2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Just to be clear, this is the same UN that had workers that were part of Hamas, yes?

Oh right, and all the other organizations including one comprised of hundreds of scholars who study this sort of thing for a living also must have been infiltrated by Hamas. You're making very strong points to back up your argument right now.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh right, and all the other organizations including one comprised of hundreds of scholars who study this sort of thing for a living also must have been infiltrated by Hamas. You're making very strong points to back up your argument right now.

I think that if there was a genocide happening in Gaza, then the mortality figures would easily support that. Just like any other previous genocide.

5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I think that if there was a genocide happening in Gaza, then the mortality figures would easily support that. Just like any other previous genocide.

Mortality numbers aren't part of the legal definition of genocide. But since you brought it up, based on the best available data and highly conservative estimates of the indirect deaths from Israel's actions (eg purposeful starvation/dehydration) about 3.7% of the population of Gaza has been eliminated in less than 3 years. Roughly the equivalent of 12.5 million Americans being wiped out if it happened here.

What percentage is acceptable to you? Cause we're not even 3 years in here. Plenty of time to bump those numbers up to a more acceptable number for ya.

18 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I think that if there was a genocide happening in Gaza, then the mortality figures would easily support that. Just like any other previous genocide.

Once again, genocide is not strictly determined by resultant death tolls, it has never been defined so narrowly, but sure bud, all those intentional organizations, including hundreds of scholars who study this for a living, are either all wrong or aligned with Hamas. Go with that, it's a solid take.

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Mortality numbers aren't part of the legal definition of genocide. But since you brought it up, based on the best available data and highly conservative estimates of the indirect deaths from Israel's actions (eg purposeful starvation/dehydration) about 3.7% of the population of Gaza has been eliminated in less than 3 years. Roughly the equivalent of 12.5 million Americans being wiped out if it happened here.

What percentage is acceptable to you? Cause we're not even 3 years in here. Plenty of time to bump those numbers up to a more acceptable number for ya.

He's on another one of his "Fauci bad" like benders. Fox News is a hell of a drug.

16 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Mortality numbers aren't part of the legal definition of genocide. But since you brought it up, based on the best available data and highly conservative estimates of the indirect deaths from Israel's actions (eg purposeful starvation/dehydration) about 3.7% of the population of Gaza has been eliminated in less than 3 years. Roughly the equivalent of 12.5 million Americans being wiped out if it happened here.

What percentage is acceptable to you? Cause we're not even 3 years in here. Plenty of time to bump those numbers up to a more acceptable number for ya.

Can you cite those numbers? Because according to the Hamas run Gaza ministry of health, the number of non-violent deaths in 2025 were right in line with where they were before the war started.

20 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

He's on another one of his "Fauci bad" like benders. Fox News is a hell of a drug.

lol sorry i don’t watch Fox News. I did however thoroughly enjoy Jack Smith making those GOP morons look like absolute fools. He could have simply pleaded the 5th to all their questions as it was clear this was a sham hearing. But instead he ran circles around those smacked arses.

26 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Once again, genocide is not strictly determined by resultant death tolls, it has never been defined so narrowly, but sure bud, all those intentional organizations, including hundreds of scholars who study this for a living, are either all wrong or aligned with Hamas. Go with that, it's a solid take.

Has there ever been a genocide in which there wasn’t a significant drop in population?

7 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

He could have simply pleaded the 5th

oh sure, now you're okay with it

7 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Has there ever been a genocide in which there wasn’t a significant drop in population?

For the last time, claiming that genocide can only be called genocide if it involves broad-scale mortality and ethnic cleansing is a talking point lifted directly from Fox News verbatim. So you can either keep digging this hole by pretending that genocide is wholly defined by death tolls or you can actually make a good faith effort to try to learn something on the subject instead. But I know, I know, "tHeY aLL hAvE aN ObViOuS AgEnDa!"

https://hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/ https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/defining-genocide-after-world-war-ii https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/leading-genocide-scholars-organization-says-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

The determination by the International Association of Genocide Scholars — which has around 500 members worldwide, including a number of Holocaust experts — could serve to further isolate Israel in global public opinion and adds to a growing chorus of organizations that have used the term for Israel's actions in Gaza. Israel rejects the accusation and called the resolution an "embarrassment to the legal profession."

"Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide," according to group's resolution, which was supported by 86% of those who voted. The organization did not release the specifics of the voting.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

oh sure, now you're okay with it

never said I wasn't ok with it, obviously it's a person's right to do it. Good thing Jack Smith didn't though. He made those GOP senators look like absolute clowns. I think Dr. Fauci could have done the same thing, and I'm disappointed that he didn't.

56 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

For the last time, claiming that genocide can only be called genocide if it involves broad-scale mortality and ethnic cleansing is a talking point lifted directly from Fox News verbatim. So you can either keep digging this hole by pretending that genocide is wholly defined by death tolls or you can actually make a good faith effort to try to learn something on the subject instead. But I know, I know, "tHeY aLL hAvE aN ObViOuS AgEnDa!"

https://hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/ https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/defining-genocide-after-world-war-ii https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/leading-genocide-scholars-organization-says-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

The determination by the International Association of Genocide Scholars — which has around 500 members worldwide, including a number of Holocaust experts — could serve to further isolate Israel in global public opinion and adds to a growing chorus of organizations that have used the term for Israel's actions in Gaza. Israel rejects the accusation and called the resolution an "embarrassment to the legal profession."

"Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide," according to group's resolution, which was supported by 86% of those who voted. The organization did not release the specifics of the voting.

That didn't answer my question. Has there ever been a genocide that occurred in which there wasn't a significant drop in population? This is not a rhetorical or sarcastic question. If genocides don't have to involve broad scale mortality and ethnic cleansing, then this means there should be genocides that have happened that didn't involve those things right? Or are you claiming that this is the first and only one?

"you can actually make a good faith effort to try to learn something on the subject instead"

I'm asking a question, one that I've asked multiple times that has yet to be answered. So how can you say I'm not making a good faith effort to learn something when I'm asking a question? Don't people learn by asking questions? It seems like you're the one not making a good faith effort to engage in dialogue since you're telling me that I'm wrong, yet refusing to answer a pertinent question that would support your argument.

9 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Can you cite those numbers? Because according to the Hamas run Gaza ministry of health, the number of non-violent deaths in 2025 were right in line with where they were before the war started.

The violent deaths are well documented by the WHO and the UN (among other less reliable groups). The indirect deaths have been estimated by multiple groups as well, some putting the number ridiculously high (one model predicted 180k, but the actual data doesn't support it). The best info we have is from a Lancet paper that looked at non violent deaths beyond expected.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41722607/

The numbers come out to about 81k. Which comes out to about 3.7% of the prewar population . And again that's not using the most doom and gloom estimates out there.

9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

The violent deaths are well documented by the WHO and the UN (among other less reliable groups). The indirect deaths have been estimated by multiple groups as well, some putting the number ridiculously high (one model predicted 180k, but the actual data doesn't support it). The best info we have is from a Lancet paper that looked at non violent deaths beyond expected.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41722607/

The numbers come out to about 81k. Which comes out to about 3.7% of the prewar population . And again that's not using the most doom and gloom estimates out there.

So they estimated 75,200 violent deaths. The next piece of info we'd need is an estimate of how many of those deaths were enemy combatants compared to civilian deaths. That would then give us a civilian to combatant ratio we could then use to compare to other urban warfare conflicts, and that would give us an indication if the collateral civilian deaths are in line with what is to be expected in such a combat or if it's excessive.

And then again, we have the numbers directly from the Hamas run Gaza Ministry of Health which show that in 2025, non-violent deaths were right inline with pre-war numbers. If there was mass starvation and famine going on, shouldn't there have been a large excess mortality number in 2025?

11 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Has there ever been a genocide that occurred in which there wasn't a significant drop in population?

Yes, literally in Ukraine, but you've already confirmed you're swallowing the FNC talking points on that one too, so please go on to pretend once again that you don't fall prey to right wing talking points. It's not destroying your credibility at all each time you stumble into these pitfalls.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Yes, literally in Ukraine, but you've already confirmed you're swallowing the FNC talking points on that one too, so please go on to pretend once again that you don't fall prey to right wing talking points. It's not destroying your credibility at all each time you stumble into these pitfalls.

Once again I don't watch Fox News so you can stop that nonsense. Ukraine has not been ruled a genocide, so that doesn't actually answer my question either. But sure, I'm the one not using good faith efforts here. Ok.....

22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That didn't answer my question. Has there ever been a genocide that occurred in which there wasn't a significant drop in population? This is not a rhetorical or sarcastic question. If genocides don't have to involve broad scale mortality and ethnic cleansing, then this means there should be genocides that have happened that didn't involve those things right? Or are you claiming that this is the first and only one?

"you can actually make a good faith effort to try to learn something on the subject instead"

I'm asking a question, one that I've asked multiple times that has yet to be answered. So how can you say I'm not making a good faith effort to learn something when I'm asking a question? Don't people learn by asking questions? It seems like you're the one not making a good faith effort to engage in dialogue since you're telling me that I'm wrong, yet refusing to answer a pertinent question that would support your argument.

Easy, Bosnia.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ukraine has not been ruled a genocide

Yeah? Ruled by who? The same laundry list of organizations that you just disregarded entirely because they understand genocide is not strictly defined by deaths and rightfully classify Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide?

9 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So they estimated 75,200 violent deaths. The next piece of info we'd need is an estimate of how many of those deaths were enemy combatants compared to civilian deaths. That would then give us a civilian to combatant ratio we could then use to compare to other urban warfare conflicts, and that would give us an indication if the collateral civilian deaths are in line with what is to be expected in such a combat or if it's excessive.

And then again, we have the numbers directly from the Hamas run Gaza Ministry of Health which show that in 2025, non-violent deaths were right inline with pre-war numbers. If there was mass starvation and famine going on, shouldn't there have been a large excess mortality number in 2025?

Data based on the Israeli military database of combatants puts the estimate at 83% of the deaths being civilians. An independent demographic analysis puts it at 87%. Seems a smidge high no?

And that ministry of health data looks at 1 year. Data I posted looks at the entire conflict. You're cherry picking data.

14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yes, literally in Ukraine, but you've already confirmed you're swallowing the FNC talking points on that one too, so please go on to pretend once again that you don't fall prey to right wing talking points. It's not destroying your credibility at all each time you stumble into these pitfalls.

By the way, I think Putin left to his own devices won’t just stop at Ukraine. I think it’s his goal to essentially recreate the Soviet Union, and I think it’s in our best interest to support Ukraine with financing and weapons to stave off the invasion and defeat Russia.

But that’s right out of the FNC playbook so I guess you already knew that’s where I stood on the war….

IMHO, a more reasonable headline in the western press would have been something along these lines:

"Terror feared as Flydubai flight makes emergency landing after co-pilot attacks captain."

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Easy, Bosnia.

Thank you.

Can you Fing imagine dealing with that multiple times a day and not being able to react?

On 10/3/2026 at 7:04 PM, Phillyterp85 said:

Just to be clear, this is the same UN that had workers that were part of Hamas, yes?

Is Hamas in the room with us now?

The mental gymnastics on display here are stunning. You could have simply said "Whatever Israeli propaganda on why they are murdering children is justification enough" and been done with it. The "UN is all Hamas" and "We haven't exterminated enough children violently enough for this to reach my personal threshold of genocide" are among some of the most retarded talking points I've read in CVON. Look @Phillyterp85 just because Procus, KZ, and WV Mike aren't here to defend absolute heinousness and brutality with retarded nonsense, doesn't mean it's up to you to fill the void.