jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I think youre overstating how much agreement you have here on your first point.

---

Interesting (and scary)! So in your view, its morally right to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths, or is it legally right to do so. Or both?

---

You're putting words in my mouth.

Context matters. Hamas deliberately placed the civilians and the civilians infrastructure between Israel and them. Theres absolutely no way to conduct this war without many many civilians being killed.

Israel texted, called, knocked(drop a dummy on a building a few minutes before taking it out), created corridors and dropped leaflets. To act like they haven't taken some mitigation actions is asinine

Have there been mistakes made? For sure. Have civilians been intentionally harmed- more than likely.

In who's best interest is it for civilian harm or hunger? Hamas.

If we followed your standard all of this would be moot, because the Allies wouldn't have won WW2 and there would be no Israel.

Heck, there wouldn't even be Jews.

If only you people had this type of fervor towards the islamists living in America. They are all radicals whether it makes you uncomfortable to admit it or not.

Just as a reminder, my position at this point is: "Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians."

I've summarized the evidence for this claim from independent, internationally recognized organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc). Here's what the credible, third-party investigations show:

• Intentional Targeting of Civilians: Israel repeatedly targeted densely populated civilian areas and infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools, water and electricity supplies) at times when these places would be full (i.e at night). Frequently, there was no verified military targets nearby. When there's no military justification, and civilian casualties could be maximized, it strongly suggests intent rather than accident.
• Choice of Weapons: In many documented cases, Israel used large explosive weapons designed for wide-area destruction (e.g., JDAM bombs), not "surgical strikes." Even when civilian casualties are expected, using these specific weapons amplifies the scale of harm and indicates a choice to cause widespread suffering.
• Manipulation of Safe Zones: Israel ordered civilians to "safe zones," promising protection, then proceeded to bomb these very zones. Directing civilians to certain areas and then striking those areas undermines the argument of accidental harm.
• Official Admissions: Top Israeli officials have publicly stated that the suffering of Gazan civilians is being leveraged to pressure Hamas. These are their own words. This is collective punishment and is explicitly banned by international law.
• Dehumanizing and Genocidal Rhetoric: Israel's leadership, including Netanyahu, has referenced biblical stories of genocide, denied the very existence of uninvolved ("innocent") civilians (indicating that they consider all of them justifiable targets), and celebrated the destruction wrought in Gaza. This rhetoric is not just symbolicit shapes policy.
• Obstruction of Humanitarian Aid: Israel has systematically obstructed and denied humanitarian organizations any ability to alleviate civilian suffering. This includes restricting access for food, water, and medical supplies even when need is dire and non-combatants are dying.

None of these points are conjecture; they are documented facts, publicly reported and cited by international human rights monitors. You may interpret their significance differently, but it is extremely difficult to deny these events took place.

On the "Human Shields" Argument
Yes, Hamas uses civilians as shields, embeds fighters among the population, and conducts military operations from civilian infrastructure. I fully acknowledge their tactics are reprehensible and a violation of the laws of war.

However, here's the problem: Much of the documented Israeli targeting was not in the vicinity of military targets or active combatants, and still used maximal force. The use of large bombs, targeting at night, and attacks on specifically designated safe zones, alongside explicit statements by officials, show these actions go far beyond responding to human shield tactics.

When widespread civilian killing occurs in the absence of military necessity it cannot simply be excused as the unfortunate byproduct of Hamas' crimes, especially when supported by government rhetoric and policy.

On the "Israel Could End This Quickly If They Wanted" Claim
The argument that Israel's restraint (not killing all civilians) proves benign intent is not persuasive to me. While they certainly have the military power to do so, international pressure and the interests of key allies like the US massively constrain what they can actually do. And here is good evidence (including statements by Israeli officials about political calculations and the need to preserve US support) confirming this external restraint is a major factor.

Bottom Line:

• The pattern, scale, and official admissions all point to deliberate harm against civilians.
• Independent evidence shows this goes beyond what can be justified as collateral damage or incidental to the pursuit of legitimate military targets.
• Reasonable people can debate what justifies certain military choicesbut denial of established facts and documented policy intent isn't that debate.

If you disagree, I welcome your reasoningespecially if you can show which specific claims or documented evidence are false or misleading and explain why. That is how productive debate happens.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I think youre overstating how much agreement you have here on your first point.

---

Interesting (and scary)! So in your view, its morally right to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths, or is it legally right to do so. Or both?

---

You're putting words in my mouth.

Context matters. Hamas deliberately placed the civilians and the civilians infrastructure between Israel and them. Theres absolutely no way to conduct this war without many many civilians being killed.

Israel texted, called, knocked(drop a dummy on a building a few minutes before taking it out), created corridors and dropped leaflets. To act like they haven't taken some mitigation actions is asinine

Have there been mistakes made? For sure. Have civilians been intentionally harmed- more than likely.

In who's best interest is it for civilian harm or hunger? Hamas.

---

Premise 1 says: "It is morally and legally wrong to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths." It says nothing about whether that applies to Israel or not (that's Premise 2). Your words (not ones I put in your mouth) indicated that you disagree with the statement. Logically, you can only disagree with that statement by claiming one of the following:

• It is morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is legally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is both legally and morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

So which is it? Or do you agree with Premise 1 after all?

You think ignoring inconvenient questions to your argument is productive debate, so I'll be disregarding your condescending admonitions.

Here is an ai counter to your ai arguments

### **1. "Intentional Targeting of Civilians"**

**Counter:**

* **Proximity to Military Targets Often Exists but Is Underreported** Many strikes cited by Amnesty, HRW, and others are disputed by Israeli intelligence, which may have classified evidence (e.g., intercepted communications, aerial surveillance) showing the presence of Hamas command centers, tunnel shafts, or weapons caches. These cannot always be publicly released without compromising sources.
* **Urban Warfare Complexity** In Gaza, military targets are often deliberately placed by Hamas near civilian infrastructure. From a distance, a hospital or apartment may appear purely civilian, but beneath or within it there may be military assets.
* **Night Strikes Are Tactical, Not Sadistic** Striking at night can actually reduce civilian street presence and thus casualties, while also targeting militants who rest in these structures during those hours.

---

### **2. "Choice of Weapons"**

**Counter:**

* **Large Ordnance Can Be Militarily Necessary** The JDAM and other largeyield munitions are used when the intended target is hardened (underground tunnel complexes, reinforced command bunkers) and smaller weapons would be ineffective.
* **Precision Guidance Still Applied** These weapons are precisionguided; the blast radius is a function of target type, not indiscriminate intent. The existence of civilian casualties does not automatically mean the weapon choice was maliciousonly that the military objective was embedded in a risky environment.
* **Alternatives May Increase Risk to Soldiers** Smaller munitions or ground assaults may spare some civilians but could result in higher IDF casualties, which a state has a duty to minimize for its own forces.

---

### **3. "Manipulation of Safe Zones"**

**Counter:**

* **Safe Zones Are Not Static** Once Hamas fires rockets from or near a designated "safe zone" or moves fighters there, that area may lose protected status under the laws of war. What appears to be "betrayal" could be a response to new intelligence.
* **Coordination Not Always Possible** In a fastmoving battlefield, civilians may move into areas unknowingly being used for military activity; strikes in those locations may occur despite warnings, not because of deception.

---

### **4. "Official Admissions"**

**Counter:**

* **Statements Are Often Taken Out of Context** Remarks by Israeli officials can be rhetorical or aimed at domestic political audiences. A comment about "pressuring Hamas via civilian suffering" may refer to siege tactics (e.g., cutting fuel to disrupt rocket manufacturing), not direct killing of civilians.
* **Military Strategy Genocidal Intent** Even harsh language about "leveraging hardship" is not automatically equivalent to a policy of deliberately killing civiliansit can be aimed at breaking the will of Hamas's support base without lethal intent toward the population as a whole.

---

### **5. "Dehumanizing and Genocidal Rhetoric"**

**Counter:**

* **Extreme Statements Don't Always Drive Policy** Governments have multiple voices, and inflammatory rhetoric from certain ministers may not reflect official military rules of engagement.
* **Biblical References Are Often Symbolic** Citing Old Testament battles is common in Israeli politics for cultural resonance, not necessarily as literal operational doctrine.
* **ROE and Oversight Still Exist** The IDF operates under legal advisors who review targeting, meaning rhetoric is tempered by legal review before action.

---

### **6. "Obstruction of Humanitarian Aid"**

**Counter:**

* **Security Concerns Are Real** Trucks entering Gaza have been documented as being diverted by Hamas, with supplies seized for fighters. Restricting entry or inspecting shipments can be about preventing weapons smuggling, not blanket punishment.
* **Aid Has Entered, Even During Fighting** Israel has at times facilitated and escorted aid convoys, even during heavy conflict, showing intent to allow relief when security permits.
* **Hamas's Role in Shortages** Hamas has reportedly stored or sold aid at inflated prices, worsening shortages and public suffering independently of Israeli restrictions.

---

### **On the "Human Shields" Argument**

**Counter:**

* **Law of War Allows Strikes Despite Shields** International humanitarian law does not require a military to forgo attacking a lawful target solely because civilians are present; the key is proportionality, which is subjective and often judged differently by combatants and outside observers.
* **Data on 'No Military Targets' Is Contested** What Amnesty/HRW classifies as "no target nearby" may omit classified intelligence indicating otherwise. The absence of public proof is not proof of absence.

---

### **On "Israel Could End This Quickly If They Wanted"**

**Counter:**

* **Ending Quickly May Require Greater Civilian Harm** A "quick" military victory could involve saturation bombing and total siege, which would cause higher civilian casualtiesIsrael's more measured pace may be aimed at avoiding that.
* **Constraints Are Not Solely External** Domestic Israeli law, military ethics codes, and internal political pressures also limit operational extremes, not just U.S. diplomacy.

---

### **Bottom Line Counter**

* The claim that "pattern, scale, and admissions" prove deliberate intent to kill civilians is **not the only plausible interpretation**the same evidence can be viewed as the byproduct of urban warfare against an adversary that embeds itself within civilian areas, combined with classified intelligence not available to outside observers.
* Independent NGOs like Amnesty and HRW often rely on poststrike interviews and visible evidence, which cannot always account for classified targeting intelligence, enemy tactics, or realtime combat conditions.
* While civilian suffering is undeniable, intent and proportionality judgments are complex, contested, and subject to significant factual dispute.

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I think youre overstating how much agreement you have here on your first point.

---

Interesting (and scary)! So in your view, its morally right to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths, or is it legally right to do so. Or both?

---

You're putting words in my mouth.

Context matters. Hamas deliberately placed the civilians and the civilians infrastructure between Israel and them. Theres absolutely no way to conduct this war without many many civilians being killed.

Israel texted, called, knocked(drop a dummy on a building a few minutes before taking it out), created corridors and dropped leaflets. To act like they haven't taken some mitigation actions is asinine

Have there been mistakes made? For sure. Have civilians been intentionally harmed- more than likely.

In who's best interest is it for civilian harm or hunger? Hamas.

---

Premise 1 says: "It is morally and legally wrong to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths." It says nothing about whether that applies to Israel or not (that's Premise 2). Your words (not ones I put in your mouth) indicated that you disagree with the statement. Logically, you can only disagree with that statement by claiming one of the following:

• It is morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is legally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is both legally and morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

So which is it? Or do you agree with Premise 1 after all?

---

Neither. You're disregarding context.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I think youre overstating how much agreement you have here on your first point.

---

Interesting (and scary)! So in your view, its morally right to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths, or is it legally right to do so. Or both?

---

You're putting words in my mouth.

Context matters. Hamas deliberately placed the civilians and the civilians infrastructure between Israel and them. Theres absolutely no way to conduct this war without many many civilians being killed.

Israel texted, called, knocked(drop a dummy on a building a few minutes before taking it out), created corridors and dropped leaflets. To act like they haven't taken some mitigation actions is asinine

Have there been mistakes made? For sure. Have civilians been intentionally harmed- more than likely.

In who's best interest is it for civilian harm or hunger? Hamas.

---

Premise 1 says: "It is morally and legally wrong to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths." It says nothing about whether that applies to Israel or not (that's Premise 2). Your words (not ones I put in your mouth) indicated that you disagree with the statement. Logically, you can only disagree with that statement by claiming one of the following:

• It is morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is legally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is both legally and morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

So which is it? Or do you agree with Premise 1 after all?

---

Neither. You're disregarding context.

---

He is likely getting paid for each of his AI generated posts, which is why he doesn't bother trying to actually respond to questions or counter points. He just posts another wall of unsupported claims and an assumption that everybody agrees with him to generate reactions that he can reply to with more AI generated text. They get paid more for posts that generate responses.

Im just going to respond using Ai to his ai

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to manipulate your words at all. I'm trying to interpret them. That's why I phrased it as a question. So do you believe Israel's actions against the citizens of Gaza are deliberate but justified, deliberate and unjustified, or not deliberate?

---

I take the question itself as an attempt to manipulate the narrative and to deflect from the real issue.

The real issue here is the Hamas are radical jihadist whose religion is kill the Jews and that is what they teach their children from the womb>

I notice you make no attempt to respond to the real issue at hand which is the Hamas.

So what would you do?

And no I don't think that Israel is deliberately trying to kill civilian women and children', HOWEVER< they also know that the Hamas actually have no problem sacrificing these same women and children if it causes them to win the public sympathy war!

So you are actually aiding and abetting Hamas with your question and position,

They want to turn the focus off them and to Israel. A total Psyop propaganda campaign, And putting up the poor children works, that's what they will keep doing it.

And you are helping them.

jaborch99 said:

---

Just as a reminder, my position at this point is: "Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians."

<Snip>

If you disagree, I welcome your reasoning especially if you can show which specific claims or documented evidence are false or misleading and explain why. That is how productive debate happens.

---

I disagree

Hamas started it. They can end it by surrendering and turning over the hostages. Until they do so, their people will suffer.

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I think youre overstating how much agreement you have here on your first point.

---

Interesting (and scary)! So in your view, its morally right to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths, or is it legally right to do so. Or both?

---

You're putting words in my mouth.

Context matters. Hamas deliberately placed the civilians and the civilians infrastructure between Israel and them. Theres absolutely no way to conduct this war without many many civilians being killed.

Israel texted, called, knocked(drop a dummy on a building a few minutes before taking it out), created corridors and dropped leaflets. To act like they haven't taken some mitigation actions is asinine

Have there been mistakes made? For sure. Have civilians been intentionally harmed- more than likely.

In who's best interest is it for civilian harm or hunger? Hamas.

---

Premise 1 says: "It is morally and legally wrong to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths." It says nothing about whether that applies to Israel or not (that's Premise 2). Your words (not ones I put in your mouth) indicated that you disagree with the statement. Logically, you can only disagree with that statement by claiming one of the following:

• It is morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is legally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• It is both legally and morally right to harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

So which is it? Or do you agree with Premise 1 after all?

---

Your argument building is wrong again. Cause and effect do not live in a vacuum. Even if you did have a sliver of a point, which ido not agree, nothing that Israel is doing only has those effects, and nothing else. The effect of propaganda is having on you is you are separating out single possible outcomes as the sole outcome and purpose of Israeli action.

If I take my kid to the dentist because she has cavities, and so she has to miss a meal while she gets her mouth worked on, your phrasing could be that I am deliberately starving and inflicting pain on my own child. While that is technically true in a myopic sense, that is your spin and is not a truthful representation of reality.

jaborch99 said:

---

Just as a reminder, my position at this point is: "Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians."

I've summarized the evidence for this claim from independent, internationally recognized organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc). Here's what the credible, third-party investigations show:

• Intentional Targeting of Civilians: Israel repeatedly targeted densely populated civilian areas and infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools, water and electricity supplies) at times when these places would be full (i.e at night). Frequently, there was no verified military targets nearby. When there's no military justification, and civilian casualties could be maximized, it strongly suggests intent rather than accident.
• Choice of Weapons: In many documented cases, Israel used large explosive weapons designed for wide-area destruction (e.g., JDAM bombs), not "surgical strikes." Even when civilian casualties are expected, using these specific weapons amplifies the scale of harm and indicates a choice to cause widespread suffering.
• Manipulation of Safe Zones: Israel ordered civilians to "safe zones," promising protection, then proceeded to bomb these very zones. Directing civilians to certain areas and then striking those areas undermines the argument of accidental harm.
• Official Admissions: Top Israeli officials have publicly stated that the suffering of Gazan civilians is being leveraged to pressure Hamas. These are their own words. This is collective punishment and is explicitly banned by international law.
• Dehumanizing and Genocidal Rhetoric: Israel's leadership, including Netanyahu, has referenced biblical stories of genocide, denied the very existence of uninvolved ("innocent") civilians (indicating that they consider all of them justifiable targets), and celebrated the destruction wrought in Gaza. This rhetoric is not just symbolicit shapes policy.
• Obstruction of Humanitarian Aid: Israel has systematically obstructed and denied humanitarian organizations any ability to alleviate civilian suffering. This includes restricting access for food, water, and medical supplies even when need is dire and non-combatants are dying.

None of these points are conjecture; they are documented facts, publicly reported and cited by international human rights monitors. You may interpret their significance differently, but it is extremely difficult to deny these events took place.

On the "Human Shields" Argument
Yes, Hamas uses civilians as shields, embeds fighters among the population, and conducts military operations from civilian infrastructure. I fully acknowledge their tactics are reprehensible and a violation of the laws of war.

However, here's the problem: Much of the documented Israeli targeting was not in the vicinity of military targets or active combatants, and still used maximal force. The use of large bombs, targeting at night, and attacks on specifically designated safe zones, alongside explicit statements by officials, show these actions go far beyond responding to human shield tactics.

When widespread civilian killing occurs in the absence of military necessity it cannot simply be excused as the unfortunate byproduct of Hamas' crimes, especially when supported by government rhetoric and policy.

On the "Israel Could End This Quickly If They Wanted" Claim
The argument that Israel's restraint (not killing all civilians) proves benign intent is not persuasive to me. While they certainly have the military power to do so, international pressure and the interests of key allies like the US massively constrain what they can actually do. And here is good evidence (including statements by Israeli officials about political calculations and the need to preserve US support) confirming this external restraint is a major factor.

Bottom Line:

• The pattern, scale, and official admissions all point to deliberate harm against civilians.
• Independent evidence shows this goes beyond what can be justified as collateral damage or incidental to the pursuit of legitimate military targets.
• Reasonable people can debate what justifies certain military choicesbut denial of established facts and documented policy intent isn't that debate.

If you disagree, I welcome your reasoningespecially if you can show which specific claims or documented evidence are false or misleading and explain why. That is how productive debate happens.

---

A) You DO understand that whichever AI you used to comprise that "prose" often has what we call in my industry "HALLUCINATIONS".

The AI will ALWAYS respond and give you an answer. And many times it will give you the answer you WANT!!!

Even if that answer is completely made up.

I've had numerous "hallucinations" provided to me. Luckily, I knew enough about the subject to realize the answer didn't make sense....

Yes, but what that simple summation misses is that Hamas has many business partners, such as the UN, which support their vile mission(s).

They don’t care.

None of this is about actually getting food anywhere. The cause is not the cause. https://t.co/0fxuXa9w1Q

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 5, 2025

We need to exit the UN, as a first step, to cut funding to such organizations.

oh no!!

Amnesty International is siding with Hamas terrorists!

why that has never happened before that AI sides with the anti-Americans!!

nice copy and paste job by the Hamas rapist and hostage taker supporters.

sam callahan said:

---

You think ignoring inconvenient questions to your argument is productive debate, so I'll be disregarding your condescending admonitions.

---

I apologize if I come across as condescending. Not my intention at all. If you can give me specifics of what I have said that comes across that way, I will try to avoid it in the future. Just to be clear... I don't consider myself any better or smarter than anyone else here, FWIW.

You're free to disregard me if you want, but I'm not ignoring your question because its inconvenient; I'm delaying it because it is premature at this point in my argument. I haven't even finished fully laying the logic of my argument, so why would I start trying to show the implications of that logic on other scenarios? I know you're indignant that I won't answer your question right now, so I will simply encourage patience.

What do you think would happen to my efforts to fully lay out my logic if I decided to answer your question now? There are three possible ways that I could answer it:

• I could name one or more wars that meet the appropriate standard. You would then respond by telling me how the Gaza war is no different from those wars in various ways. I would then respond by telling you how I think the Gaza war is different in various ways. Suddenly I am caught up in that debate rather than continuing to lay out my logic - which is what I'm actually interested in doing.
• Or, I could claim that no wars have met the appropriate standard. In this case, the conversation would immediately become a discussion of the ethics of war in general and the likely outcomes of past wars if the US hadn't fought in them.
• Or, I could claim that all other wars have met the appropriate standard. The conversation would then become a debate about what makes the Gaza war so much worse. Again, the focus would be on the details of other wars, not on this one.

No matter how I answer your question, it will derail the conversation that I am interested in having.

Ag with kids said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Just as a reminder, my position at this point is: "Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians."

I've summarized the evidence for this claim from independent, internationally recognized organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc). Here's what the credible, third-party investigations show:

• Intentional Targeting of Civilians: Israel repeatedly targeted densely populated civilian areas and infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools, water and electricity supplies) at times when these places would be full (i.e at night). Frequently, there was no verified military targets nearby. When there's no military justification, and civilian casualties could be maximized, it strongly suggests intent rather than accident.
• Choice of Weapons: In many documented cases, Israel used large explosive weapons designed for wide-area destruction (e.g., JDAM bombs), not "surgical strikes." Even when civilian casualties are expected, using these specific weapons amplifies the scale of harm and indicates a choice to cause widespread suffering.
• Manipulation of Safe Zones: Israel ordered civilians to "safe zones," promising protection, then proceeded to bomb these very zones. Directing civilians to certain areas and then striking those areas undermines the argument of accidental harm.
• Official Admissions: Top Israeli officials have publicly stated that the suffering of Gazan civilians is being leveraged to pressure Hamas. These are their own words. This is collective punishment and is explicitly banned by international law.
• Dehumanizing and Genocidal Rhetoric: Israel's leadership, including Netanyahu, has referenced biblical stories of genocide, denied the very existence of uninvolved ("innocent") civilians (indicating that they consider all of them justifiable targets), and celebrated the destruction wrought in Gaza. This rhetoric is not just symbolicit shapes policy.
• Obstruction of Humanitarian Aid: Israel has systematically obstructed and denied humanitarian organizations any ability to alleviate civilian suffering. This includes restricting access for food, water, and medical supplies even when need is dire and non-combatants are dying.

None of these points are conjecture; they are documented facts, publicly reported and cited by international human rights monitors. You may interpret their significance differently, but it is extremely difficult to deny these events took place.

On the "Human Shields" Argument
Yes, Hamas uses civilians as shields, embeds fighters among the population, and conducts military operations from civilian infrastructure. I fully acknowledge their tactics are reprehensible and a violation of the laws of war.

However, here's the problem: Much of the documented Israeli targeting was not in the vicinity of military targets or active combatants, and still used maximal force. The use of large bombs, targeting at night, and attacks on specifically designated safe zones, alongside explicit statements by officials, show these actions go far beyond responding to human shield tactics.

When widespread civilian killing occurs in the absence of military necessity it cannot simply be excused as the unfortunate byproduct of Hamas' crimes, especially when supported by government rhetoric and policy.

On the "Israel Could End This Quickly If They Wanted" Claim
The argument that Israel's restraint (not killing all civilians) proves benign intent is not persuasive to me. While they certainly have the military power to do so, international pressure and the interests of key allies like the US massively constrain what they can actually do. And here is good evidence (including statements by Israeli officials about political calculations and the need to preserve US support) confirming this external restraint is a major factor.

Bottom Line:

• The pattern, scale, and official admissions all point to deliberate harm against civilians.
• Independent evidence shows this goes beyond what can be justified as collateral damage or incidental to the pursuit of legitimate military targets.
• Reasonable people can debate what justifies certain military choicesbut denial of established facts and documented policy intent isn't that debate.

If you disagree, I welcome your reasoningespecially if you can show which specific claims or documented evidence are false or misleading and explain why. That is how productive debate happens.

---

A) You DO understand that whichever AI you used to comprise that "prose" often has what we call in my industry "HALLUCINATIONS".

The AI will ALWAYS respond and give you an answer. And many times it will give you the answer you WANT!!!

Even if that answer is completely made up.

I've had numerous "hallucinations" provided to me. Luckily, I knew enough about the subject to realize the answer didn't make sense....

---

My entry into this thread involved AI doing a lot of the composition. These hallucinations show up in those early posts, specifically some of the statistics it fed me that I failed to fact check. That's why I fessed up, abandoned those arguments, and started over fresh. Because of my misuse of AI earlier in the thread, I deserve any skepticism that comes my way.

However, I will be transparent in how I am currently using it in these posts. I use it along with Google to search out my source material."(i.e. "When have Israeli officials used genocidal language?") I then go and verify that material before posting it (unlike my lazy approach earlier in the thread). I then compose a response like a big boy, all by myself. Usually I go ahead and post it at that point. However, if I read over that response and don't like how it sounds, or I don't think I'm coming across very clearly, I will then paste it into AI and let it edit for clarity.

Israel is about to fully occupy Gaza. How do you feel about that?

nortex97 said:

---

They don’t care.

None of this is about actually getting food anywhere. The cause is not the cause. https://t.co/0fxuXa9w1Q

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 5, 2025

We need to exit the UN, as a first step, to cut funding to such organizations.

---

No way! The UN is allowing their aid to be stolen and used to fund terrorism. I just can't believe it! Like that's not their intention. The UN in Gaza is a terrorist organization. They are collaborating to fund terrorists.

mjschiller said:

---

Hamas is the problem. Eliminate them and the problem could be solved. Not before.

---

Hamas is a symptom. It is a product of Palestinian culture, just like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, and all of the other palestinian terror groups formed over the years. Destroy hamas and another group will just take their place.

The palestinians themselves are the problem.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

mjschiller said:

---

Hamas is the problem. Eliminate them and the problem could be solved. Not before.

---

Hamas is a symptom. It is a product of Palestinian culture, just like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, and all of the other palestinian terror groups formed over the years. Destroy hamas and another group will just take their place.

The palestinians themselves are the problem.

---

Exactly, people forget the history before they elected HAMAS….

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

In the real world, pro-Hamas stories all are composed in this manner, before they reach the AI analytics which are poorly engineered to filter them out;

I bet if someone started comparing pictures, we'd see the same pans in all of them. https://t.co/VvpBEMyVUJ

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 5, 2025

Quote:

---

"AI engine, is this true?"
"No, these pots have not been found in any other known stories/images to date. Israel is widely thought to be starving Gazans intentionally."

---

LOL. (Note, I just made that up: it's fake but accurate.)

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

And yet you dodge mine. GTFOH

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

I thought you're arguments were AI arguments.

IIIHorn said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

I thought you're arguments were AI arguments.

---

You thought wrong.

Tom Fox said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

And yet you dodge mine. GTFOH

---

To my knowledge, you haven't asked a question of your own. You want me to answer Sam's question, and I have explained my reasons for delaying that.

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

Few here, if anyone, has agreed to the premises of your arguments. You have attempted to base, at least the last couple of pages, your arguments on some sort of shared opinion, but few have actually agreed with it.

Come up with better arguments or stop tip toeing around what youre wanting to say.

Here's a question- would you trade full Israeli occupation of gaza for the cessation of civilian deaths?

jaborch99 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

I thought you're arguments were AI arguments.

---

You thought wrong.

---

" My entry into this thread involved AI doing a lot of the composition. These hallucinations show up in those early posts, specifically some of the statistics it fed me that I failed to fact check. That's why I fessed up, abandoned those arguments, and started over fresh. Because of my misuse of AI earlier in the thread, I deserve any skepticism that comes my way.

However, I will be transparent in how I am currently using it in these posts. I use it along with Google to search out my source material."(i.e. "When have Israeli officials used genocidal language?") I then go and verify that material before posting it (unlike my lazy approach earlier in the thread). I then compose a response like a big boy, all by myself. Usually I go ahead and post it at that point. However, if I read over that response and don't like how it sounds, or I don't think I'm coming across very clearly, I will then paste it into AI and let it edit for clarity."

What part of that don't you understand? AI was largely forming my argument when I entered the conversation. I changed course, and now it is being used as a tool to follow my lead rather than vice versa. It is used to conduct searches (that I then verify before posting) and edit my comments for understandability. It is not providing the content of my arguments. Having said that, I admittedly earned your skepticism.

jaborch99 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

You need to rely on Artificial Intelligence for only two reasons:

1. you don't know the English language very well

2. You don't know the Middle East very well.

I could sit here all day long and type 100 pages on the situation in the Middle East without referencing either a book or a computer.

because I have lived in the Middle East and spent the last 40 years studying everything about it.

---

Great! Then you should have no trouble engaging with the actual content of my arguments.

---

And yet you dodge mine. GTFOH

---

To my knowledge, you haven't asked a question of your own. You want me to answer Sam's question, and I have explained my reasons for delaying that.

---

Sam's question ends this charade hence your reason for dodging.