They're stuck in the rather unpleasant position of defending the largely indefensible.
In that debate - and I'm extrapolating somewhat, not quoting verbatim, to be clear - Doug acknowledged "insurgent math," acknowledged you're not going to "wipe out Hamas" in any meaningful way (if you did manage it, first thing the survivors do is start Hamas 2.0, because they're pissed you slaughtered their loved ones), acknowledged that women and children are being knowingly killed and, most damningly, acknowledged that some wars are waged for "revenge." That one is verbatim, although it was about Afghanistan. Which he still defends...
So, by their own pro-war argument, you're basically saying they're fine with killing women and children and they know it will happen, it's revenge, it's pointless and won't accomplish their stated goals, but you need to do it anyway. And their defense is technicalities. It's not murder when the government does it!
Who cares? It's pointless and monstrous. They can call it whatever they want.
Also, they're being obtuse. Dave, as he points out, didn't say it was murder, he said it would be considered murder if you or I did the exact same thing, under similar circumstances, for the same reasons. His point was drawing the parallel, not stating that it was murder.
These people have no argument. Hell, Doug was demanding Rogan have on more pro-war guests. He's a nasty and insufferable person.
There are only three real sides to that war. Either you want Israel to blow up Palestine, Palestine to blow up Israel or you take the side of “not my people, not my problem”. Any nuanced take cannot exist because the second one of the two combatants rebuilds enough after peace they will start it over again until one of them is gone.
The analogy was about the very specific and critical claim that Israel is killing innocent civilians unintentionally. The point of looking at the same scenario domestically is that it becomes clear that the killing would be considered by everyone to be intentional.
Let’s just call “collateral damage” what it is: the international killing of innocent people: murder. Then we can have an honest conversation about supporting a war, with the obvious burden being on the person advocating for it to demonstrate that this is absolutely necessary with no conceivable alternatives.
John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies and veteran:
You claim that Israel is killing civilians intentionally. This is a false claim.
First, we have to address the false claim that you have enough data, information, and evidence to say Isarel is intentionally killing innocent civilians in their execution of the war. You do not. They do not.
Dave:
Without appealing to a set of theories or laws around war, just explain it. How does the foundational concept of intent change because a politician or a group of politicians declare a word and it takes place on foreign soil?
Brian Cox, adjunct Ivy professor and veteran:
The reason actual experts like @SpencerGuard keep "invoking legalities & doctrine" is because these are the rules that govern warfare. Just like domestic laws prohibiting "murder" (your term from previous post on topic) & other categories of homicide, conduct of armed hostilities is governed by rules as well.
This philosophical difference between contexts explains why intent works differently in both - and the philosophical reason for this difference is a function of different concepts of necessity.
Once again, I'm not impressed by the experts. Dave's point is that Israel is knowingly killing huge numbers of civilians in Gaza to get to Hamas targets. Spencer and Cox's point is that as long as Israel justifies its bomb runs with a military target, its killing of civilians is judged "unintentional" in a legal context.
It's pretty obvious that Israel exhibits a depraved indifference to civilian lives, which is the point. But Spencer and Cox would argue that "depraved indifference" is a civilian legal term so it's not applicable. Seems like a useless point to me, as I know Israelis will never face any legal consequences for their actions.
It's all just sophistry. In the end, it's only a war crime if you lose the war. Might might not make right from a moral standpoint, but it generally gets its way regardless.
US definition and treatment of war crimes has been highly hypocritical, but the concept does have some effectiveness in restraining the worst abuses of civilians. As far as America goes, anyway.
The idea of war crimes can only ever be applied to the losing side unless you have the moral fiber to hold yourselves accountable. The US is actually pretty good at doing so on the individual scale, but we won't ever call the bombing of Dresden a war crime, even though we killed plenty of civilians hitting legitimate military targets.
I disagree. Hamas hides behind civilians, human shields. There is no recourse to this other than to bomb them anyhow. What choice is there? Allow Hamas to freely operate so long as they have women and children to hide behind? nope, no war in history has allowed that.
The civilian casualties in Gaza are without doubt a record low for such a violent battlefield. The IDF is going "slow but steady" to keep civilian losses to a minimum because they KNOW all too well how international propaganda can undermine their capabilities. Make their government leaders wet themselves in fear of being scolded while Assad killed 220,000 of his own people without a whisper of condemnation.
In just 1 battle of WW2, Ortona, Canada attacked after the Germans had secretly reinforced. The ensuing 8 day bloodbath saw most of the town leveled & 1,300 civilian deaths out of a population of 10,000. 13% of civilians died. What's the rate in Gaza? 30K civilians out of 2M over 18 months? That's including those killed BY Hamas either accidentally or intentionally.
It gets uglier. Those children are specifically bred to serve as human shields and scouts. Very few of them manage to break away from the ideological brainwashing that takes place from the beginning of their lives.
Worst part? The UNRWA is involved in this wretched process.
"Proportionality" is also a component of the law of armed conflict. i.e. it's not proportional to blow up a church with 100 non-combatants because one enemy soldier or terrorist ducked in there to avoid you. Such an act would be treated as a war crime.
Now, there's no hard and fast rules for what is proportional and what isn't, but I think you could make a very defensible argument that leveling Gaza and the resulting civilian deaths and displacement is out of proportion given the number of actual Hamas fighters.
No it is not. That's idiotic. War is hell, literally and physically.
If 1 enemy is hiding behind human shields? The harm caused to them is entirely on the enemy. That enemy is out to kill you, your comrades in arms AND your civilians. You kill him dead, unless he surrenders.
Don't kid yourself. The vast majority of Gazans supported Hamas on 10/7 and still support them to this day. The number of "civilian deaths" is shockingly LOW. No army in all of history has gone to such lengths to avoid civilian losses as the IDF. Not one.
Your idols, Hamas, they never hurt civilians, eh? GTFO already.
When has Hamas been "proportional"? They want to exterminate every Jew in Israel "from the river to the sea" and then the rest of the world. Against that doctrine, what response is "proportional"?
Moron. Look at my post history. I've got no love for muzzies.
The point is that civilized nations adhere to the rules of war- regardless of who they are fighting. The Israelis do not. And despite all their pretenses, we all know that they would love nothing more than to kill everyone currently living in Gaza and move their own people in. As their constant illegal settlements show, they're only restrained by as much as they think they can get away with without causing the international community to finally step in and stop them.
As for me? I'd prefer if the last Israelite and the last raghead choked each other to death. Let's clear out the vermin of both stripes from the area.
I know of Dave Smith from before his punditry from Legion of Skanks. He's the type of guy that thinks he's smart because he is the "smart guy" of his friends group. The 2 apolitical and dumb guys defer to him for info on history, politics etc. He is probably 95 IQ or less. Is just smart enough to remember what her reads but not process it into unique points of view. That has also inflated his ego and he thinks he's some fucking Diogenes. It doesn't help that he says "uuhhh" and "like" every 4 words.
...Dave Smith...the type of guy that thinks he's smart...He is probably 95 IQ or less.
Then what does it say that he absolutely fucking trounced Dougy Murray, and academic and self-described Expert? Well, more accurately, Doug trounced himself, and didn't bring an argument at all, and just fell into full on woke right nonsense.
Seriously though. If Dave's such a moron, why didn't Murray do better? Again, it's not even like he lost arguments...he didn't bring them at all. Dave is much more knowledgeable on this topic than Murray, intelligence aside. Dave brought more actual info, more actual arguments, and Murray was a fucking mess.
That has also inflated his ego and he thinks he's some fucking Diogenes. It doesn't help that he says "uuhhh" and "like" every 4 words.
I'll give you that one, though. I think Dave is much smarter than you give him credit for, but we're in agreement the dude is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. And, although he's usually fairly articulate...yeah, sometimes he's an absolute pain to listen to. One of his recent episodes really was so "uhh" and "like" filled it was nearly physically painful. He's not usually like that, but for whatever reason that time he was really bad. To the ego, he'll also spiral into nearly a full episode talking about his Twitter beefs. Yeah, not great, dude.
Didnt see the debate. Don't know anything about the other guy besides that he thinks you need to visit a place before you talk about it. I'm just commenting on the 6 years I've heard Dave be unfunny 3rd mic on a comedy podcast that would try to turn every show into a political speech until they told him it's a comedy show. He doesn't even like being on the show anymore and doesn't participate in show ideas or skits
They're stuck in the rather unpleasant position of defending the largely indefensible.
In that debate - and I'm extrapolating somewhat, not quoting verbatim, to be clear - Doug acknowledged "insurgent math," acknowledged you're not going to "wipe out Hamas" in any meaningful way (if you did manage it, first thing the survivors do is start Hamas 2.0, because they're pissed you slaughtered their loved ones), acknowledged that women and children are being knowingly killed and, most damningly, acknowledged that some wars are waged for "revenge." That one is verbatim, although it was about Afghanistan. Which he still defends...
So, by their own pro-war argument, you're basically saying they're fine with killing women and children and they know it will happen, it's revenge, it's pointless and won't accomplish their stated goals, but you need to do it anyway. And their defense is technicalities. It's not murder when the government does it!
Who cares? It's pointless and monstrous. They can call it whatever they want.
Also, they're being obtuse. Dave, as he points out, didn't say it was murder, he said it would be considered murder if you or I did the exact same thing, under similar circumstances, for the same reasons. His point was drawing the parallel, not stating that it was murder.
These people have no argument. Hell, Doug was demanding Rogan have on more pro-war guests. He's a nasty and insufferable person.
There are only three real sides to that war. Either you want Israel to blow up Palestine, Palestine to blow up Israel or you take the side of “not my people, not my problem”. Any nuanced take cannot exist because the second one of the two combatants rebuilds enough after peace they will start it over again until one of them is gone.
Yeah, I'm on the third side. Fuck'em and I want to go away, I don't give a shit about any of them at this point.
Once again I say "Let the sand people fight(without our money)."
Abridged summary of the discussion:
Dave:
John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies and veteran:
Dave:
Brian Cox, adjunct Ivy professor and veteran:
Once again, I'm not impressed by the experts. Dave's point is that Israel is knowingly killing huge numbers of civilians in Gaza to get to Hamas targets. Spencer and Cox's point is that as long as Israel justifies its bomb runs with a military target, its killing of civilians is judged "unintentional" in a legal context.
It's pretty obvious that Israel exhibits a depraved indifference to civilian lives, which is the point. But Spencer and Cox would argue that "depraved indifference" is a civilian legal term so it's not applicable. Seems like a useless point to me, as I know Israelis will never face any legal consequences for their actions.
It's all just sophistry. In the end, it's only a war crime if you lose the war. Might might not make right from a moral standpoint, but it generally gets its way regardless.
US definition and treatment of war crimes has been highly hypocritical, but the concept does have some effectiveness in restraining the worst abuses of civilians. As far as America goes, anyway.
The idea of war crimes can only ever be applied to the losing side unless you have the moral fiber to hold yourselves accountable. The US is actually pretty good at doing so on the individual scale, but we won't ever call the bombing of Dresden a war crime, even though we killed plenty of civilians hitting legitimate military targets.
I disagree. Hamas hides behind civilians, human shields. There is no recourse to this other than to bomb them anyhow. What choice is there? Allow Hamas to freely operate so long as they have women and children to hide behind? nope, no war in history has allowed that.
The civilian casualties in Gaza are without doubt a record low for such a violent battlefield. The IDF is going "slow but steady" to keep civilian losses to a minimum because they KNOW all too well how international propaganda can undermine their capabilities. Make their government leaders wet themselves in fear of being scolded while Assad killed 220,000 of his own people without a whisper of condemnation.
In just 1 battle of WW2, Ortona, Canada attacked after the Germans had secretly reinforced. The ensuing 8 day bloodbath saw most of the town leveled & 1,300 civilian deaths out of a population of 10,000. 13% of civilians died. What's the rate in Gaza? 30K civilians out of 2M over 18 months? That's including those killed BY Hamas either accidentally or intentionally.
It gets uglier. Those children are specifically bred to serve as human shields and scouts. Very few of them manage to break away from the ideological brainwashing that takes place from the beginning of their lives.
Worst part? The UNRWA is involved in this wretched process.
"Proportionality" is also a component of the law of armed conflict. i.e. it's not proportional to blow up a church with 100 non-combatants because one enemy soldier or terrorist ducked in there to avoid you. Such an act would be treated as a war crime.
Now, there's no hard and fast rules for what is proportional and what isn't, but I think you could make a very defensible argument that leveling Gaza and the resulting civilian deaths and displacement is out of proportion given the number of actual Hamas fighters.
No it is not. That's idiotic. War is hell, literally and physically.
If 1 enemy is hiding behind human shields? The harm caused to them is entirely on the enemy. That enemy is out to kill you, your comrades in arms AND your civilians. You kill him dead, unless he surrenders.
Don't kid yourself. The vast majority of Gazans supported Hamas on 10/7 and still support them to this day. The number of "civilian deaths" is shockingly LOW. No army in all of history has gone to such lengths to avoid civilian losses as the IDF. Not one.
Found the Israeli shill.
LOAC is a thing in civilized countries. It's taught to US service members exactly as I just explained it.
Just LoL.
Your idols, Hamas, they never hurt civilians, eh? GTFO already.
When has Hamas been "proportional"? They want to exterminate every Jew in Israel "from the river to the sea" and then the rest of the world. Against that doctrine, what response is "proportional"?
Moron. Look at my post history. I've got no love for muzzies.
The point is that civilized nations adhere to the rules of war- regardless of who they are fighting. The Israelis do not. And despite all their pretenses, we all know that they would love nothing more than to kill everyone currently living in Gaza and move their own people in. As their constant illegal settlements show, they're only restrained by as much as they think they can get away with without causing the international community to finally step in and stop them.
As for me? I'd prefer if the last Israelite and the last raghead choked each other to death. Let's clear out the vermin of both stripes from the area.
Israel has never "carpet bombed" Gaza. In fact the opposite is the reality.
Leftists & facts are like vampires & sunlight. 👻
I know of Dave Smith from before his punditry from Legion of Skanks. He's the type of guy that thinks he's smart because he is the "smart guy" of his friends group. The 2 apolitical and dumb guys defer to him for info on history, politics etc. He is probably 95 IQ or less. Is just smart enough to remember what her reads but not process it into unique points of view. That has also inflated his ego and he thinks he's some fucking Diogenes. It doesn't help that he says "uuhhh" and "like" every 4 words.
Then what does it say that he absolutely fucking trounced Dougy Murray, and academic and self-described Expert? Well, more accurately, Doug trounced himself, and didn't bring an argument at all, and just fell into full on woke right nonsense.
Seriously though. If Dave's such a moron, why didn't Murray do better? Again, it's not even like he lost arguments...he didn't bring them at all. Dave is much more knowledgeable on this topic than Murray, intelligence aside. Dave brought more actual info, more actual arguments, and Murray was a fucking mess.
I'll give you that one, though. I think Dave is much smarter than you give him credit for, but we're in agreement the dude is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. And, although he's usually fairly articulate...yeah, sometimes he's an absolute pain to listen to. One of his recent episodes really was so "uhh" and "like" filled it was nearly physically painful. He's not usually like that, but for whatever reason that time he was really bad. To the ego, he'll also spiral into nearly a full episode talking about his Twitter beefs. Yeah, not great, dude.
Didnt see the debate. Don't know anything about the other guy besides that he thinks you need to visit a place before you talk about it. I'm just commenting on the 6 years I've heard Dave be unfunny 3rd mic on a comedy podcast that would try to turn every show into a political speech until they told him it's a comedy show. He doesn't even like being on the show anymore and doesn't participate in show ideas or skits
I don't think crutch words are always a sign of being unintelligent. Especially for something like LOS that is less structured and more free form.