Comments by "Gaza is not Amalek" (@Ass_of_Amalek) on "GDF"
channel.
-
269
-
37
-
well, he had already been arab-famous.
I will say that piers morgan does platform pro-palestinian advocates more fairly than literally the entire western mainstream media, simply by letting almost all of them speak long enough uninterrupted to deliver complete arguments and responses - which says a lot about the general media coverage.
but he has also likely done quite a bit of harm by platforming bad palestine advocates, namely nerdeen kiswani and to a lesser degree rahma zein, who took it as an opportunity to center themselves by grandstanding on not condemning the hamassacre in any way. that was always an idiotic position to take - the correct thing to do was to define whatever nuance you want, such as that you consider it to be a response to worse israeli oppression, that you consider hamas to be legitimate resistance to whatever degree, or that you support their attacking of the military, or that you reject israel's supposed right to bomb or invade or besiege gaza in response, but what was necessary was to acknowledge that the operation largely or primarily targeted civilians, and that the targeted killing and kidnapping of civilians was unjustifiable and civilian hostages ought to be released (technically taking soldiers as hostages also is a war crime, but nobody knows and will ask about that, and it's basically what's done in all wars when parties take prisoners to exchange them, which ends up being a good thing because it creates the option for soldiers to surrender and probably not be executed). particularly promoting that venomous narcissist nerdeen kiswani as aface of palestine was horrible - she was featured opposite to an also horrible pro-israel propagandist, but I bet kiswani did more harm to palestine in that one video than that woman is able to do with a whole year's work. bad advocacy is a very powerful tool for the other side, and that was terrible advocacy.
morgan also repeatedly platforms douglas murray, and actively supports him in disseminating vicious lies in support of israel with strong white supremacist undertones.
31
-
27
-
21
-
16
-
14
-
9
-
7
-
please note how obvious of a thing worth reporting on this is, given the open 21st century proclamations made by the highest political and military officials of israel that are quoted in this video - and yet this is probably the first time you are hearing about this, from some low budget youtube production that didn't even use a decent microphone in these older videos and only has 33k views a year and three quarters after being uploaded. meanwhile practically everywhere you look in western media and in the statements of western politicians, spanning almost the entire political spectrum, you are presented very forcefully with exclusively the opposite characterization of the conduct of israel's military, as one the most humane militaries in the world.
israel openly has a 100% strict official policy of escalatory retaliation against every single attack on israel: every attack against them is answered with an expressly punitive strike in retaliation that is officially required to be more severe than the attack against israel (and in reality they seem to aim in the ballpark of 10+ times more severe). this is an obvious abuse of their power advantage that prevents their enemies from escalating further. it is an even worse version of the logic behind the cultural practice of familial or tribal blood feuds that is rightfully condemned by most of the world for causing harm all around. if every state started doing this today, we would have a global nuclear exchange by the end of the year. and israel has the gall to call their enemies terrorists, while escalating every engagement and expecting them to deescalate every time, and deliberately causing more harm.
even policies that do receive mostly condemnation among israel's allies are practically never mentioned, such as israel's official punitive practice of demolishing the homes of the families of people they deem guilty of committing a terrorist attack against them, or israel keeping something in the ballpark of 20% of their palestinian prisoners in "administrative detention" indefinitely with no charge (like gitmo), including journalists and minors.
btw. israel's claim to be trying to deter hamas and PIJ from attacking by causing both militant and civilian palestinian deaths in response fundamentally makes no sense given that palestinian islamists believe that both fighters and civilians who die this way go to premium heaven as martyrs. according to their ideology, martyrdom is a flawless victory in an individual's game of life - so any true believers actually welcome it!
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@aycc-nbh7289 yes, the geneva conventions apply in palestine because the palestinian authority ratified them, and partially also because parts are considered universal customary law. jurisdiction is defined in relation to territory, not to the enemy one claims to be fighting against. the military value of a target must be high in proportion to the civilian collateral damage to justify striking it, regardless of whether those civilians are actively used as human shields. and there is zero military value to israel's ground forces shutting down al shifa by kicking everybody out days after invading it. at that point they had plenty of ability to distinguish, and had the obligation and the ability to restart operations of al shifa and other hospitals under its control.
the IDF itself says that it faced no resistance while entering al shifa - yet they were firing tank shells and bullets at hospital buildings all around, and inside they tossed and tore open equipment and breached doors and walls with explosives. well, they're also known for avoiding open streets during parts of their raids by blasting their way through the walls of occupied homes one by one - which by the way, besides disproportionately harming civilians, also is deliberate human shielding. the same goes for israel's ubiquitously common practice of invading any palestinian home in the west bank that happens to be in an opportune location, blast open walls as needed, and make those homes into firing positions while detaining the inhabitants inside. though in gaza today, I suppose they are more likely to just murder them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tiagobelo4965 that's the difference between a primary explosive (high or low) and a secondary (high) explosive. the low/high distinction refers to deflagration vs detonation. in the former, the ignition spreads much slower throughout the explosive by heat, and in the latter, it spreads much faster, with the ignition being caused by the pressure. the more instantaneously the whole mass is turned into gas, the sharper the pressure increase turns out, increasing destruction. the highest velocities are needed for armour penetration through shaped charges.
low explosives like black powder and other gunpowders always burn very quickly, and to explode, they require pressure containment. as long as the initial detonation is provided, high explosives tend to require no pressure containment. some of those burn slowly or not at all. both blasting caps and impact primers use primary high explosives that are easily detonated by relatively little friction and easily ignited by heat, with the ignition turning from deflagration into detonation if pressure is contained.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1