Pro-Palestinian group posts NYC map of locations 'tied' to 'Genocide' in Gaza

[Starlight]

Is that why Planned Parenthood was whining about their clinic being destroyed in Gaza City by Israel?

Planned Parenthood offers pregnancy testing, cancer screening, sex-education, STD testing, and birth control drugs. They do not solely do abortions. So in regions of the world where abortion isn't legal, they can still run clinics offering plenty of other services.

No. Not remotely.

I don't go around asserting you want to kill all Americans. You could do me the same curtesy of not making completely false claims about me.

[Starlight]

You're relying on figures provided by Hamas who routinely wildly exaggerates casualties.

It is flatly false that the Gazan health authorities routinely exaggerate casualties.

Medical facilities in Gaza are run with the involvement of a lot of international workers, including various Christian organisations, non-affiliated organisations (e.g. Doctors Without Borders), and UN aid and workers. They are not Hamas-controlled in the way the military forces are.

International groups have regularly in the past double-checked the casualty figures being produced in Gaza and found them to be correct. In one of Israel's previous incursions into Gaza, the UN took the opportunity to double-check the casualty counts that the Gazan Heath authorities were producing and found them correct.

As a result, all major international observers, such as the US State Department, the UN, Doctors Without Borders, the international media, etc, have long-accepted that the casualty figures that come out of Gaza are accurate and report them as fact.

It's not like you have a reputation for accuracy or honesty.

TWeb's biggest liar, telling me, who is always honest and accurate, that I don't have a reputation for accuracy and honesty. That should get framed for the LOLs.

Or, if you poke the bear, prepare to be mauled. Another apt expression is, mess with the bull and get the horns.

I guess a really basic picture is about your level of reasoning ability.

But lets go with that picture: The lion can now stop mauling the monkey whenever it likes. The monkey did what little damage it could with the original strike, and it's now 100% up to the lion to decide when to stop.

The lion's now been at it for a month, and done 10x the damage the monkey did, and is still going. Is that enough that it should stop?

Usually conservatives imply some really basic anti-semitism that Israel isn't mentally capable of being morally responsible for its actions, and hence isn't mentally capable of deciding to stop or morally culpable for such a decision. (Your cartoon, not incidentally, portrays Israel with a much lower IQ animal than it portrays Hamas with)

So lets be really clear: Israel is in the position of power, it can stop any time it likes. There is no threat from Hamas, as they did all they could on the first day, and ever since then it's just been Israel slaughtering people for the sake of it in retaliation. Israel is mentally capable of responsibility for its own actions. If it chooses to slaughter people for months on end, that is a moral choice and it is morally responsible for that choice. Its killed 10x more people than Hamas did, so it's 10x morally worse than Hamas. It's quite simple.

Of course, the billionaire leaders of Hamas who are living the life of luxury anywhere but in Gaza or the West Bank are happy to exploit their deaths.

So if Israel dislikes the leaders of Hamas for their actions, it should be sending covert operatives to Qatar and Iran to assassinate them there, not killing the civilians in Hamas with brute military force. Its almost like the leaders of Israel don't overly want to destroy Hamas and just want to cull the civilian population of Gaza (and have actually said as much).

[Starlight]

not killing the civilians in Hamas Gaza with brute military force.

I should proof-read better.

[rogue06]

It is flatly false that the Gazan health authorities routinely exaggerate casualties.

I see you've completely dropped your idiotic claim that Hamas doesn't use human shields, so that's progress. Then again when they admit to it and supporters seek to justify their doing it, that sort of makes it difficult to continue pretending otherwise.

Medical facilities in Gaza are run with the involvement of a lot of international workers, including various Christian organisations, non-affiliated organisations (e.g. Doctors Without Borders), and UN aid and workers. They are not Hamas-controlled in the way the military forces are.

International groups have regularly in the past double-checked the casualty figures being produced in Gaza and found them to be correct. In one of Israel's previous incursions into Gaza, the UN took the opportunity to double-check the casualty counts that the Gazan Heath authorities were producing and found them correct.

I provided a fresh example of such wild exaggerations. The absurd claim that 500 were killed as a result of flaming wreckage of one of their rockets crashing into the parking lot next to the hospital. Even if they were packed cheek to jowl like sardines you aren't going to have anywhere near that number of dead. The NYT, which uncritically parroted the claim later shamefacedly published an editor's note, acknowledging that its coverage of the incident should have been more rigorous, agreeing that its initial reports "relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified." They didn't explain why they ran a picture of a bombed-out building claiming it was the hospital.

Anywho, from a piece in the The Telegraph

Figures on Palestinian casualties are Hamas propaganda and should be treated as such

There is no ‘health ministry’ or ‘health authorities’ in Gaza. Just people told what to say by terrorists

[...]

Because in truth, all of the various entities named in the press – authorities, ministries, and governments – were euphemisms for the real originators of this smear and this war: Hamas.

All “official” information attributed to governmental sources coming out of Gaza emanates from Hamas, the terrorist organization that rose to power there in 2006 and has ruled ever since. No official of any kind is allowed to speak to the press without Hamas’ approval of the “facts,” figures, and implications of them.

That fact alone should be enough to stop any reputable journalist from citing vague Palestinian sources in Gaza credulously, especially without a disclaimer about who their real masters are.

And Time magazine reports that

Fatality figures provided by Hamas and other groups should be viewed with suspicion. Not only do Israeli figures cast doubt on claims that the vast majority of fatalities are non-combatants, but a careful review of Palestinian sources also raises doubts.

Analyses of the casualties listed in the daily reports published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, a Gaza-based organization operating under Hamas rule, indicate that young males ages 17 to 30 make up a large portion of the fatalities, and a particularly noticeable spike occurs between males ages 21 to 27, a pattern consistent with the age distribution typically found among combatants and military conscripts. Palestinian sources attempt to conceal this discrepancy with their public message by labeling most of these young men as civilians. Only a minority is identified as members of armed groups. As a result, the PCHR calculates civilian fatalities at 82% as of July 26. PCHR provides the most detailed casualty reports of the various Palestinian agencies from Gaza that provide figures to the media and to international organizations like the UN. Its figures closely match those of the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry and other groups.

Old Joe even noted that "I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed," when asked about the death toll, causing some to note that our government has also tended to blindly accept the numbers the Palestinians provide in the past.

So these international agencies simply regurgitate the figures they are handed. There's no careful double-checking of anything. They just go with the numbers they are given.

Further, some supporters acknowledge the inflated numbers blaming the fog of war for initial "inaccuracies."

But lets go with that picture: The lion can now stop mauling the monkey whenever it likes. The monkey did what little damage it could with the original strike, and it's now 100% up to the lion to decide when to stop.

And just how do you imagine that the lion stops the monkey from hitting him? Write a strongly worded letter? Hold a protest where the monkey lives?

The lion stops the monkey by using lethal force. Breaking its back with a single sweep of a paw and dining on monkey afterwards.

The lion's now been at it for a month, and done 10x the damage the monkey did, and is still going. Is that enough that it should stop?

When it should stop is when the attacker is no longer in any position to continue attacking.

Again, Israel could have rolled in and finished this in a matter of a couple of days if they wanted to and didn't give a crap about civilian casualties. If they waged the sort of war that the Arabs have wanted to wage against them (from the river to the sea and all that).

That it is taking so long has been a sign of restraint on Israel's behalf.

[Gondwanaland]

I see you've completely dropped your idiotic claim that Hamas doesn't use human shields, so that's progress. Then again when they admit to it and supporters seek to justify their doing it, that sort of makes it difficult to continue pretending otherwise.



I provided a fresh example of such wild exaggerations. The absurd claim that 500 were killed as a result of flaming wreckage of one of their rockets crashing into the parking lot next to the hospital. Even if they were packed cheek to jowl like sardines you aren't going to have anywhere near that number of dead. The NYT, which uncritically parroted the claim later shamefacedly published an editor's note, acknowledging that its coverage of the incident should have been more rigorous, agreeing that its initial reports "relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified." They didn't explain why they ran a picture of a bombed-out building claiming it was the hospital.

Anywho, from a piece in the The Telegraph

Figures on Palestinian casualties are Hamas propaganda and should be treated as such

There is no ‘health ministry’ or ‘health authorities’ in Gaza. Just people told what to say by terrorists

[...]

Because in truth, all of the various entities named in the press – authorities, ministries, and governments – were euphemisms for the real originators of this smear and this war: Hamas.

All “official” information attributed to governmental sources coming out of Gaza emanates from Hamas, the terrorist organization that rose to power there in 2006 and has ruled ever since. No official of any kind is allowed to speak to the press without Hamas’ approval of the “facts,” figures, and implications of them.

That fact alone should be enough to stop any reputable journalist from citing vague Palestinian sources in Gaza credulously, especially without a disclaimer about who their real masters are.

And Time magazine reports that

Fatality figures provided by Hamas and other groups should be viewed with suspicion. Not only do Israeli figures cast doubt on claims that the vast majority of fatalities are non-combatants, but a careful review of Palestinian sources also raises doubts.

Analyses of the casualties listed in the daily reports published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, a Gaza-based organization operating under Hamas rule, indicate that young males ages 17 to 30 make up a large portion of the fatalities, and a particularly noticeable spike occurs between males ages 21 to 27, a pattern consistent with the age distribution typically found among combatants and military conscripts. Palestinian sources attempt to conceal this discrepancy with their public message by labeling most of these young men as civilians. Only a minority is identified as members of armed groups. As a result, the PCHR calculates civilian fatalities at 82% as of July 26. PCHR provides the most detailed casualty reports of the various Palestinian agencies from Gaza that provide figures to the media and to international organizations like the UN. Its figures closely match those of the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry and other groups.

Old Joe even noted that "I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed," when asked about the death toll, causing some to note that our government has also tended to blindly accept the numbers the Palestinians provide in the past.

So these international agencies simply regurgitate the figures they are handed. There's no careful double-checking of anything. They just go with the numbers they are given.

Further, some supporters acknowledge the inflated numbers blaming the fog of war for initial "inaccuracies."


And just how do you imagine that the lion stops the monkey from hitting him? Write a strongly worded letter? Hold a protest where the monkey lives?

The lion stops the monkey by using lethal force. Breaking its back with a single sweep of a paw and dining on monkey afterwards.


When it should stop is when the attacker is no longer in any position to continue attacking.

Again, Israel could have rolled in and finished this in a matter of a couple of days if they wanted to and didn't give a crap about civilian casualties. If they waged the sort of war that the Arabs have wanted to wage against them (from the river to the sea and all that).

That it is taking so long has been a sign of restraint on Israel's behalf.

Most news agencies and the rest of us accepted Israel's reported death toll of 1400 for October 7th. They've since quietly downgraded that number to around 1200.

If we accept Israeli death toll reporting (even when they end up clearly overstating deaths like they did this very conflict), why should we not accept Gaza's death toll reporting?

[rogue06]

Most news agencies and the rest of us accepted Israel's reported death toll of 1400 for October 7th. They've since quietly downgraded that number to around 1200.

If we accept Israeli death toll reporting (even when they end up clearly overstating deaths like they did this very conflict), why should we not accept Gaza's death toll reporting?

Yup. Those reports turned out to be in error.

We should take all claims from either side with a grain of salt until corroboration is available.

[One Bad Pig]

Yup. Those reports turned out to be in error.

We should take all claims from either side with a grain of salt until corroboration is available.

Notably, 1400 to 1200 is not a huge discrepancy, especially if there were persons included in a rough "missing and presumed dead" which turned out to be elsewhere and thus weren't killed with the rest.