[alancalverd]

official death toll

Source? Corroboration?

Truth is the first casualty in war. But we can see some objective facts:

This war can be halted in a moment by Hamas releasing all the remaining hostages and surrendering. Until they do so, Gaza's civilians will continue to suffer, which is their clear intention as it makes the world's Press sympathetic to the cause of terrorism and the annihilation of Israel.

Beware of irrelevant character profiles. Hitler was a vegetarian who loved children and dogs. Churchill was a philandering drunkard. Trumpf is a pro-life teetotaller who has been photographed clutching a bible outside a church (admittedly the church was closed and the book was upside down, but these are mere details.)

Old Catholic saying: "Every saint has a past; every sinner has a future."  So if you want to trivialise Gaza into a choice between individuals, let's choose between a petty crook who has been democratically elected to defend Israel, and a bunch of nameless career murderers and perverts who have contracted to destroy it regardless of the cost to their civilian population.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

official death toll

Source? Corroboration?

Truth is the first casualty in war. But we can see some objective facts:

This war can be halted in a moment by Hamas releasing all the remaining hostages and surrendering. Until they do so, Gaza's civilians will continue to suffer, which is their clear intention as it makes the world's Press sympathetic to the cause of terrorism and the annihilation of Israel.

Beware of irrelevant character profiles. Hitler was a vegetarian who loved children and dogs. Churchill was a philandering drunkard. Trumpf is a pro-life teetotaller who has been photographed clutching a bible outside a church (admittedly the church was closed and the book was upside down, but these are mere details.)

Old Catholic saying: "Every saint has a past; every sinner has a future."  So if you want to trivialise Gaza into a choice between individuals, let's choose between a petty crook who has been democratically elected to defend Israel, and a bunch of nameless career murderers and perverts who have contracted to destroy it regardless of the cost to their civilian population.

The death toll in Gaza has been reported to be around 56,647 as of July 1, 2025, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. This number includes both fatalities from the initial Israeli war on Gaza starting October 7, 2023, and those from the resumed military offensive on March 18, 2025.

Breakdown of Death Toll:

- Total Deaths: 56,647 (since October 7, 2023)
- Injuries: 134,105 (since October 7, 2023)
- Recent Fatalities: 116 deaths in the past 24 hours (as of July 1, 2025)
- Deaths Since March 18, 2025: 6,315

It's worth noting that the death toll numbers may vary slightly depending on the source, but the Palestinian Ministry of Health's numbers are widely cited. Additionally, a study by The Economist estimated that the actual death toll could be 46-107% higher than the official toll, suggesting 77,000 to 109,000 Gazans were killed ? ?.

To prevent undesired result from repeating, you must first identify the root cause, as well as contributing causes. Then explore possible options to address those causes. Consider their costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses, probability of success. Then make plans and execute best options.
Even if we ignore any conflicts prior to October 7th, we still have to answer why Hamas succeeded with their plan in the first place?
Soldiers don't act by themselves. Their leaders order them.
If the leader's interests are not aligned with their people's, the people will pay the price for choosing the wrong leaders.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

this is why people hate philosophers

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 Would You Pull it Twice?
10:09 It's Only a Dollar!

Some comments on the video.

You've pulled the lever, but then you realize the 5 people you saved were philosophers. Do you pull the lever again?

Any good philosopher knows that they do everything they can to not be in that situation.

"The Trolley Problem is a hypothetical. If your life is steeped in sin I'm sure you live in hypotheticals. I would have done everything I bloody well could so I wouldn?t be in that situation to begin with.
.
.
.
Don't be a smartass."

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart, Rush

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"We're Paying For The Weapons And We're Giving Them Cover" - Clarissa Ward On U.S. Actions In Gaza

Stephen's conversation with Clarissa Ward, reporting remotely from Jordan, continues with an examination of feelings towards the United States among civilians in the Middle East, in the context of America's bombing of Iran and continuing support for Israel's military actions in Gaza.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://youtube.com/shorts/_kpdxwzL_pA?feature=shared

Just in case you haven't heard this story yet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yanis Varoufakis, Jeremy Corbyn, Malcolm Rifkind, and Bronwen Maddox debate the failures of international law to stop the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Are Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes? And if so, will they ever face justice for the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine?

"In times of war, the law falls silent" declared Cicero. And 2000 years on, it remains unknown whether international law has any real power in war, or whether, in the end, military and economic power are the only ultimately effective forces. International law did not prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, the US from engaging in torture in Guantanamo Bay, Hamas' attacking Israel on Oct 7th, or Israel from destroying much of Gaza in response. Moreover, Trump appears to have decided that Russia's military strength in Ukraine is reason to allow it to keep territory. Chairman Mao, it seems, had a point when he said "power grows from the barrel of a gun."

We recognise war as an exceptional circumstance where acts like murder are permitted, should we give up trying to apply the law to it? With the US, Russia and others breaking international law, should we conclude that international law is unenforceable unless imposed by the victor? Or is international law both necessary and vital to contain the worst atrocities?

[alancalverd]

We recognise war as an exceptional circumstance where acts like murder are permitted,

Oddly, it isn't.

The rules of war are distinctly British, and are unlikely to make sense to anyone who hasn't played rugby or cricket, or boxed under Queensberry rules. Essentially, you can kill an aggressor in action but must take care of him if he surrenders. "In action" includes ostensibly or provably preparing to fight, hence bombing a camp or a warship is entirely OK, but even that was questioned when the Brits sank an Argentine ship that appeared to be leaving the combat zone.

The rules were muddied during WWI when German airships bombed "civilian" targets such as docks and armaments factories and caused some collateral damage, and the Spanish Civil War when the fascists started directly strafing refugee columns in order to hamper the republicans. And whilst siege has long been a reasonable tactic against a fortification, does the sinking of merchant ships supplying an island constitute a legitimate act of war or indiscriminate murder of civilians?

It has long been accepted that spies can be killed, but soldiers captured in uniform must be treated humanely as prisoners. In1942 the fascist filth refused to play by the rules and issued the "Commando Order" to kill airborne infantry and others found "offside" behind  the front line - distinctly "not cricket" and adjudged a war crime at Nuremberg.

Fact is that since the 1930s, far more civilians have been killed in wartime than actual combatants, and when the combatants skulk under schools and hospitals with their rocket launchers, even more civilians have to die.

When is bombing an atrocity?  Back to the laws of rugby and cricket: when it is plainly unnecessary. The destruction of Hamburg and the Ruhr dams can be seen as legitimate "hot pursuit" of strategic targets, and few complain about Doolittle's  conventional bombing of Japan, but Dresden and Nagasaki have been argued as, if not actually "punching after the bell",  possibly "bowling bouncers at the tail".     

"Atrocity" should not be used loosely.

 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We recognise war as an exceptional circumstance where acts like murder are permitted,

Oddly, it isn't.

The rules of war are distinctly British, and are unlikely to make sense to anyone who hasn't played rugby or cricket, or boxed under Queensberry rules. Essentially, you can kill an aggressor in action but must take care of him if he surrenders. "In action" includes ostensibly or provably preparing to fight, hence bombing a camp or a warship is entirely OK, but even that was questioned when the Brits sank an Argentine ship that appeared to be leaving the combat zone.

The rules were muddied during WWI when German airships bombed "civilian" targets such as docks and armaments factories and caused some collateral damage, and the Spanish Civil War when the fascists started directly strafing refugee columns in order to hamper the republicans. And whilst siege has long been a reasonable tactic against a fortification, does the sinking of merchant ships supplying an island constitute a legitimate act of war or indiscriminate murder of civilians?

It has long been accepted that spies can be killed, but soldiers captured in uniform must be treated humanely as prisoners. In1942 the fascist filth refused to play by the rules and issued the "Commando Order" to kill airborne infantry and others found "offside" behind  the front line - distinctly "not cricket" and adjudged a war crime at Nuremberg.

Fact is that since the 1930s, far more civilians have been killed in wartime than actual combatants, and when the combatants skulk under schools and hospitals with their rocket launchers, even more civilians have to die.

When is bombing an atrocity?  Back to the laws of rugby and cricket: when it is plainly unnecessary. The destruction of Hamburg and the Ruhr dams can be seen as legitimate "hot pursuit" of strategic targets, and few complain about Doolittle's  conventional bombing of Japan, but Dresden and Nagasaki have been argued as, if not actually "punching after the bell",  possibly "bowling bouncers at the tail".     

"Atrocity" should not be used loosely.

 

Rules of war has been existing before Britain even existed yet. Although they change with time and places.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Too many people believe in something closer to freedom from speech rather than freedom of speech," says attorney Greg Lukianoff. In a timely talk, he warns against the rise of "mob censorship" ? and reminds us why free speech is the best check on power ever invented. (Recorded at TED2025 on April 9, 2025)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Carl Jung and The Most Important Rule of Life

My comment on the video.

What's left in the future will come from those who continuously make the right decisions in things that's critical to their continuation of consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As a recent episode of his show demonstrates, Bill Maher loves nothing more than promoting a one-sided narrative that frames Israel as the perpetual victim while disregarding Palestinian suffering and treating Hamas as Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin all rolled together times a million.

As Jimmy points out, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Zionist leaders intentionally propped up Hamas to weaken the more moderate PLO, using this as a strategy to avoid peace negotiations and justify ongoing military actions. Israel allowed Hamas to grow in power, funded them indirectly, and used the October 7th attacks as a pretext to launch a full-scale assault on Gaza. Ultimately, the video suggests the true goal is not stopping terrorism but ethnically cleansing Gaza and expanding Israeli control.

Which side of the story makes more sense?

[alancalverd]

The one supported by actual evidence.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The one supported by actual evidence.

Like this.
ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas commander | UN News https://share.google/RUQwLXMyleHnaH7uk


Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel?s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant | International Criminal Court https://share.google/G1Z4cRuSDx5wCRgHf

?ICC arrest warrants can help save lives, must be respected and complied with?: UN experts | OHCHR https://share.google/wHQG2nWMkPQc1JpfM

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is it ethical for parents to choose their baby?s traits? - Michael Vazquez and Raye Ploeger

Puzzle through this classic ethical dilemma and decide: should parents be able to choose genetic traits for their children?

--

Andre and Leslie are a deaf couple who have decided to have a child, and they?re considering using a process to ensure deafness in their child. As deaf parents, they feel they could provide better guidance to a child that would share their lived experience and grow up immersed in deaf culture. But is this genetic intervention ethical? Michael Vazquez and Raye Ploeger explore this classic dilemma.

Lesson by Michael Vazquez and Raye Ploeger, directed by Luisa Holanda.

This video was produced in collaboration with the Parr Center for Ethics, housed within the renowned Philosophy Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Parr Center is committed to integrating abstract work in ethical theory with the informed discussion of practical ethical issues, and prides itself on the development of innovative and inclusive approaches to moral and civic education.

Some interesting comments on the video.

I had to repeat this part three times to assure I heard it right.
"To insure deafness for there child"
What kind of sick parents would even think about this?!!!

Fr, I had to do a double take, triple take, quadruple take, infinite take. That got me fuhhed up 🤣. Id feel bad for the kid, but they are self filtering darwining themselves out so I'm for it tbh

[alancalverd]

Issuing an arrest warrant is not proof of guilt. It is, however, a fact that the ICC represents many anti-Jewish theocracies and dictatorships, and only one Jewish democracy.

[alancalverd]

I've had a few brushes with the "deaf culture" lobby and whilst it is eloquent, I don't find it convincing.

I have hearing friends who participate in deaf social activities, and I've seen no evidence that deaf society is exclusive of hearing people or in any way culturally richer than society in general, which includes a majority of hearing people.

Some friends are blind from birth, a sighted friend has blind parents, and I have acquaintances with varying degrees of leglessness and cerebral palsy. I've never heard any of them express a wish that their children (or anyone else) should be like them.

The rule of life surely is that you choose your mate (accepting the general prohibitions on incest),  let the genetic lottery take its course, and make the best of whatever the statistics send you.