a conflict may commit war crimes, but unless there is proof of intent to target and destroy a specific group, the actions would not meet the threshold for genocide.





4. Proof of Intent





• Specific intent is usually inferred from evidence, such as:


• Policies, orders, or statements that show the intent to target a group.


• Systematic patterns of conduct aimed at the destruction of the group.





5. Legal Consequences





Because of the high standard of specific intent, proving genocide is often more challenging than proving other international crimes. If the required intent cannot be established, the conduct may instead fall under crimes against humanity or war crimes.





Let me know if you’d like further elaboration or examples!

There is an almost inexhaustible amount of evidence of intent. Hats off to POS Nation for that.

 

[shack]

I don't care shit about your self declared statement that only UNGA resolutions count.

You're just bullshitting, Shazi.

It has always been YOU that declares that we must always accept what the UNGA says.

Now you say that you don't care what the UNGA says. Your own ridiculous absolutism declarations cornered you.

Question (so you can practise running away from a direct question), should we always accept what the UNGA says or should we not? Maybe you'll go with "I don't know because I don't have enough information" like you do about the number of Israeli Zionists? You're a fraud.

Yes or no Geno regarding the UNGA. Always accept or not.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Intent for the purposes of the court needs to be proven in court, but you’ve already conceded the court is not a necessary requirement for an identification of genocide.

Competent and credible organizations have already conducted investigations (including the identification of intent) and published the evidence leading to the conclusion of genocide.

Whether they are competent or not, is up in the air.
Many of them, such as Francesca Albanese who produced a similar report earlier are known to be quite biased against Israel.
Having said that, I dont know what "purposes of the court" is supposed to mean here.
The court does not have a purpose.
You do.
You are bringing the case to them, so your claim can have validity.
To classify something as a genocide, intent has to be proven and the only place to prove it, is not via reports, but via the courts.
Until then, it is an allegation of genocide that needs further adjudication.
You can believe that it is a genocide and I have no problem with that.
But that is not an official judgement.

 

[Klatuu]

Whether they are competent or not, is up in the air.
Many of them, such as Francesca Albanese who produced a similar report earlier are known to be quite biased against Israel.
Having said that, I dont know what "purposes fo the court" is supposed to mean here.
The court does not have a purpose.
You do.
You are bringing the case to them, so your claim can have validity.
To classify something as a genocide, intent has to be proven and the only place to prove it, is not via reports, but via the courts.
Until then, it is an allegation of genocide that needs further adjudication.
You can believe that it is a genocide and I have no problem with that.
But that is not an official judgement.

You have already conceded the court is not a necessary requirement for an identification of genocide.

 

[Klatuu]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858190332409823338

 

[NotADcotor]

False equivalency.
The holocaust was an attack on civilians where people were deported to death camps to be gassed.
That is not happening in Gaza.

Attacking civilians, hauling them away, except for the gassing it sounds like what Hamas did in Israel on Oct 7th.
It also lacks the industrial scale of the Nazis but then if Hamas gets their River to Sea goal, all bets are off. They are are keen on specifically targeting civilians both their own and Jewish [as opposed to having them die via collateral damage]

 

[shack]

you admitted the UN says Israel is committing genocide.

You just said that you don't give a shit about the UN.

There are zero resolutions or declarations from the UNGA saying that Israel is committing genocide. You already know that you're lying about what the UNGA says about Israel so you can demonize Israel. That is the very definition of hate speech. You are breaking the law and TERB rules.

Criminal Code
Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
  (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of antisemitism
  (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

TERB:
Feb 19, 2021

• Add bookmark
• #1

Hate speech will not be tolerated.

Posts that contain anything deemed as hate will be deleted. Making such posts repeatedly will result in that account being suspended permanently. Essentially - 3 strikes and you're out. Particularly disturbing posts may result in immediate suspension.

TERB will deem hate speech as communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation or profession. This will include direct posting, links to posts or articles and/or images.

TERB will deem hate speech as communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group (You have repeatedly said that you hate Zionist. Being a Zionist is not against the law. You are clearly breaking the rules.)

Particularly disturbing posts may result in immediate suspension. This will include direct posting, links to posts or articles and/or images. (Your kiddie death porn images have disturbed many people and politely asked you not to do so, yet you blatantly persist. Again you are clearly breaking TERB rules.)

Backgrounder – Government of Canada introduces legislation to combat harmful content online, including the sexual exploitation of children. - Canada.ca

You are potentially putting TERB at risk according to the Harmful Content regulation, below.

Categories of Harmful Content
The Online Harms Act would specifically target seven categories of harmful content:

• Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
• Intimate content communicated without consent;
• Content that foments hatred;
• Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism;
• Content that incites violence;
• Content used to bully a child; and
• Content that induces a child to harm themselves.

Obligations related to these seven categories of harmful content would be organized under three duties: the duty to act responsibly; the duty to protect children; and the duty to make certain content inaccessible.

Duty to Act Responsibly

Services would be required to enhance the safety of Canadian children and adults on their platforms by reducing their risk of exposure to the seven types of harmful content. Services would be required to:

1. Assess the risk of exposure to harmful content, adopt measures to reduce exposure to harmful content, and assess the effectiveness of those measures;
2. Provide users with guidelines and tools to flag harmful content and to block other users. Services would also have to set up an internal point of contact for user guidance and complaints;
3. Label harmful content when it is communicated in multiple instances or artificially amplified through automated communications by computer programs. This requirement would include harmful content shared widely by bots or bot networks, for example;
4. File and publish Digital Safety Plans containing the measures the service is taking, the effectiveness of those measures, the indicators they use to assess effectiveness and any analysis of new risks or trends related to online safety. They would also need to identify the data sets they use and keep and provide those data sets to qualified researchers, when appropriate.

How long do you think that TERB will allow you to put the board at risk? There are limits to free speech and your hate speech is beyond those limits.

You need to stop saying that Israel is committing genocide. It is simply not true according to the UNGA.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You have already conceded the court is not a necessary requirement for an identification of genocide.

Yes.
I also said that amounts to an allegation.

 

[NotADcotor]

The ambiguously duo don't even care about Palestinians, hence why a Hamas surrender and release the hostages does not fit their narratives. They both just hate Jews, period. This has been a routine for him since the early days before he changed to Frankfooter

Ambiguously duo. Please tell me that's a reference to an old SNL skit, the Ambiguously gay duo. Normally using gay as an insult is problematic, but considering these two support genocide and terrorism and spread lies and disinformation in the pursuit of hate in favor of a people and an organization that hates homosexuals probably more than they hate Jews, I'll allow it. Also as long as groups like Chickens for KFC, I mean queers for palestine are tolerated, no fucks to give about the self loathing ghey.

I think Frankfooter's first name is Hans

Hans Frank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hans Frank | Nazi official, Holocaust perpetrator | Britannica

Hans Frank was a German politician and lawyer who served as governor-general of Poland during World War II. Frank fought in World War I, studied economics and jurisprudence, and in 1921 joined the German Workers’ Party (which became the Nazi Party). He eventually became the party’s chief legal

www.britannica.com

Well as least before his trial where he started to [pretend] to feel guilty, something our Frankfooter would seem incapable of having the self awareness to do.

 

[NotADcotor]

There is an almost inexhaustible amount of evidence of intent. Hats off to POS Nation for that.

SUch intent like warning civilians of their attacks so they can get out of the way [and Hamas telling people to stay put so they can be killed
Intent like driving the combatant to civilian death ratio from the usual 9to1 ratio to around 1 to 1 or 2 to 1, even lower than the US was able to do in Iraq, with an enemy who uses human shield tactics, hiding out in places that result in maximum civilian dead when they are rooted out.

Yeah, Israel has lots of intent to prevent as much death as humanly possible
Hamas doesn't have intent to exterminate their people, but they have shown clear intent to rack of the bodycount as high as possible, also shown as the Oct 7 attacks make absolutely no sense unless that is the goal.

I established all of this with actual links to proper sources. It was in my sig, but apparently pointing out the errors of hate mongers is against the rules on terb.

This has been pointed out over and over, neither you not Hans Frankfooter seem to care. Is it that you both are unable to understand or are you both so consumed with hate that you are blind to it. One or the other.

Hand Frankfooter has made the claim that the IDF is trying to kill as many people as possible. from my first paragraph [which is backed by serious MSM news sources] this is a lie a pure lie generated to bring forth hate.

 

[NotADcotor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1858190332409823338

"The West likes to talk about “the day after” and to promise a return to the oppressive status quo in place before 2023. But there is no “day after” for a genocidal apartheid regime. The regime must be disarmed and dismantled, its perpetrators must be prosecuted, its victims must receive redress and compensation, survivors must return home and be protected, the society of the perpetrators must be decolonized and purged of its racist ideology, and a new dispensation based on equality and human rights for all must be established from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. This is the only way forward. There will be no peace without justice."

I would love to talk about "The Day After" but I think Threads is a much better movie

1: As for the rest, 1: It's just some rando statement from some rando dude on twitter of all places. It's pure opinion. I mean I can post a tweet from some guy saying pineapple belongs on pizza but that proves nothing.
2: No genocide no Apartheid unless you mean by the Hamas regime. Arabs who are not trying to exterminate the Jews have full rights. They vote, they have their own parties [like the Bloc/Party Quebecois], they even join the military.
3:"survivors must return home and be protected, the society of the perpetrators must be decolonized and purged of its racist ideology, and a new dispensation based on equality and human rights for all must be established from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River."

uh huh, we all know what that means. Maybe the Jews will get showers to clean themselves of the racist ideology

Purge, there is a nice word.

Fuck man, you accuse others of genocide and apartheid incorrectly and here you are quoting someone who is advocating for genocide and apartheid.
You shared this with no idea, no clue how bad it makes you look. Totally oblivious.

Clown Shoes.

But I guess this is where you respond with some generic insult along the lines of nuh uh.

 

[Klatuu]

Yes.
I also said that amounts to an allegation.

Not when it’s by competent and credible organizations have already conducted investigations and published the evidence leading to the conclusion of genocide. That does not fit the definition of allegation.

 

[NotADcotor]

How long do you think that TERB will allow you to put the board at risk? There are limits to free speech and your hate speech is beyond those limits.

Pretty long apparently.

Reminds me of the Bad Doctor skit from Kids in the Hall [you can search youtube for it]

The doctor says he cheated his way through school, even teachers would help him. He asks what's the harm, how far can you get with that, points to himself in doctor's garb. Pretty far apparently.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

That does not fit the definition of allegation.

It does.
It is a report.
The UN special committee is not a legal organization or entity that rules on what is genocide and what isn't.
It is their POV that it is a genocide.
It also seems to be your POV.
Okay. So far so good.
But Israel should be allowed to challenge that and present evidence to the contrary.
Then the court can decide which bucket these allegations fall in.