Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PurpleXVI
Oct 30, 2011

Spewing insults, pissing off all your neighbors, betraying your allies, backing out of treaties and accords, and generally screwing over the global environment?
ALL PART OF MY BRILLIANT STRATEGY!
EDIT: Wrong thread, I'm a moron.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lovely Joe Stalin
Jun 12, 2007

Our Lovely Wang
The pier finally got used for something. Perfidy.

https://x.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1799470226180043136?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q

Tiny Timbs
Sep 6, 2008

Well it will now, and theyíll have a valid reason

War Boi
Nov 1, 2021
:sigh:

Dandywalken
Feb 11, 2014

Cant say Im a fan.

Piers as a concept? Very cool. Love em, bonafide pier-head. But perfidious piers? No.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



Pierfidy

Queer Grenadier
Jun 14, 2023

THIS GUY HAS A POOPY BOOM BOOM

HE NOT WARSHING HE HOLES LOL
Gonna need about

God drat Lockheed monstah

Discussion Quorum
Dec 5, 2002
Armchair Philistine

Tiny Timbs posted:

Well it will now, and they’ll have a valid reason

To the IDF this is firmly in "feature, not a bug" territory.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Does this guy post any evidence that they used the pier?

1: seems like a weird an unncessary rube goldberg style setup.
2: I thought maybe the video he linked would have evidence, but it's just footage of vehicles driving past on a road and not on a pier.

He did post an undated video that just shows a blackhawk lifting off from the beach with the pier in the background but... Man, I'm going to need more evidence than that that the pier is some double-secret troops insertion/extraction platform.

You'd think the Israelis would conduct their special ops from their own platforms and one that doesn't float away when the weather gets bad.

If this isn't clickbait, I bet we'll see more evidence show up. We've seen a lot of well documented evidence of atrocities and war crimes, but this looks like social media shitposting for people to bite onto without really thinking through it.

mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jun 8, 2024

Lovely Joe Stalin
Jun 12, 2007

Our Lovely Wang

mlmp08 posted:

Does this guy post any evidence that they used the pier?

1: seems like a weird an unncessary rube goldberg style setup.
2: I thought maybe the video he linked would have evidence, but it's just footage of vehicles driving past on a road and not on a pier.

He did post an undated video that just shows a blackhawk lifting off from the beach with the pier in the background but... Man, I'm going to need more evidence than that that the pier is some double-secret troops insertion/extraction platform.

You'd think the Israelis would conduct their special ops from their own platforms and one that doesn't float away when the weather gets bad.

If this isn't clickbait, I bet we'll see more evidence show up. We've seen a lot of well documented evidence of atrocities and war crimes, but this looks like social media shitposting for people to bite onto without really thinking through it.

"This guy" is the head of comms for a legitimate human rights NGO. Ironic that you didn't even look at his bio before talking about people not thinking the source through.

Also the Americans have confirmed the chopper that evacuated at least one hostage landed by the pier. They are saying that because it landed and took off a few feet from the pier itself it is unrelated, despite the obvious advantage of staging there being that the pier is a US shield. Any attack would be presented as Hamas attacking the US.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-support-israeli-forces-rescue-hostages-gaza/

Edit: https://x.com/kann_news/status/1799405335654142344

Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jun 8, 2024

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

"This guy" is the head of comms for a legitimate human rights NGO. Ironic that you didn't even look at his bio before talking about people not thinking the source through.

Also the Americans have confirmed the chopper that evacuated at least one hostage landed by the pier. They are saying that because it landed and took off a few feet from the pier itself it is unrelated, despite the obvious advantage of staging there being that the pier is a US shield. Any attack would be presented as Hamas attacking the US.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-support-israeli-forces-rescue-hostages-gaza/

Edit: https://x.com/kann_news/status/1799405335654142344

So the story has changed from escaping via the pier to a helicopter taking off from the beach within visual range of the pier then.

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

Do you think that it was coincidental that they happened to perform that extraction a good tee-shot from the US militaryís pier, or do you think itís likely that they believed that being close to that pier could beÖused to ensure the success and safety of the extraction?

War Boi
Nov 1, 2021
No matter which one of you is right Israel is definitely wrong.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
I'm not sure, but when the initial claim said they "escaped through Biden's humanitarian pier" and showed a line of armored vehicles on a road, and then the later claim was "look, here is a video of a helicopter taking off from the beach in the near vicinity of the pier unloading area," while also claiming that it was "likely" that the Israelis arrived by way of the pier, it at least has me waiting on some kind of corroboration. I don't think all those armored vehicles drove down the pier or something.

War Boi
Nov 1, 2021

mlmp08 posted:

I'm not sure, but when the initial claim said they "escaped through Biden's humanitarian pier" and showed a line of armored vehicles on a road, and then the later claim was "look, here is a video of a helicopter taking off from the beach in the near vicinity of the pier unloading area," while also claiming that it was "likely" that the Israelis arrived by way of the pier, it at least has me waiting on some kind of corroboration. I don't think all those armored vehicles drove down the pier or something.

Youíre a good dude and your heart is in the right place but youíre not coming across that way.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

War Boi posted:

Youíre a good dude and your heart is in the right place but youíre not coming across that way.

:shrug: The claim made versus the evidence presented isn't matching up.

It would be a different story if the claim made was "an Israeli helicopter took off from near the pier." I'd agree with that take. I'm not sure I buy that the armored column came from the US pier.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

War Boi posted:

Youíre a good dude and your heart is in the right place but youíre not coming across that way.

There's a distinction between "The US collaborated directly collaborated in this raid" and "The IDF opportunistically exploited the US humanitarian mission for operational success" and the line between the two is whether or not they were allowed to use that pier for their mission. I'm ruling out neither possibility, but I'd like better evidence either way.

edit: Please understand that I'm not giving the IDF any benefit of the doubt here. I just want to be able to make informed opinions.

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

Are there any reliable sources to back up what they tweet was saying? By reliable I mean by some established publication rather than a tweet.

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

A.o.D. posted:

There's a distinction between "The US collaborated directly collaborated in this raid"

The US has told American media that they provided intelligence assistance to the operation.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006
well that's just great. I guess all that's left to figure out is if the US has decided that it's okay to turn aid workers into legitimate military targets.

Quackles
Aug 11, 2018

Pixels of Light.



god drat it

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007



A.o.D. posted:

well that's just great. I guess all that's left to figure out is if the US has decided that it's okay to turn aid workers into legitimate military targets.

I believe that's been US policy for a while now.

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

A.o.D. posted:

well that's just great. I guess all that's left to figure out is if the US has decided that it's okay to turn aid workers into legitimate military targets.

what would lead you to believe that they had changed their mind since the WPK assassinations?

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
US responds to claims that Israelis used the pier in the operation.

https://x.com/centcom/status/1799578307001717226?s=46&t=fppHBZSlD4AbSz5pJxjFMQ

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


mlmp08 posted:

US responds to claims that Israelis used the pier in the operation.

https://x.com/centcom/status/1799578307001717226?s=46&t=fppHBZSlD4AbSz5pJxjFMQ

Okay but that's not the question people are really asking, CENTCOM. I don't think any reasonable person actually believed that armor rolled down the pier with the blessing of the United States; the real question concerns whether the convenient proximity to US forces was a clever trick thought up unilaterally by the IDF or something that was mutually agreed upon.

did they duck under the proverbial umbrella because it was convenient, or were they invited

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003

mlmp08 posted:

So the story has changed from escaping via the pier to a helicopter taking off from the beach within visual range of the pier then.

That sure appears to be like 20m from the pier and solidly inside the security zone created specifically for the pier operations.

It's possible that the video is not related to the operation and is being mischaracterized, but that sure does look like a helicopter taking off from within a literal stone's throw of the pier.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jun 9, 2024

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
Like I said, helicopter appears to be taking off from within visual of the pier. The idea that the armor column in the original video making the claims came from the pier or exited via pier is pretty wild. If video cones out showing Israeli raid members or Israeli armor coming off the pier, Iíll be surprised and eat crow.

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003

The point of fact in question appears to be 'did they use the pier to leave' or 'did they take advantage of the pier security zone and use the pier site to leave via helicopter 25m from the pier.' Which is a semantic distinction that really misses the point.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

Subjunctive posted:

what would lead you to believe that they had changed their mind since the WPK assassinations?

There's evidence that the US was involved in that?

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Herstory Begins Now posted:

Which is a semantic distinction that really misses the point.

It's not really a semantic distinction.

One implies the Israelis used an area close to the pier to fly out troops and rescued hostages.

The other implies the United States used a humanitarian effort to sneak in or out Israeli combat units (or intel units or whatever) and equipment.

That's a pretty significant distinction!

I similarly think it's loving bullshit when the IDF announces that a bakery needs to be bombed and is No Bakery Angel just because a guy with a rifle walked past it a week ago.

Punished Ape
Sep 17, 2021
I guess the thing I'm more concerned about is how many of the 215 Gazans allegedly killed were not actual combatants.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

Punished Ape posted:

I guess the thing I'm more concerned about is how many of the 215 Gazans allegedly killed were not actual combatants.

Most of them, probably. This is the IDF we're talking about.

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003

mlmp08 posted:

It's not really a semantic distinction.

One implies the Israelis used an area close to the pier to fly out troops and rescued hostages.

The other implies the United States used a humanitarian effort to sneak in or out Israeli combat units (or intel units or whatever) and equipment.

That's a pretty significant distinction!

I similarly think it's loving bullshit when the IDF announces that a bakery needs to be bombed and is No Bakery Angel just because a guy with a rifle walked past it a week ago.

What about when your US installed CRAM battery on the pier (and indeed directly visible in the video immediately behind the helicopter) is providing cover to the helicopter landed a literal stones throw away. That's a teensy bit more than 'a guy with a rifle walked past a week ago.' The raison d'etre for that entire pier security area is the humanitarian pier. They bulldozed the entire area specifically for it.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 9, 2024

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

A.o.D. posted:

There's evidence that the US was involved in that?

Oh, not that I know, they just didnít seem upset enough with Israel about it to do anything.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Herstory Begins Now posted:

What about when your US installed CRAM battery on the pier (and indeed directly visible in the video immediately behind the helicopter) is providing cover to the helicopter landed a literal stones throw away. That's a teensy bit more than 'a guy with a rifle walked past a week ago.' The raison d'etre for that entire pier security area is the humanitarian pier. They bulldozed the entire area specifically for it.

This seems to be a post acknowledging that the real point of discussion is about the helicopter. So fair enough, take issue with the Israelis' decision to fly a helicopter off the beach near the pier. That's a rather different thing to debate the ethics/morality of than the original implication that armor and combat troops came and left by way of the pier with US endorsement and perfidy.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

Subjunctive posted:

Oh, not that I know, they just didnít seem upset enough with Israel about it to do anything.

There was some grumbling, but I'm now convinced it was performative.

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003

mlmp08 posted:

This seems to be a post acknowledging that the real point of discussion is about the helicopter. So fair enough, take issue with the Israelis' decision to fly a helicopter off the beach near the pier. That's a rather different thing to debate the ethics/morality of than the original implication that armor and combat troops came and left by way of the pier with US endorsement and perfidy.

Yes I'm limiting the scope of my argument to what there's video footage of. I'm very curious about the rest of the claims, but until there's more evidence I'm not making any argument about it.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

Punished Ape posted:

I guess the thing I'm more concerned about is how many of the 215 Gazans allegedly killed were not actual combatants.

Yeah I'm struggling to care about potential Israeli perfidy (it's a spectrum, if international symbols were used I'd care more) to rescue hostages being hidden in a refugee camp, because that's just one example of Hamas employing perfidy every single day and they're being given a pass for that. It can go on the list of war crimes being committed and they can get to it in order.

I do care whether there was an actual fight or whether Israel decided to do something like delete every building around the target 'just in case'. 200+ killed and more wounded implies a substantial battle, yet the Israeli ground commitment doesn't seem to be proportionate to that. Which implies a shitload of bombs were just dropped on buildings 'because'.

PurpleXVI
Oct 30, 2011

Spewing insults, pissing off all your neighbors, betraying your allies, backing out of treaties and accords, and generally screwing over the global environment?
ALL PART OF MY BRILLIANT STRATEGY!

Alchenar posted:

Yeah I'm struggling to care about potential Israeli perfidy (it's a spectrum, if international symbols were used I'd care more) to rescue hostages being hidden in a refugee camp, because that's just one example of Hamas employing perfidy every single day and they're being given a pass for that. It can go on the list of war crimes being committed and they can get to it in order.

I do care whether there was an actual fight or whether Israel decided to do something like delete every building around the target 'just in case'. 200+ killed and more wounded implies a substantial battle, yet the Israeli ground commitment doesn't seem to be proportionate to that. Which implies a shitload of bombs were just dropped on buildings 'because'.

If you kill 200 people in a refugee camp it doesn't really matter how or why you did it: you're still a bunch of war criming assholes.

And when you're the apartheid state being bankrolled by one of the richest economies in the world, with more or less complete military and strategic superiority, there's more of an onus on you to behave ethically(because you have every chance to, while still completing your goals, unless your goals are inherently unethical).

For instance, freeing the hostages? Just stop the war crimes and release your political prisoners. Boom. You've got them back.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

PurpleXVI posted:

If you kill 200 people in a refugee camp it doesn't really matter how or why you did it: you're still a bunch of war criming assholes.

And when you're the apartheid state being bankrolled by one of the richest economies in the world, with more or less complete military and strategic superiority, there's more of an onus on you to behave ethically(because you have every chance to, while still completing your goals, unless your goals are inherently unethical).

For instance, freeing the hostages? Just stop the war crimes and release your political prisoners. Boom. You've got them back.

Hmm, I don't buy the specific line of argument in bold. The laws of war apply to all parties equally all the time. That means that one sides perfidy does not excuse another's - although one of the reasons for the prohibition is the corrosive effect that initial employment encourages reciprocal measures. But if you believe that then you don't get to talk about onuses to behave more ethically because you are strong or vice versa - war is not a game where you get a handicap advantage if you are weak. I think engaging in that reasoning takes you very quickly into some morally dangerous places.


e: like, I think the issue that skewers Israel more is that you would expect the whole point of perfidy in this sort of operation to be to gain surprise and so avoid blowing up half the refugee camp, which implies that the plan at every stage was 'blow up a load of people, maybe some of them will be Hamas'.

Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Jun 9, 2024

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply