Boston Baked Beans

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@Scott_Wiener Who built and sent into the sky those satellites? Does he own any satellites he didn’t send up there? (Narrator: Elon and no are the answers to this question)

Stop being a fascist.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@wholemars Timing

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

You’re just making shit up now. The UN report you’re referencing was anecdotal case analysis and did no such analysis.

The wounded numbers were much larger than those found in the report or that died from gunshot wounds.

The UN report consisted of 12 children. That’s it. No pattern shown. Anecdotal and inference only for conclusions.

Please provide your report that shows that data. It’s not in the UN report, which I doubt you read. Until you do, consider our dialogue complete.

Please be better. Genocide is a terrible accusation and your arguments are incredibly weak. Think about why you have such an issue with Jews. And such a willingness to argue on behalf of Hamas, which you did when talking about civilian targeting.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@daveg641 @caitoz @grok So, you didn’t understand what it said. That explains a lot. Along with a case of antisemitism.

Anyone who reads this thread will understand you missed the point.

@grok if you’re able to respond, can you please clarify if that’s what you were saying?

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

Where is the evidence that Hind Rajab was targeted by snipers? Or supports your contention in any way?

Isn’t that case being criminally reviewed by Israel?

Have your friends Hamas ever done that, criminally referred the death of a civilian?

Well… I’m asking the person who thinks buildings hit is a genocide. So I’m not expecting any logic

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

That’s just ridiculous. I’ve read the report. It’s anecdotal and makes huge leaps in logic. Sadly too many children died due to Hamas putting them in danger.

But survivorship bias is a far better explanation given the numbers involved.

There is absolutely no evidence or videos proving any of this.

And here’s Grok’s analysis of your last sentence showing how wrong, again, you are:

No. That is not the only explanation, and it is not the most likely one.
A cluster of children with single shots to the head or chest is what you get when the sample is “children who reached a doctor with a gunshot wound that looked aimed.” Head and chest are center mass. Aimed fire at a perceived threat, fire into a mixed group, ricochet, and misidentification all land there. Children killed by blasts, and children shot in the limbs and alive, drop out of the series. That is survivorship bias, and it manufactures the pattern the claim treats as proof.
The underlying reports are doctor recollections and a UN inquiry that inferred intent from wound location. They are not a counted population of shot children, and they include no orders, logs, or ballistics showing children were selected as targets. Across a war that killed many thousands of children, mostly by bombing in dense urban fighting, a handful of anecdotal head-and-chest cases is what that filter would produce even if no one were targeting children. “Only explained by” skips every ordinary mechanism and treats the bias as evidence.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@daveg641 @caitoz @grok This is the exact problem with that UN analysis. Survivorship Bias.

Yet, you hear what you want from biased actors and don’t think critically on your own.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

Wow. Always wrong. Never in doubt.

First of all, Hamas viciously went after civilians. They targeted them. What are you even doing here? Why are you taking Hamas’s side here? What is wrong with you?

And the last accusation is incredibly offensive and false. There is NO proof that they’ve done this. Just doctors making questionable conclusions based on wound locations in dead children. Oddly, children randomly hit in the arm don’t die, so the doctors only see the ones that look “targeted” (using the flawed logic you’re basing your claims about).

If you’re referring to the ridiculous UN report that used evidence of bullet hole locations — with absolutely NO other evidence — to conclude Israel snipers targeted them, then you’re an idiot.

Here’s grok again pointing out how your claim lacks proof. Why, then, do you presume it’s true and take Hamas’s side again?

The “sniper practice on children” claim is an inference, not a finding. Doctors in Gaza have reported children with single gunshots to the head or chest, and a June 2026 UN Commission of Inquiry treated those wounds as proof of aimed fire. That shows the wound pattern. It does not show a policy of targeting children.

The sample is what doctors see. A child killed by a blast never enters the “single bullet” series; a child shot in the leg and alive is not the case the claim is built on. Head and chest are center mass, so aimed fire at a perceived threat, fire into a mixed group, ricochet, and misidentification all produce the same pattern. Attribution is mostly local witnesses saying the shot came from Israeli forces. There are no sniper logs, orders, or ballistic series showing children were selected as targets. Individual unlawful shootings are possible. Wound location plus a doctor’s conclusion is not evidence of a practice.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

And yet, you fall right into their propaganda hands at every step. The name for it is useful idiot.

That you’re even trying to compare what Hamas did on October 7th where they sought out civilians to kill to anything Israel did in response to decimate Hamas is just sick. If you really think that, you need some serious help. That’s truly disgusting.

But then again, the genocide claim is just disgusting as well. Don’t you think your arguments should be unassailable if you’re making that claim? And, yet, you’re now about 0 and 6 on points you’ve made, taking things out of context, claiming destroyed buildings somehow is a genocide when the people lived thanks to Israel’s warnings, etc. Incredibly weak.

I don’t believe you’ve done anything but paid lip service to Hamas given this last post. Truly disgusting.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

So, you’re going to elide that 90% includes any damage of any kind…

How is it conceivable that 90% were bombed but 97% of the population weren’t killed — and yet Israel was perpetuating genocide, according to you?

Again, you seem to blame Israel for what Hamas did, which was invest billions in tunnels and a military that embedded in civilian infrastructure.

It would be great if you criticized the terrorists. But you don’t. Cause you are disingenuous.

Of course killing buildings isn’t genocide. Especially ones that only have combatants in them.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@cenkuygur @unyielding_h @grok how inaccurate is this claim that Israel has been the obvious aggressor since 1948? Who started the 1948 war?

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

I guess we are shifting the goalposts to war crimes now.

I don’t think that destroying infrastructure that is a legitimate military target, thanks to Hamas’s tunnels and use of civilian infrastructure, qualifies as a war crime, legally.

Again, giving more comfort to Hamas, faulting Israel for Hamas’s strategy.

Here’s Grok’s analysis of your ignorant claims. Now you’re 0 for 5. It’s starting to seem like an untethered obsession with the Jews.

Grok:

The legal point in your reading is right. I’ll check where those two percentages come from before treating them as established.Your reading of the law is the right one. The post treats the scale of destruction as if it were itself the crime. It is not.
Civilian objects are protected only so long as they are not military objectives. A house, school, mosque, or hospital becomes a lawful target if, by its use, it makes an effective contribution to military action and attacking it offers a definite military advantage — fighters inside, a rocket site, a command post, weapons storage, or a tunnel used for attack or movement. Destruction incidental to striking a lawful tunnel under a building is not automatically a war crime either. The obligations that remain are distinction, feasible precautions, and proportionality: the expected civilian harm cannot be excessive relative to the concrete military advantage. Extensive damage can be evidence that those rules were broken in particular strikes. It is not proof that they were.
The two figures in that draft are also looser than the post implies. Satellite assessments (UNOSAT and others) generally count structures damaged or destroyed, not “60 percent of civilian infrastructure” and not “90 percent of residential land area.” By mid-2026 UNOSAT-based figures put roughly 82 percent of buildings damaged to some degree, with on the order of 134,000 classified as destroyed and a larger share of housing units damaged rather than leveled. Housing-stock estimates around 90 percent are “damaged or destroyed,” which folds in partial damage. Those numbers describe a devastated urban battlefield. They do not identify which buildings were used by Hamas, which tunnels were the target, or whether any given strike failed the proportionality test.
Hamas’s own method is what makes the raw percentages a weak war-crime argument. It does not fight in uniform from marked military sites. Its tunnels, launchers, and command nodes have been documented in and under residential blocks, hospitals, and schools. Once that is the defense, a high share of damaged civilian-looking structures is the expected result of destroying the force, as it was in Mosul. Individual strikes can still be unlawful — no warning when a warning was feasible, a target that was not military, harm clearly excessive to the gain. That has to be shown case by case. “Sixty percent destroyed, therefore war crime” skips the only question the law asks.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@daveg641 @caitoz @grok Dude. You’re like 0 and 4.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

That’s ridiculous. He hasn’t consistently said that.

At the same time, he has missed 97% of the population while providing warnings, polio shots, and aid, providing proof that they were not going after the civilian population.

You’re not a serious person.

Here’s Grok’s response to your fatuous claims:

No. Netanyahu has said Hamas is deployed, hiding, and operating across Gaza, and that Israel will strike those places. That is a claim about where an enemy force sits, not a claim that the population of Gaza is Hamas, and it is not evidence of genocidal intent.
The October 7, 2023 line is the clearest version. In the Kirya address he said the IDF would destroy Hamas’s capabilities, then: “All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble. I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.” The target in that sentence is Hamas’s locations. The instruction to residents is to get away from them. Israeli officials have repeated the same point for years before and after that night: Hamas runs a tunnel network under neighborhoods, stores weapons in homes and mosques, and uses hospitals and schools as command or firing sites. “Everywhere” in that usage means wherever those sites are, not “every Gazan.”
He has not consistently said the people of Gaza are the enemy to be destroyed. The stated aims, from that speech onward, have been destroying Hamas’s military capacity and recovering hostages. Later statements distinguish civilians from fighters, order evacuations inside the Strip, and describe a postwar arrangement in which Gaza is handed to some non-Hamas authority rather than emptied or annexed as policy. In August 2025 he told interviewers Israel intended military control to remove Hamas and then did not want to keep or govern Gaza.
Genocidal intent, under the 1948 Convention, is intent to destroy a protected group as such. A government saying its enemy is embedded throughout a territory, and that it will operate wherever that enemy is, does not meet that test. It can be argued, separately, that this framing widens the target set and raises civilian risk. That is a dispute about distinction and proportionality. It is not the same thing as evidence that the aim is the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza. Treating the embedding claim as if it were a confession of genocide collapses that difference.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@daveg641 @caitoz @grok its

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

Apparently Grok only responds so deep within a thread. So I shared the "tweet" and here's it's response...

The statement in question is from Netanyahu’s televised address on the evening of 7 October 2023, hours after Hamas’s cross-border attack that killed roughly 1,200 people in Israel and took hostages. The relevant portion, as reported by multiple outlets at the time (Israel Hayom, AFP, Jerusalem Post, etc.), is:

“The IDF will immediately use all its strength to destroy Hamas’s capabilities. We will destroy them and we will forcefully avenge this dark day that they have forced on the State of Israel and its citizens. … All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble. I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.”

The explicit object of the threat to turn places “into rubble” is the locations where Hamas is deployed, hiding, and operating. The warning to residents is framed as a consequence of those operations. Contemporary reporting and closer looks at the Hebrew (including discussions noting that some secondary translations broadened it) treat it as a warning to get clear of Hamas sites, not a declaration that the civilian population as such would be destroyed. “Wicked city” is rhetorical language aimed at Hamas’s base of operations in Gaza, consistent with the preceding sentences about destroying Hamas’s capabilities.

That is ordinary language of urban warfare against an enemy that embeds in civilian areas, paired with an evacuation warning. It does not state an intent to destroy Gazans as a national or ethnic group “as such,” which is the core of the legal definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention. Warnings to leave combat zones cut against, rather than support, an inference of that specific intent. Later Israeli orders (13 October) directed people in northern Gaza to move south inside the Strip; large numbers did so, even though the movement was dangerous and conditions were severe.

The claim that residents “could not leave” is only partly accurate. Exit from the Strip itself was tightly constrained—Egypt controls Rafah and kept crossings limited, and Hamas also restricted movement—so mass departure to another country was not available. Internal relocation within Gaza was possible and occurred on a large scale after the more specific evacuation orders. Treating the 7 October wording as a threat of genocide because external exit was blocked therefore requires reading an intent into the statement that its text and immediate context do not contain, while setting aside the distinction it draws between Hamas positions and the residents told to leave them.

Whether that reading is ignorant or disingenuous is hard to settle from one post alone. The argument as stated omits the clause limiting the “rubble” threat to places Hamas is deployed, hiding, and operating, and it treats restricted external exit as if it converted a battlefield warning into genocidal intent. That is a substantial truncation of the statement’s actual content.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@grok please answer the respondents question as to the context and intent of this statement. Is respondent being ignorant or disingenuous, or is too hard to tell here?

My understanding is that he was referring to Hamas and areas where it was operating:

“The IDF will immediately use all its strength to destroy Hamas’s capabilities. We will destroy them and we will forcefully avenge this dark day that they have forced on the State of Israel and its citizens… All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble. I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.”

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@grok @daveg641 @caitoz @grok does it give comfort to Hamas, however?

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

You sound butthurt that grok’s response didn’t go your way.

And if you think that statement is genocidal, I’m not sure it’s worth further discussion because that’s anything but.

@grok is that statement by Netanyahu evidence of genocidal intent? Please explain if it helps or hurts responder’s point.

[Boston Baked Beans @criminal109]

@daveg641 @caitoz @grok Is claiming that Israel is committing genocide playing into Hamas’s strategy and giving them comfort that their approach is succeeding?