They have and are asking that question and knew there would be retaliation.

Here is a long comprehensive interview with Hamas form July, asking the difficult questions

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/on-the-record-with-hamas/

Hamad told me that no one involved with the planning of the October 7 attacks that he spoke with predicted the full scope of Israel’s response and that many Hamas leaders expected a more intense and prolonged version of previous Israeli attacks on Gaza. “This is a point that is very sensitive,” he said. “No one expected this reaction from the Israel side, because what happened now in Gaza, it is a full destruction of Gaza, killing about 40,000 people, destroying all the institutions, hospitals and everything. I know the situation is horrible in Gaza. It’s very, very hard. And we need at least ten years to reconstruct Gaza.”

“This war is totally different,” Hamad said. “Totally different.”

Ok so a "No I will not list the atrocities committed" would have been much shorter.  Instead I get deflection.  I am not disappointed.  You will hang the moniker of "systemic" on the rapes so as to deny there was rape.  Special kind of special at play again. You should apply to be an ABC fact checker.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68474899

Sorry I do not follow many of your links (some sources look sketchy) as for reading ...

It's a real nightmare, because most of the injuries, most of the casualties - they lost either one of their eyes or both eyes sometimes. And the facial injuries are really massive because of the explosion of whatever devices they were holding in their hands. We couldn't save much of the eyes. And in some cases, we had even to remove both eyes of the patients because the damage was so great. I mean, you cannot even resuture the eye.

the first day, we left the operating room around 5 in the morning, and the second day, we left at around 2 in the morning. So it has been hectic for the past two or three days. And most of the casualties, they are young people. They are in their 20s. All of the casualties, we requested to do a CT scan for the brain and the orbits, because some of the patients, they had intracranial shrapnel. They had some injuries to the brain, so they had to be operated by neurosurgeons, and then we went in as an ophthalmology team just to treat their eyes. But the - unfortunately, I mean, there is not a single casualty who didn't lose at least one eye.

My bad I thought "most" meant "not all" I will try to read better and remember that "most of the injuries, most of the casualties - they lost either one of their eyes or both eyes sometimes" really means "there is not a single casualty who didn't lose at least one eye." Silly me, I thought those two statements were at odds and that the line I bolded in the second article supported that. I'll try to read SvennoJ style next time.

The person I responded to didn't even acknowledge the method used here, which is the primary reason a lot of people are reacting so strongly towards it. Some who normally don't even participate in political discussions are commenting how insane this sounds.

So don't you think focusing on morals or justification instead misses most of the point of this thread?
There is an Israel-Hamas war thread (or Ukraine thread) where that's already discussed.

I created this one primarily due to the method used.

"When Russia's hypothetical reason is "funding Ukraine" then they look insane"

The reason I went with "funding Ukraine" is that it makes for a much broader target enemy than just let's say a platoon that is actively engaged with Russia. I'm sure they're displeased with any nation providing any sort of support to Ukraine. And that's where it starts.
If the platoon is hurt, the politicians making these decsions will condemn the attack, but still continue to send funds and weapons
But if civilians are hurt (or even targetted) in their own country, it's going to be a very different matter.

What I think makes this method more terrifying than most forms of terror attacks we tend to see is the combination of potential anonymity, accesibility, and scale being essentially anywhere in the world.

Israel haven't officially taken responsibility for this (as far as I'm aware), but they're also seemingly not concerned with trying to hide it, because they'll be backed by USA essentially no matter what they do. (They shut off water for Paletsinean civilians for example, which is a war crime.)

But another group could potentially go through more hoops to make the source of the attack a lot more confusing.
And their reason for the attack could be anything, because they don't have to justify it to the world.

It's not me that hung the 'systematic' moniker on the rapes. It's the media. I never denied that there were no instances of rape. What I'm saying is there was no systematic rape campaign as the media has been shouting since Oct 7 (as some sort of excuse or distraction to what's being done to Gaza)

I'm sorry I don't trust the BBC anymore, they have been caught lying and have shown nothing but bias when it comes to the ME. Even some of their own reporters have turned against the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181
"Nothing happened by coincidence. Rape was systematic."


And that UN report has been twisted in many ways. Reading the source you get

reasonable grounds .... in at least three locations
.... may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence
Other reported instances of rape could not be verified in the time allotted.
heard of other allegations of rape that could not yet be verified.
at least two allegations of sexual violence widely repeated in the media, were unfounded ...
Other allegations, including of objects intentionally inserted into female genital organs, could not be verified
reports of conflict-related sexual violence, including at least one instance of rape, could not be verified
reports of sexual violence including a case of rape and genital mutilation, neither of which could be verified

Now when it comes to the hostages

With respect to hostages, the mission team found clear and convincing information that some have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence including rape and sexualized torture and sexualized cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and it also has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing.

What information, who supplied the information.

Then she calls the mission incompetent.

The mission was neither intended to, and nor could the mission team, in such a short period of time, establish the prevalence of conflict-related sexual violence during and after the 7 October attacks. The overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would require a comprehensive investigation by competent bodies.


The NY Times debacle made me very skeptical. Especially where the family of the victim said the NYT took things out of context and there never was any rape committed (in their case)

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/family-of-key-case-in-new-york-times-october-7-sexual-violence-report-renounces-story-says-reporters-manipulated-them/

A New York Times story claiming a pattern of gender-based violence on October 7 hinged on the story of Gal Abdush. But the Abdush family says there is no proof she was raped, and that Times reporters interviewed them under false pretenses.



Btw there is also no proof Hamas has been hiding in schools and hospitals. Whatever flimsy 'evidence' the IDF has concocted has been debunked. No Hamas command centers have been found. It's the standard lie the IDF uses to excuse their actions. In their view everyone is a human shield that is still in the area after they issue another evacuation order.

Also Hamas is more than resistance fighters, they are the entire government. Civil workers, police, paramedics, teachers. So in that sense, yes Hamas is 'hiding' in schools and hospitals. Everyone on the government payroll is considered a target by Israel. They're not part of Oct 7 though, didn't even know about it as Sinwar held it a tight secret to a small group. Yet Israel's Lavender AI is targeting families of civil servants regardless.



As for atrocities committed on Oct 7, murder, kidnap, sexual violence likely including rape, late disorganized response leading to more deaths including friendly fire.

-"So don't you think focusing on morals or justification instead misses most of the point of this thread?"

Given the specific scenario which prompted that response, I think it's a natural outgrowth of this thread.  I'll put it like this: when you're trying to argue in hypothetical scenarios to another poster, I think it's mutually beneficial to make it closer to a 1:1 analogy when possible.  Then you can interrogate the thought process with a clearer understanding.  

Hell, even my previous mercenary hypothetical wasn't as strong as I initially thought either.  Going by SvennoJ's extra info on Hezbollah, we can add *another* layer and imagine if said crew wasn't strictly just a "quasi-NATO mercenary group" but also had sitting parliamentary members within each NATO country: USA, UK, France, Turkey, and so on.  *Now* Putin's beeper bomb justifications get even stronger since he can argue "look: you literally have this crew firing rockets into Russia's sovereign territory and you're doing nothing to arrest them???  So, stuffing some explosives into their next shipment of Samsung Galaxy Notes"  Now I look at my mom's injuries and just feel like cursing everyone who'd ever let it get this far.

-"What I think makes this method more terrifying than most forms of terror attacks we tend to see is the combination of potential anonymity, accesibility, and scale being essentially anywhere in the world."

I mean... maybe?  While I follow your mindset, it just strikes me more as incompetent rubes caught with their pants down.  Even in backwater countries, it's not all that hard for any standing army or "insurgency group" to check all of their equipment for these sorts of issues.  Same should go for any wealthy nations scanning everything that arrives at our ports.

[Sorry for being so late on this one, but I wanted to respond to the one quote that prompted me.]