haven't been in here in a while. Are there still holdouts denying this is genocide?

20 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

haven't been in here in a while. Are there still holdouts denying this is genocide?

Doubt it. However, it certainly wasn't one at the start and for quite some time. Israel had every right to defend themselves and to go after Hamas even if that meant there were civilians that were killed. At some point though they crossed the line and it most certainly turned into a genocide event.

3 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

haven't been in here in a while. Are there still holdouts denying this is genocide?

They called it collateral damage

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Doubt it. However, it certainly wasn't one at the start and for quite some time. Israel had every right to defend themselves and to go after Hamas even if that meant there were civilians that were killed. At some point though they crossed the line and it most certainly turned into a genocide event.

Hey I agree. 6 months ago you could call it genocidal-ish. i don't see a debate anymore

I think at this point an international coalition needs to just take over the administration of Gaza. Countries like Ireland who have criticized Israel the most can move to the top of the list of countries sending troops.

5 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

haven't been in here in a while. Are there still holdouts denying this is genocide?

It's hard to tell because he only communicates via emoji like a cunty autistic internet gremlin, but based on the 😆s I'm guessing greenskeeper is still on board.

7 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

It's hard to tell because he only communicates via emoji like a cunty autistic internet gremlin, but based on the 😆s I'm guessing greenskeeper is still on board.

Probably so. My previous post in this thread received the horseshoe double 😊 from him and @Dave Moss

Classic double

32 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Probably so. My privious post in this thread received the horseshoe double 😊 from him and @Dave Moss

Classic double

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Yeah, my list is longer

2 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

Macron baby! I'm a huge fan of Macron. I truly believe history will treat him way better than he gets treated now. He'll be looked at as a Churchill for progressive liberalism in the age of Trump. When the Democrats were completely lost, this m'ther f'cknn frenchie right here kept it sane in Europe while it was attacked from all sides.

Yes, yes. I'm no fan of Palestine, but it's time to start re-defining a new left that can meet the fervent challenge of Trumpism. Recognizing obvious GENOCIDE from an ally is the kind of call to action needed

On 7/23/2025 at 12:09 PM, DrPhilly said:

Doubt it. However, it certainly wasn't one at the start and for quite some time. Israel had every right to defend themselves and to go after Hamas even if that meant there were civilians that were killed. At some point though they crossed the line and it most certainly turned into a genocide event.

You never understood what genocide is that's why you never recognized this as a genocide.

Starving people is genocide

from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Nama_genocide

The Herero and Nama genocide: The first phase of the genocide was characterized by widespread death from starvation and dehydration, due to the prevention of the Herero from leaving the Namib desert by German forces.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

You never understood what genocide is that's why you never recognized this as a genocide.

On the contrary, you never understood/accepted what the term means in a historical perspective. Anyone that understands it correctly knows it wasn't a genocide in the first, say, six months after the Oct 7th incident. The actions simply never met any of the accepted international criteria. That changed along the way and specifically when Israel made an official statement saying they would move the Palestinian people out of Gaza.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

On the contrary, you never understood/accepted what the term means in a historical perspective. Anyone that understands it correctly knows it wasn't a genocide in the first, say, six months after the Oct 7th incident. The actions simply never met any of the accepted international criteria. That changed along the way and specifically when Israel made an official statement saying they would move the Palestinian people out of Gaza.

I teach history. I'm pretty sure I know what genocide is.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

I teach history. I'm pretty sure I know what genocide is.

Yeah I know you teach history but you don't know or maybe you don't accept what the term means. I watched 10+ historical experts (some experts in this specific topic of genocide historically) talk about this situation and all of them are certainly far more merited and capable then you are in discussing this topic. None of them agree with you. They all agree that it didn't begin as a genocide post Oct 7th but then it morphed into one over time. You were on here day one yelling "genocide" and you were wrong.

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah I know you teach history but you don't know or maybe you don't accept what the term means. I watched 10+ historical experts (some experts in this specific topic of genocide historically) talk about this situation and all of them are certainly far more merited and capable then you are in discussing this topic. None of them agree with you. They all agree that it didn't begin as a genocide post Oct 7th but then it morphed into one over time. You were on here day one yelling "genocide" and you were wrong.

Which historians?

Arguing about the exact date something became a genocide is kinda silly no?

15 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Arguing about the exact date something became a genocide is kinda silly no?

should we start arguing about whether it is silly or not?

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

should we start arguing about whether it is silly or not?

I guess my point is if you both recognize it as one now, pinpointing the turning point is going to be impossible and kinda pointless. Any individual offense can be scrutinized as "a cost of war/a few bad apples" or "a burgeoning genocide" just as easily because we know the end result. I'll put it this way, no one really argues about when Germany's actions in WW2 turned into a genocide, because well they clearly did and every event leading into it built towards that end.

It would be different if you guys disagreed on its current status.

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

I guess my point is if you both recognize it as one now, pinpointing the turning point is going to be impossible and kinda pointless. Any individual offense can be scrutinized as "a cost of war/a few bad apples" or "a burgeoning genocide" just as easily because we know the end result. I'll put it this way, no one really argues about when Germany's actions in WW2 turned into a genocide, because well they clearly did and every event leading into it built towards that end.

It would be different if you guys disagreed on its current status.

Yeah I get that but this discussion goes back to Oct 7th and the definition of the term which has been a pretty big debate and not only in here. Anyway, of course you are correct. We agree at this point and that’s where we should leave it.