noauthority.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Long live NAS!

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.4K
active users

Half the problem from a western civilian perspective is we just dont know the truth. We know Hamas massacres civilians, sets up torture rooms in hospitals, pretend to be noncombatants, and has a quality propaganda network. We know the IDF has at a very minimum killed civilians, and invaded homes, and maybe a lot more, but how much is propaganda and how much is truth?

We just dont know, and frankly Im frustrated that we dont know.

casey is remote

@Blamemeta @Bongo_Stryker I'm pro , and support their side of the conflict, but there are some small (but significant) cases in which the very likely violated international law/the ; using , and the siege on , as well as potentially the targeting of the truck. Targeting probably looks like a genocidal tactic, but to be fair militants are likely there.

@Blamemeta @Bongo_Stryker Thing is, violating international law and the rules of war are not the same as committing a genocide. Genocide is a very specific claim that does not meet the standard for. It's interesting to note as well that despite the (albeit minority) amount of American more mad at than , has done far, far worse in the war than the has.

Has the raped civilians? I think not.

@realcaseyrollins @Blamemeta @Bongo_Stryker

Good summary. The worst we have IDF on is hitting the wrong targets while the Palestinians used them as human shields.

Has the IDF raped civilians? Shit questions. Most likely yes, some soldiers have but the IDF as a whole does not.

American soldiers have raped women. That doesn’t mean the US supports it. We punish those who do.

@wintermute_oregon No no no not soldiers; the , as a military group, as part of a militant campaign. People tend to do whatever when they're off duty, that doesn't exactly count.

White Phosphorus is legal to use. Not sure why people keep repeating it isn’t.

White Phosphorus is used to create a smoke screen to allow your troops to move around. It is only illegal when used as a weapon and you don’t try to minimize civilian casualties.

Israel goes beyond their responsibility to minimize civilians casualties.

@wintermute_oregon Hmm. I never saw any clear confirmation as to why it was used during the war in the one case it was discovered.

Smoke. In an urban environment you need lots of smoke to move around. Otherwise you have to use more force which can risk civilians.

Yeah cause we all know Israel values the lives of Palestine civilians 🙄

Why are you using an opinion article from a conservative think tank? This has no value in proving your argument, it’s just a webpage that confirms your beliefs.

You mean why would I use a conservative source on a consecutive forum? Aka the truth.

Oh geez so you really are just using this community to self-confirm your bias and assert your correctness, rather than actually have any kind of real discussion with other users. Cause if it were the second thing you wouldn’t have just called an op piece “the truth”.

Cringey af my guy.

You’re not having a discussion. You’re crying about the source.

Interesting that rather than simply admit “yeah you know what? My source is an opinion article and not necessarily fact” you have to frame it as me crying about it so you can avoid admitting to yourself that maybe you made a bad call.

Say whatever you want to say to make yourself feel superior, I’m simply happy knowing I’m right about this and you have no substantial response, like the other countless threads you’ve dipped out of throughout the week.

You didn’t offer a counter. You offered whining about it.

I can’t have a conversation about crying. Offer a counter cite.

It’s not my job to do the arguing for you, which is basically the same thing you said to me last week when the inverse happened in another thread.

I guess that means you’re welcome to cry about it.

No, the reference is good, but you want to whine about it.

It is well known Hamas uses people as human shields. You have yet to counter that.

stratcomcoe.org/publications/…/87

washingtonpost.com/…/amnesty-international-says-h…

NATO States it, and Amnesty International states it, yet you don’t offer a counterpoint other than but why is a conservative posting a conservative source in a conservative forum.

stratcomcoe.orgStratCom | NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Riga, Latvia

Hahaha you can’t provide a good source to save your life and rather than actually try you’re just making it other people’s problem 🤣

Even Amnesty International has been found by the US Government of being one-sided and biased.

Washington post article is another opinion article, AND it’s paywalled.

Stratcomcoe just 404’s.

Now I’m starting to think you’re straight up incapable of finding a credible source for your arguments. Maybe that means your arguments aren’t credible?

Hahaha you can’t provide a good source to save your life and rather than actually try you’re just making it other people’s problem 🤣

Rule 2 - my source is a reliable conservative source.

You’re free to counter cite when you’ve refused to do because you know I’m right.

Well it’s reliably conservative, I’ll give you that. The problem is when you’re only paying attention to conservative sources you keep yourself in a little echo chamber and never actually know what’s going on.

theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

The OatmealYou're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you - The OatmealThis is a comic about the backfire effect.

It isn’t my job to seek out other sources. I seek out the truth. I just cited three serious to your zero.

It’s also not my job to seek out other sources just because yours are bad.

Sounds you are arguing in bad faith. That’s where the argument is going

lol for what, not being convinced by a biased news source? If you’re correct then your argument should hold up to basic scrutiny, and should be available in information sources other than conservative opinion articles.

A conservative saying “I’m right because I found a conservative person on the internet that says the same thing” isn’t a good faith argument either. It also convinces literally nobody, which is probably why most of the activity on this community is from people with dissenting opinions.