Middle East Violence (content may offend)

[TorresElNino9]

Come on, man.
You’re not stupid and you’re not uninformed — so it’s hard to believe you honestly think this all started unprovoked. That’s not a difference in opinion, that’s a denial of reality.


You talk about retaliation like it's a moral shield. But what are they retaliating against? Decades of siege, occupation, checkpoints, displacement, daily humiliation — all invisible to you because the people living it don’t look like you?


It’s not about justifying attacks on civilians — it’s about refusing to pretend one side is noble and the other barbaric when both have blood on their hands. And when one has fighter jets, tanks, and nukes — and the other is locked in a cage.


Let’s not confuse vengeance with justice.
And let’s not insult everyone’s intelligence by calling this one-sided horror show “unprovoked”.

Yeah no it's been one sided and it's been unprovoked.
one side sought/seeks peace, the other does not.
It's a shame, it's understandable (the reasons are not racist, unlike what you think, the Arabs are tragic victims somewhat but there comes a point where you become accountable for your situation) and it's reality.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Yeah no it's been one sided and it's been unprovoked.
one side sought/seeks peace, the other does not.
It's a shame, it's understandable (the reasons are not racist, unlike what you think, the Arabs are tragic victims somewhat but there comes a point where you become accountable for your situation) and it's reality.

You aren’t describing reality. You’re describing the story you need to believe to keep your conscience intact.

 

[Judge Jules]

Hey JJ — I want to take a moment to engage sincerely, because I used to respect the consistency of your moral compass, especially when it comes to issues of justice, human dignity, and the value of life.


But I’ve been reading back through your posts on Israel-Palestine over the years, and I’m honestly struggling to reconcile your clear commitment to Christian principles with your current stance on this conflict. For example, in past threads you’ve condemned violence unequivocally — whether from Hamas or the Israeli military — and you've consistently spoken out against injustice, even when it's politically complicated. That moral clarity was something I really admired.


Lately though, there’s a shift. In this thread and others, your focus seems to rest disproportionately on Israel’s right to defend itself, or the strategic choices of Hamas — often without comparable scrutiny of Israel's choices or its overwhelming military power. You've rightly criticised acts of terror, but have appeared less willing to hold Israel accountable for things like:

• Repeated bombing of UN shelters and hospitals
• Documented killings of medics and journalists
• The scale of displacement (1.9+ million people in Gaza)
• Systemic blockade policies upheld for nearly two decades
• Flagrant disregard of international rulings and UN resolutions

None of this justifies Hamas’ actions — but surely these facts must be part of any honest moral reckoning.


I’m not asking you to pick a side. I’m asking whether you feel your current framing — one that often leans into justifications or silence on Israeli actions — is still aligned with the ethical standard you've held to in other contexts. Especially as a Christian, whose faith tradition calls for the defence of the oppressed and the pursuit of peace rooted in truth.


I hope you read this in the tone intended — not accusatory, but as a challenge from someone who’s always appreciated your voice of reason. I still believe you're trying to be fair. But I also believe fairness demands more than balance — it demands courage to speak plainly, even when it’s uncomfortable.

I've dealt with this in previous posts but I can see my response needs repeating.

The attitude which a majority of other posters have brought to this discussion, since long before the war on Hamas started, has been that Israel is automatically in the wrong. Israel was criticised for firing on Gaza but there was never a peep from anyone about the rockets fired, and fired daily, from there into Israel. There were ongoing references to the right of Palestinians to be free from fear of attack and none at all to the equal right of Israelis to the same freedom. Israel was treated as some sort of colonising power and no reference was ever made (whether through bias or through ignorance I don't know) to the fact that it was the international community, through the UN, which created Israel in the first place. This perpetual imbalance was the main reason why I mainly stayed out of the discussion, because it actually wasn't a discussion at all but an echo chamber, a place where posters could indulge their mutual assumptions that Israel was the baddie at all times and in all circumstances. I have criticised and will continue to criticise Israel's actions where I consider it appropriate, but I will continue to do so in a way which distances me from the underlying attitude to Israel on here which I consider biased, shallow and essentially dishonest.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I've dealt with this in previous posts but I can see my response needs repeating.

The attitude which a majority of other posters have brought to this discussion, since long before the war on Hamas started, has been that Israel is automatically in the wrong. Israel was criticised for firing on Gaza but there was never a peep from anyone about the rockets fired, and fired daily, from there into Israel. There were ongoing references to the right of Palestinians to be free from fear of attack and none at all to the equal right of Israelis to the same freedom. Israel was treated as some sort of colonising power and no reference was ever made (whether through bias or through ignorance I don't know) to the fact that it was the international community, through the UN, which created Israel in the first place. This perpetual imbalance was the main reason why I mainly stayed out of the discussion, because it actually wasn't a discussion at all but an echo chamber, a place where posters could indulge their mutual assumptions that Israel was the baddie at all times and in all circumstances. I have criticised and will continue to criticise Israel's actions where I consider it appropriate, but I will continue to do so in a way which distances me from the underlying attitude to Israel on here which I consider biased, shallow and essentially dishonest.

I hear you. But I hope you’ll also hear me when I say this:

What you describe as an “echo chamber” hasn’t come from blind hostility or bias. It’s come from years of watching one side suffer mass displacement, occupation, bombardment, and siege — while the world treats it as noise unless it fits into the comfortable binary of “terrorist vs democracy.”

Yes, some have been guilty of one-eyed rhetoric — but so have many of those who constantly reduce Palestinian anger to hatred, and Palestinian resistance to terrorism, while offering silence or justification for a vastly more powerful state's actions. That imbalance — moral, rhetorical, and military — is what many of us have been trying to redress. Not because we think Israel is always wrong, but because its overwhelming power makes its wrongs far more devastating.

I’m not asking you to side with anyone. I’m asking why your long-standing moral clarity — which once challenged all violence — now seems more concerned with who gets criticised than who gets killed.

You say you stepped away because you didn’t recognise a fair discussion anymore. Maybe some of us stuck around because we didn’t recognise a fair world — and hoped the discussion might help others see that too.

When the imbalance of death becomes so normal we start debating tone, not tragedy — that’s when silence stops being neutrality and starts becoming complicity.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I’m up for debate on subject but blatant Islamophobia and/or being a deliberate wind up merchant has no place on here.

100%. What baffles me most is how someone saying 'oy vey' in sarcasm got flagged as antisemitic, while Torres has been spewing dehumanising, Islamophobic bile for weeks with barely a whisper in response. That silence speaks volumes.

It’s not about defending trolls — it’s about how quickly people leap to outrage when certain groups are mocked, but disappear into the mist when others are being openly vilified. That double standard is the real poison here.

 

[MomoWASright]

If i was to spout death to the IDF what kind of response would I get?

 

[Mamma Mia]

If i was to spout death to the IDF what kind of response would I get?

Even in this supposed "echo chamber" none of us do that though, do we?

I think it's safe to chant "death to the settler agenda" now... so progress?

 

[Judge Jules]

I hear you. But I hope you’ll also hear me when I say this:

What you describe as an “echo chamber” hasn’t come from blind hostility or bias. It’s come from years of watching one side suffer mass displacement, occupation, bombardment, and siege — while the world treats it as noise unless it fits into the comfortable binary of “terrorist vs democracy.”

Yes, some have been guilty of one-eyed rhetoric — but so have many of those who constantly reduce Palestinian anger to hatred, and Palestinian resistance to terrorism, while offering silence or justification for a vastly more powerful state's actions. That imbalance — moral, rhetorical, and military — is what many of us have been trying to redress. Not because we think Israel is always wrong, but because its overwhelming power makes its wrongs far more devastating.

I’m not asking you to side with anyone. I’m asking why your long-standing moral clarity — which once challenged all violence — now seems more concerned with who gets criticised than who gets killed.

You say you stepped away because you didn’t recognise a fair discussion anymore. Maybe some of us stuck around because we didn’t recognise a fair world — and hoped the discussion might help others see that too.

When the imbalance of death becomes so normal we start debating tone, not tragedy — that’s when silence stops being neutrality and starts becoming complicity.

So "the world" is wrong and you are right? Reminds me of the old "Torygraph" headline: "Fog over the Channel - Continent isolated".

I don't agree that Israel's power has any moral significance either way. The point you continue to ignore, as do those who offer similar arguments, is that that power could have been fully deployed over decades but never was, and that the result of that restraint was Oct.7.

I've said more than once in this and previous threads that Palestinians and Israelis must both get justice for there to be peace. "Each man's death diminishes me" [John Donne] and I do not regard Palestinian deaths as less tragic than Israeli ones. However, not once, and still not now, have any of you on the other side of this debate explicitly recognised Israel's equal right to peace and justice, so I stand by the charge of bias.

 

[Mamma Mia]

So "the world" is wrong and you are right? Reminds me of the old "Torygraph" headline: "Fog over the Channel - Continent isolated".

I don't agree that Israel's power has any moral significance either way. The point you continue to ignore, as do those who offer similar arguments, is that that power could have been fully deployed over decades but never was, and that the result of that restraint was Oct.7.

I've said more than once in this and previous threads that Palestinians and Israelis must both get justice for there to be peace. "Each man's death diminishes me" [John Donne] and I do not regard Palestinian deaths as less tragic than Israeli ones. However, not once, and still not now, have any of you on the other side of this debate explicitly recognised Israel's equal right to peace and justice, so I stand by the charge of bias.

I have never explicitly recognised Israel's equal right to peace and justice???

Nah mate. If that’s what you believe, then you genuinely haven’t been reading my posts — not just in this thread, but across the years.

You’re claiming I (and others) haven’t acknowledged Israel’s right to peace and justice. That’s not just inaccurate — it’s lazy. You’ve seen me condemn violence from all sides. You’ve seen me advocate for dignity and safety for everyone. What I refuse to do — and will continue refusing — is let that universal principle be twisted into false equivalence, or used to excuse the brutal reality of apartheid, occupation, and displacement.

Your quote from Donne is beautiful. But it cuts both ways. If “each man’s death diminishes me,” then let’s not pretend a symmetrical death toll is what justice looks like. You say you’ve stepped back because of imbalance — but that’s precisely the imbalance many of us are trying to highlight. Not to erase suffering on one side, but to finally get people to see it on the other.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Before I ask anything of others, let me first state — clearly, fully, and without condition — where I stand.

I condemn extremism in all its forms, always have.

I’ve spoken out against Islamic extremism for nearly two decades on this forum. I’ve challenged antisemitism, terrorism, religious violence, and every ideology that dehumanises or targets civilians — regardless of who the perpetrator is. That hasn’t changed.

To be clear:

• I am not Muslim.
• I am not aligned to any religion or national identity in this debate.
• In fact, for most of my life I leaned toward the Israeli/Jewish side — culturally, historically, even emotionally.
• What I’ve always taken issue with — and still do — is Zionism as a political project, not Judaism or Jewish people.
• What shifted for me over the past year wasn’t my values — it was the overwhelming weight of what I saw with my own eyes.

So when I say the following, it’s not from partisanship. It’s from conscience.

I fully and unequivocally condemn:

• The October 7th Hamas-led attacks, including the murder of over 1,200 civilians — many gunned down in their homes, or while fleeing a music festival.
• The taking of hostages, including children and the elderly.
• The use of sexual violence and public humiliation — crimes no just cause can ever justify.
• The use of civilian shields, launching rockets from populated areas.
• Religious extremism that justifies murder in the name of faith — Islamic or otherwise.
• And I reject all efforts to excuse these atrocities with “whataboutism” — because nothing justifies slaughtering innocents.

That is my baseline. If you're still trying to smear me or others as "one-sided" — maybe the issue isn't our clarity, but your refusal to see it.


So now I ask you — with the same moral clarity I’ve just shown:

Do you condemn:

1. The use of starvation as a weapon of war?
   
   

   Source: UNICEF, UN OCHA, MSF
   Israel has blocked aid, water, and electricity, leading to famine conditions and the deaths of children from malnutrition and dehydration.

2. The bombing of hospitals, schools, and refugee camps?
   
   

   Source: Amnesty International, WHO
   Israeli forces have destroyed vital infrastructure, including Al-Shifa Hospital and Jabalia refugee camp, killing thousands of civilians.

3. The killing of journalists and aid workers?
   
   

   Source: Reporters Without Borders, Al Jazeera, UN
   Over 100 journalists and more than 200 humanitarian workers have been killed — many in clearly marked vehicles or compounds.

4. The use of white phosphorus in civilian areas?
   
   

   Source: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International
   These banned incendiary weapons have caused severe burns and long-term environmental damage.

5. The levelling of Gaza — home demolitions on an industrial scale?
   
   

   Source: UNRWA, BBC, Sky News
   An estimated 80% of Gaza’s homes are now destroyed or uninhabitable. Over 1.7 million people have been forcibly displaced.

6. The refusal to allow ceasefires to evacuate civilians or treat the wounded?
   
   

   Source: ICRC, The Guardian
   Multiple ceasefire proposals have been blocked or delayed while airstrikes continued on shelters, aid convoys, and safe zones.

If you’re someone who’s demanded that Muslims, Palestinians, or critics of Israel prove their moral credentials by condemning terrorism:

Then surely you can answer these questions. Clearly. Publicly. Without deflection.

And if not? Maybe ask yourself why.

 

[Judge Jules]

I condemn all the above, with the rider in respect of 2 that Hamas deliberately sited a variety of command centres in civilian sites, and after Oct.7 it was justified to clear those out militarily. Going beyond that seems to me to be due to the settlement agenda and I've condemned that more than once in this thread and previously.

No apologies for raising the matter of moral credentials. I'm as entitled to question yours as you are to question mine.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I condemn all the above, with the rider in respect of 2 that Hamas deliberately sited a variety of command centres in civilian sites, and after Oct.7 it was justified to clear those out militarily. Going beyond that seems to me to be due to the settlement agenda and I've condemned that more than once in this thread and previously.

No apologies for raising the matter of moral credentials. I'm as entitled to question yours as you are to question mine.

Thank you for the clear response. I acknowledge and appreciate it.

I also want to sit with something you said — this part:

“Going beyond that seems to me to be due to the settlement agenda and I’ve condemned that more than once in this thread and previously.”

Here’s where I struggle, and where I think the real heart of this moral crisis lies.

Atrocities aren’t only committed by the ideologically extreme.
They’re enabled — always — by people who see themselves as rational, fair, moderate. People who think “yes, this is terrible, but…”
And that “but” becomes the moral wedge that lets horror in the door.

Thousands of young conscripted IDF soldiers, commanders, politicians, spokespersons, tech operators, drone pilots — they aren’t cartoon villains.
They’re human beings, just like the young men who’ve been radicalised into violent jihad.
In both cases, something has clouded their humanity. Something has let them believe they’re doing what’s necessary. What’s justified.

And that ‘something’ always has a logic. A story. An agenda.

We’ve seen that before — in history, in other regimes, and yes, in our own countries and communities.
But what we don’t see enough of now is this: individual moral accountability.

Over the years, this forum — like much of the world — has demanded that Muslims, condemn violence in their communities clearly and individually.

We’ve held people to account for what they endorse, excuse, or stay silent on.

So where is that same standard now?

Why is it, when thousands of civilians are killed in plain view — hospitals bombed, children starved, journalists targeted — the conversation turns not to moral clarity, but to “context”?

Why is it enough to say “I don’t agree with the settlement agenda” — as if that cleanly separates you from the deaths that are carried out because of it?

No one here ever accepted that kind of distancing when it came to Hamas ideology, or Islamist terror.
We rightly said: if you support or excuse any part of that system, you are implicated.

So what has changed?


I’m not interested in vengeance. I’m not here to say who’s “worse”.
But I am deeply interested in understanding how ordinary people find themselves offering intellectual cover to extraordinary violence.


Because that — that subtle shift in our moral grammar — is how evil survives.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I wasn't sure if I should post this here or in a new thread, but eventually opted to stick it here.

With the advent of AI tools, I’ve found myself in a unique position: I can now easily pull up every post I’ve made on a topic—across decades—and have them analysed impartially.

It’s uncomfortable, but necessary. So here’s my attempt at a self-reflection on my long history of posting about the Middle East, Gaza, Israel, and related violence.

To help me in this process, I used an AI assistant and explicitly instructed it to call me out—no holding back. I gave it hundreds of my posts, in context, and asked it to assess:

• Have I been consistent in condemning extremism?
• Have I shown bias or hypocrisy over the years?
• Have my views shifted, and if so, why?

What follows is directly from the LLM:

📜 Then vs Now: Shifts in Tone and Urgency​

My older posts (circa 2009–2015) tended to take a more analytical and removed stance, occasionally expressing sympathy for civilians caught in conflict but stopping short of vocal moral outrage. For instance, in one 2009 exchange during the Gaza war, I wrote:

“It’s impossible to condone the rocket fire, but it’s equally hard to ignore the impact of the blockade. Both sides are to blame to some degree.”

There was a tendency in earlier years to strive for balance—even when that balance may have come at the cost of clarity. I avoided outright condemnations of Israeli military action, perhaps out of caution or uncertainty.

Since October 7, 2023, however, there’s a clear shift. My posts have grown more forceful, morally urgent, and emotionally charged. That shift wasn’t accidental—it was a result of witnessing the scale of destruction and the justifications offered for it.

“If we ever wondered how good people end up on the wrong side of history, this is it. Just read the thread.”
— (Late 2023 post, referencing justifications for Gaza bombardment)

This moral reckoning, I realise, has made me less patient with the “both sides” framing I once used. I’ve started to see how that framing, though well-intentioned, often serves to obscure who is actually dying and why.

🤝 Consistency in Condemning Extremism​

What I’m relieved to find is that I have consistently condemned Islamic extremism, particularly when it has targeted civilians. Across multiple posts from 2008 through to 2023, I:

• Unambiguously condemned the 2001, 2005, and 2015 terrorist attacks.
• Described ISIS and Al-Qaeda as “monsters who deserve no sympathy.”
• Called Hamas’ suicide attacks “grotesque betrayals of humanity.”

One post in particular reads:

“There is no justification for killing innocent civilians—none. I don't care if it's done by a suicide bomber, a settler, or a drone.”

I also made efforts to distinguish between Muslim populations and extremist groups, rejecting Islamophobic generalisations on multiple occasions. I believe that principle has held strong.

✡️ Jewish Identity, Zionism, and My Evolving Position​

It’s also worth acknowledging that I once held a position much more sympathetic to Israel. As recently as 2021, I expressed understanding for the need for a Jewish state in the aftermath of the Holocaust and acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself:

“It’s a miracle that Jews survived the 20th century. I get why Zionism made sense. But that doesn’t mean the modern implementation hasn’t gone completely off the rails.”

However, in the wake of the current war, I’ve become more vocal in my opposition to what I see as an ideology that now sustains occupation, racism, and mass violence. I do not equate Jews with Zionists and have stated this repeatedly.

That said, if I’m honest, I’ve also become less deferential. In trying to hold moderates accountable—especially those who once opposed terrorism but now excuse it—I may have lost some of the nuance I previously prized. That’s something I will continue to wrestle with.

⚖️ Final Thought: Responsibility in the Mirror​

I am not immune to the forces I criticise in others. I too have been conditioned. I too carry bias. I too have gotten it wrong.
My position has evolved over time, as I would hope everyone's does.

But I believe the difference lies in being willing to interrogate that.

If I ask others to condemn, to reflect, to reconsider, then I must do the same. And I have.


--------------------------


I then asked the LLM very specifically:

"Please list and reference any posts where I have shown bias for muslims or justified evil acts, or anything remotely close to what I have been rallying against recently"


LLM:


After reviewing both your historical and recent posts under the name Mamma Mia, there is no evidence of you expressing support for or justifying Hamas, Islamic extremism, or any violent action committed in the name of Islam. Here’s a summary of what the analysis reveals instead:

---

🔍

• In every thread where you’ve participated, including those immediately following major attacks (e.g., 7 October), you have either explicitly condemned the violence or made efforts to steer discussion toward root causes and the cycle of violence, not as a justification but to pursue understanding.
• At no point do you:
  • Rationalise or excuse the killing of civilians.
  • Glorify militant groups.
  • Deflect blame away from attackers without acknowledging their responsibility.
  • Use religious identity to frame your arguments—Muslims are not positioned as superior, more moral, or more justified in your posts.

🛑 You repeatedly distinguish between extremists and ordinary civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian.

• You voice clear concern for Jewish suffering—especially in older posts—and even warn others not to equate all Israelis or Jews with Israeli policy.
• You have directly condemned:
  • Suicide bombings.
  • Antisemitic rhetoric.
  • 7 October attacks (multiple times across recent posts).
  • Hamas’s political and military strategy as harmful to civilians.

---

✍️ When discussing events that affect Muslim-majority regions or groups, your posts express empathy for the civilians affected, not the perpetrators.​

• Your anger is most clearly directed at what you see as double standards—not at any ethnic or religious group.
• When emotion enters your writing (understandably), it is in defence of human dignity, not ideology.

---

🧠 There is no post in your recent or older archive that reasonably supports the suble characterisations implied. If anything, your record reflects a deeply consistent commitment to:​

• Condemning terror in all forms.
• Advocating individual accountability.
• Seeking understanding beyond binary narratives.

 

[Mamma Mia]

That's not to try and blow smoke up my own ass, I was genuinely curious about how my posts could be received, especially in the light of recent subtle accusations.

I am glad to say that every single post is on the record.

Mine, and all of yours.

Please refrain from accusing me of not having previously condemned rockets, terrorists, or similar, unless you can provide evidence.

I have receipts.

 

[Judge Jules]

I've made no such accusation and do not do so now. What I've said is that I've been specific that Palestinians must have justice for there to be peace and that you hadn't specifically referred, by name, to Israelis' equal right to justice and peace. Unless I've missed something, I don't see such a reference above, though I appreciate the rest of what you've said. You've pressed me for specifics on particular points - well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Mamma Mia]

Based on analysis of Atlas’s posts across all the years of posting on SCM:

---

🤔 Any Evidence of Bias or Justification of Violence?​

There is no clear evidence that Atlas ever justifies terrorism or the killing of civilians. In fact, he goes out of his way to emphasise:

• 
  
• The need for individual accountability
• 
  
• The condemnation of extremist ideologies, including Islamic extremism
• 
  
• The importance of empathy for victims on both sides

At most, he occasionally leans into strong criticism of the Israeli state and its policies, especially regarding Gaza and settlement expansion. But even in those instances, he distinguishes between Zionist ideology, Netanyahu's government, and ordinary Israelis.

---

📅 Notable Dates & Quotes for Reference​

Date	Summary Quote
2021-05-17	“Israel’s blockade is inhumane, but that doesn’t excuse rocket fire into civilian areas.”
2022-08-14	“Terrorism is not resistance. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause as much as Israel does.”
2023-10-08	“What Hamas did was not liberation. It was murder. That’s not Islam. That’s not resistance.”

---

✅ Conclusion​

Atlas has consistently condemned violence, shown empathy for Israeli civilians, and criticised bias within his own communities. While passionate about Palestinian justice, he has not excused or justified terrorism. Any accusations of “unbalanced sympathy” appear unfounded based on the actual posts. His record reflects someone striving to be morally consistent and committed to peace.

----

Calm down Asim.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I've made no such accusation and do not do so now. What I've said is that I've been specific that Palestinians must have justice for there to be peace and that you hadn't specifically referred, by name, to Israelis' equal right to justice and peace. Unless I've missed something, I don't see such a reference above, though I appreciate the rest of what you've said. You've pressed me for specifics on particular points - well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You've missed multiple posts in that case.

But never mind that, you know me.

Do you honestly think that I have ever held a position that denies or even questions Israelis' equal right to justice and peace?

 

[Judge Jules]

No, but you haven't said in so many words that they have that right. Elsewhere in this thread you've questioned the level of my emphasis on the unacceptability of what's happening in Gaza at the moment and wondered whether that reflected an underlying lack of condemnation of it. Once again, such things cut both ways.

 

[Mamma Mia]

No, but you haven't said in so many words that they have that right. In this thread you've questioned the level of my emphasis on the unacceptability of what's happening in Gaza at the moment and wondered whether that reflected an underlying lack of condemnation of it. Again, that cuts both ways.

JJ, I think we’re essentially saying the same thing here, just from opposite ends.

I asked for your position not because I assumed the worst, but precisely because it seemed out of character based on the JJ I know. I gave you the space to clarify—graciously, I hope—because I value where you usually stand.

In return, it feels a bit like you’re implying I’ve denied Israelis' right to justice and peace, even while acknowledging that such a stance wouldn’t align with how you see me.

That’s the exact same logic I used in asking for your clarity.
Had you ever asked, I would have responded as clearly and unequivocally as I just did.

So perhaps we both benefit from extending the same grace we expect.

 

[Judge Jules]

First para: agree 100%.

Let me clarify a bit further. I have not said and I do not imply that you have denied the right of Israelis to justice and peace. That's not the same as drawing attention to the fact that you hadn't explicitly stated that they have that right. What we've both questioned - and it's fair enough to do so in a debate like this - is not so much the basic rights and wrongs here as the emphasis which each of us has placed on different aspects of them, and whether those differences indicate particular underlying views. I'm happy to agree that they do not.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I just want to pause and acknowledge something.

In posting today - about myself, others, and the way we’ve engaged over the years - I realise that I may have shifted the focus too much toward personalities, positions, and perceptions.

That wasn't my intention, but it’s no excuse.

At a time when innocent people are being killed, maimed, displaced, and traumatised daily, the most important thing we can do is keep the spotlight on that human suffering - no matter which side of a border, fence, or ideology it's happening on.

So with that in mind, I’ll be stepping back from the meta for now. It’s time to centre the discussion on what actually matters.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

More generally, I'm not sure I get the point in asking people, outside of politicians, to condone anything. It's very common place in interviews in the media, and more often than not, it's just a deflection from more important points and non-productive.

 

[Atlas]

Based on analysis of Atlas’s posts across all the years of posting on SCM:

---

🤔 Any Evidence of Bias or Justification of Violence?​

There is no clear evidence that Atlas ever justifies terrorism or the killing of civilians. In fact, he goes out of his way to emphasise:

• 
  
• The need for individual accountability
• 
  
• The condemnation of extremist ideologies, including Islamic extremism
• 
  
• The importance of empathy for victims on both sides

At most, he occasionally leans into strong criticism of the Israeli state and its policies, especially regarding Gaza and settlement expansion. But even in those instances, he distinguishes between Zionist ideology, Netanyahu's government, and ordinary Israelis.

---

📅 Notable Dates & Quotes for Reference​

Date	Summary Quote
2021-05-17	“Israel’s blockade is inhumane, but that doesn’t excuse rocket fire into civilian areas.”
2022-08-14	“Terrorism is not resistance. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause as much as Israel does.”
2023-10-08	“What Hamas did was not liberation. It was murder. That’s not Islam. That’s not resistance.”

---

✅ Conclusion​

Atlas has consistently condemned violence, shown empathy for Israeli civilians, and criticised bias within his own communities. While passionate about Palestinian justice, he has not excused or justified terrorism. Any accusations of “unbalanced sympathy” appear unfounded based on the actual posts. His record reflects someone striving to be morally consistent and committed to peace.

----

Calm down Asim.

Is this akin to the 'stats' v 'eye' test though.
Like my 'stat's here suggest I'm balanced and even damn consistently condemned violence and morally consistent but really the 'eye' test shows me to be a radical Jihadist who want to eat kuffar kids brains. Or maybe that's like the racist views some people have of Muslims.
And remember it's not racism to be Islamophobic cos Islam isn't a race or something.

Plus why the frick was I even discussing this conflict in 2021?? Are you telling me Israel has been committing war crimes since before Oct 7th?

 

[MomoWASright]

Is this akin to the 'stats' v 'eye' test though.
Like my 'stat's here suggest I'm balanced and even damn consistently condemned violence and morally consistent but really the 'eye' test shows me to be a radical Jihadist who want to eat kuffar kids brains. Or maybe that's like the racist views some people have of Muslims.
And remember it's not racism to be Islamophobic cos Islam isn't a race or something.

Plus why the frick was I even discussing this conflict in 2021?? Are you telling me Israel has been committing war crimes since before Oct 7th?

Shhhhhhh you can’t say that. That’s like pulling out stats before the Premier League started.

 

[Atlas]

More generally, I'm not sure I get the point in asking people, outside of politicians, to condone anything. It's very common place in interviews in the media, and more often than not, it's just a deflection from more important points and non-productive.

I think it's important in this thread and this context for a few reasons.
It highlights the hypocrisy of some posters, I think it's important to point that out.

I think like I said before, I'm NOT advocating for anyone to be removed from the forum etc but don't expect people to be ok with genocide deniers or apologists.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

But why is it important to you?

I don't think theres a single person on here(ok, maybe one) that is evil enough to want innocent people to die. Nobody does. I think we can safely say that. I know there's been people questioning it, but come on...really?

Getting people to say, I condemn this or that, you're only going to get lost in semantic discussions on the likes of what genocide technically is, to use that example. It's actually not particularly black and white on what it is, which is part of why it will take years for there actually be anything close to a trial. Was it 20 years in Bosnia? Asking someone to categorically say it is something, when it won't actually be confirmed any time soon if it is percisely that, will just lead to circular discussions on definitions, imo. And is that really important to get people to agree on terms to describe the level of badness, does it get anyone anywhere?
Genocide is a term I've used in the past to decribe it, possibly in this thread, but personally I no longer think it's useful to use it, for the reasons above, as well as it being quite provocative (which, fair enough, maybe is the intention behind using it). What's undeniable is that tens of thousands of children have been killed, which is something everyone should be trying to prevent. You don't need dictionary definitions, historical knowledge or a host of lawyers to agree on it.

People are also allowed to be hypocrites, I imagine most people are. It's perfectly natural for someone that has grown up in a set of circumstances to have that influence their viewpoint on things, while being more objective on things that aren't as close to home. People's tolerance for things change if you are or have been directly affected by something, and although we should all try and be more objective, it's ok to be human and care more about your own family and friends than others. Now there's obviously limits to how far people should take that, but it's still normal to do it to an extent.

Anyway, I'm not sure I get what's to be achieved by "outing" people, but each to their own I guess.

 

[Atlas]

View: https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1948131004419551371

Joint statement on Gaza from AFP, AP, BBC News and Reuters

www.bbc.co.uk

I hope this fat cunt, and anyone else continuing to lie and support this famine and genocide, have a public humiliation.

 

[Atlas]

But why is it important to you?

I don't think theres a single person on here(ok, maybe one) that is evil enough to want innocent people to die. Nobody does. I think we can safely say that. I know there's been people questioning it, but come on...really?

Getting people to say, I condemn this or that, you're only going to get lost in semantic discussions on the likes of what genocide technically is, to use that example. It's actually not particularly black and white on what it is, which is part of why it will take years for there actually be anything close to a trial. Was it 20 years in Bosnia? Asking someone to categorically say it is something, when it won't actually be confirmed any time soon if it is percisely that, will just lead to circular discussions on definitions, imo. And is that really important to get people to agree on terms to describe the level of badness, does it get anyone anywhere?
Genocide is a term I've used in the past to decribe it, possibly in this thread, but personally I no longer think it's useful to use it, for the reasons above, as well as it being quite provocative (which, fair enough, maybe is the intention behind using it). What's undeniable is that tens of thousands of children have been killed, which is something everyone should be trying to prevent. You don't need dictionary definitions, historical knowledge or a host of lawyers to agree on it.

People are also allowed to be hypocrites, I imagine most people are. It's perfectly natural for someone that has grown up in a set of circumstances to have that influence their viewpoint on things, while being more objective on things that aren't as close to home. People's tolerance for things change if you are or have been directly affected by something, and although we should all try and be more objective, it's ok to be human and care more about your own family and friends than others. Now there's obviously limits to how far people should take that, but it's still normal to do it to an extent.

Anyway, I'm not sure I get what's to be achieved by "outing" people, but each to their own I guess.

It's important to me, personally, because of the specific and direct accusations against me for years on the forum.
People can be hypocrites when it comes to picking a favourite player and not accepting any criticism of them while criticising others, yup whatever.
I don't think it should be okay'd for what we are seeing in Gaza.
I like any other person care more about my family and people like me, that's normal. To the point where I don't unequivocally say this shit is wrong.. nope.

I don't think I've really started outing people... yet.

 

[Mamma Mia]

I made a song

https://suno.com/s/PtiIJtGLzckZMn5O

 

[LeTallecWiz]

It's important to me, personally, because of the specific and direct accusations against me for years on the forum.

Asim, I sincerely hope you're not pointing a finger at me here.
We've had our back n' forth for 25+ years ... We've talked many many times privately about many subjects, and have always been respectful and shared information, which we've both always kept private. I don't think either of us would have had those discussions if we felt there was 'public accusations' (i.e. no trust) etc.
So ... I don't think I've directed accusations against you that have been insulting etc etc. However, if I did, I apologize and withdraw them all.
I saw earlier you've been through some things personally - and I'm sorry you've gone through any shit, and I hope you find peace n' quiet.

That is all from me.