Lalilulelo

Labmath, this racialist stuff is a load of reductionist ideological pseudo-science. You will find its proponents claiming they accounted for the unfavourable social factors to blacks before evoking racial and genetic theories. But you will find none of them accounting for the methodical wars on blacks, whether it is institutional racism, coups and aborted freedom movements in Africa, flooding entire communities with drugs, funding and promoting crime and base rap culture, etc. Similarly, you will find none of them accounting for the tribalist favouritism amongst the Ashkenazi. I knew it was BS when I heard our own Stef (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o2eKaELGMY), who incidentally was born to an Ashkenazi mother from Germany, say Ashkenazi are exceptionally smart because they suffered oppression; it is therefore amazing how this fantastic evolutionary force that effects great change in a matter of decades failed to do the same with blacks after centuries of slavery and genocide. So in my opinion, Stef is doing a flip-flop because this is a trendy and appealing position to hold these days. I remember not so long ago he was of the radically different opinion that innate abilities and limitations aside from those which are physical do not exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1xy15OoZis I think this is nothing new as we already saw his take on the issue of building a border wall change in a similar dramatic fashion.

Hi WasatchMan, Ok if you choose to abandon this conversation. After all, you provided no evidence for your claims and nothing other than fallacious argumentation. It is odd that your reason for doing so is my comment about you writing a hurried posting (you did, in fact, simply quote your fallacies and someone who, in his oversimplified or at least simple explaining, wasn't addressing my point to you). The excesses in your earlier contribution certainly did not dissuade me from replying to you. Also, no need for more drama and big words like "accusation". Someone who reasons by presupposing his premise is unquestionably true is a dogmatist. It is only natural that the head of a project (see my link) and the body of proponents of Darwinian theory are not exempt from having their affirmations questioned, though I understand how that may come as surprising to someone who, once again, has shown nothing besides unfailing dogmatism. - Regarding your response that all change would have been selected out (this was not in your previous posting): As you know, in neo-Darwinian theory, the introduction of new material is slow, incremental and its expression not necessarily non-neutral. This means natural selection is in effect unable to wholly and directly act on it, let alone be able to filter out a two-billion-year-plus worth of it. This is why such explanations are simply wild wishful speculation with no real basis. Better ones with more substance and plausible mechanisms are in order. - Also, though at this point I can't honestly say I await your valid counter-argumentation: how do you reconcile your explanation with the fact that there are so many organisms, whose environments can't be suggested to have remained undisturbed, that did not change and have been classified by Darwinian jargon as having been in "evolutionary stasis" over extended periods of time? I will post a reply to Ray H. as soon as I have more time.

Hi Ray H, I'll try to answer your points in their respective order: 1/ As you can see by scrolling back through the topic, the request to articulate "compelling evidence or argumentation" was made to cut short the unaccessible appeals to huge amounts of evidence. You elected to answer this question, and to qualify what you brought up as "quite compelling". Naturally, my reply deals with whether the evidence measures up to the strength of the claim. You are free to qualify the "evidence" you offered differently if you wish. 2/ Much of the ideas in scholarly works of this nature rest on the premise that endosymbiotic theory is true. The fact however is it is as riddled with problems as, and no more an example of established scientific knowledge, than abiogensis. This is why you will not find me telling you I know how it happened and this is how, certainly not out of a necessity to provide an alternative to some scriptural narrative. - Also, I have read through all works linked in the footnotes, and none of them make your claim. One of them shows genetic variants in nuclear DNA of wild populations can overcome mitochondiral mutations. This is not an unpredictable finding, if one is aware of mito-nuclear cooperation. Another one, going in the same line, highlights the presence of a gene in a certain anthropod species that makes its males resistant to maternally-inherited male-killing organisms. Neither of these is a demonstration of a nuclear response through mutations, much less evidence of a mechanism of adaptation that counters the accumulation of deleterious mtDNA mutations. I include the following quotes from the paper about the implications of mitochondrial variation because I think it summarises the extent of the evidence nicely, and has this to say about mitochondrial-nuclear coadaptation: Knowing that deleterious mutations in mtDNA can accumulate within populations because of genetic drift[21], there certainly seems to be scope for mito-nuclearco-evolution to proceed via a ‘compensatory’ model. Under this model, deleterious mutations accumulate in the mitochondrial genome, with selection then favouring an adaptive response in the nuclear genome to restore any compromised metabolic function [24]. In effect, mtDNA mutations will act as the drivers of adaptive evolution in nuclear genes. This scenario is not unlikely, given that more than 1000 nuclear-encoded proteins, which are essential for metabolism, are transported into the mitochondrion [25]. Given the potential for male-expression-specific deleterious mtDNA mutations to accumulate through genetic drift and for mtDNA mutations with sexually antagonistic effects to be fixed by positive selection in females, there should be intense selection on compensatory mutations in nuclear genes to restore any compromised function to male fertility traits. Support for this idea comes from studies that show the existence of testes-specific isoforms of both the nuclear-encoded COX VIb subunit [71] and the cytochrome c subunit [72] in mammals. Such isoforms might have evolved to accommodate the high energy production that is required for high-quality sperm production and to alleviate ailing function resulting from mutations in the mitochondrially encoded subunits of the respiratory enzyme complexes. Convincing evidence for the presence of such compensatory nuclear genes would be provided by examples in which the disruption of coevolved mitonuclear gene complexes leads to depressed sperm function or depressed male fertility. Currently, no such examples exist. The role of mito-nuclear fitness interactions on the general dynamics of adaptive evolution deserves further attention. Previously, we reviewed evidence that indicates that epistatic interactions between mitochondrial and nuclear genes, within populations, can account for a significant amount of variation in fitness [13,14] and could be ubiquitous. How genetic variation can be maintained within populations in the face of directional selection represents a general problem in evolutionary biology [75]. The existence of mito-nuclear fitness interactions might contribute to the maintenance of this genetic variation. Furthermore, recent experimental studies have detected mtDNA–nuclear-DNA–environment interactions for fitness [14,16], which indicates that the fitness of any given mito-nuclear genotype is contingent on the environment. Spatial environmental heterogeneity is one factor that can contribute to the maintenance of genetic polymorphism [76]. Whether environmental heterogeneity might have a role in upholding variation in the mitochondrial genome within populations, via environmental selection on the mito-nuclear interaction, deserves theoretical attention. As you can see, the evidence supporting your claim that new changes in nuclear DNA act as counter-adaptations to the accumulation of deleterious mutations is not there. After all, such changes are a rare occurence, and organisms having to counter new challenges, such as ATB for instance, have to rely on sweeping loss-of-function mutations more than the rare and specific mutation. All one can claim in light of the above is: Provided Darwinian evolution is true, compensation for the lack of selection must have happened through some other mechanism of selection. Mitochondrial-nuclear interaction might be one such mechanism that is thought, when evidence is considered, not to be unlikely. To say these scholarly works show changes in nuclear DNA to be the answer to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in mtDNA is departing from evidence and entering the realm of wishful speculation. More importantly though, assuming the absence of selection on male-specific mtDNA poses no problem to Darwnian evolution, the question remains: - How is the existence of mtDNA and the knowledge of its mode of transmission, which you brought up, quite compelling evidence in favour of the mechanisms constituting Darwinian evolution? ______ Hello WasatchMan, Thanks for the prompt reply again. Allow me to enumerate what I think are errors in a separate posting for more clarity: 1/ I do not have to develop a competing theory to Darwinian evolution in order to point out how its mechanisms are inadequate. That's saying: model A is not falsifiable, for as long as there is no alternative way B. Thankfully, science does not work this way. 2/ Like I pointed out previously, mystifying Darwinian evolution with fallacious appeals to mountains of evidence without *one* valid argument to back that up, is just an expression of dogma. 3/ Occam's razor is a tool of logic. It does not support what is, at least in a topic centred around evidence, fallacious argumentation from authority and repetition. 4/ Being scientifically literate and well versed in logic, you know an explanation is "scientific" and satisfactory not because it came from a scientist or Google. I think had you been in less of a hurry to reply to my posting, you would have noticed I specified the example of sulfer bacteria (and other living fossils) was about *neo-Darwinian* theory. In neo-Darwinian theory, as am I sure you know, mutations are the primary engine moving the evolutionary cursor, not the need for adaptation as dictated through the interaction of the organism with its environment. This, in effect, makes the quick explanation offered by the scientist in question and which you describe as "scientific", an obsolete one: mutations do not work like natural selection. [by the way, anyone who interprets evidence that is potentially for or against a model by starting with "it is a fact" is a dogmatist. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htm] What we have therefore is: - Mutations do occur in optimal living conditions where little or no adaptation to the environment is required (e.g., replication errors). - Mutations in neo-Darwinian theory provide a wide range of raw material for selection, so much so that they explain the sudden appearances and diversification of life. - Neo-Darwinian theory predicts such inevitable mutations will accumulate over a period covering most of biological history (billions of years) and result into change. - The hard evidence, of organisms found in fossils from then as well as living today, shows no change. In other words, the logical prediction following from proposed mechanisms is patently false. By the way, you still have not produced one argument to back your strong claims and fallacious appeals. Just to keep this exchange going, I took the initiative and produced one to undermine them. Please make sure your next reply is devoid of disruptive fallacy and focused on valid argumentation and evidence of your claims.

Hello, I did not ask whether you cared to educate me. I asked you to back your claims with *one* piece of evidence or valid argumentation, so as to move on from the tired fallacies and rhetorics repeated in your postings. Also, I believe I have been cordial. Perhaps, in return, you could work on your tone a little bit. This is after all FDR, not the comments section of Youtube, where one would expect skepticism to be met with puerile arrogance and dogmatism: We have all the evidence, we win; you have Biblical creationism and illiteracy, you lose. Anyway, because I don't like to write postings without at least adding a relevant ponit, I will present this: - Being scientifically literate and convinced the fossil record is compelling evidence for Darwinian evolution, how do you account for the fossils that have not evolved in hundreds of millions if not billions of years (sulfer bacteria comes to mind)? Bear in mind, as I am sure you know, neo-Darwinian theory rests on mutations being its permanent and inevitable driving force: they occur in the most optimal conditions. @ Ray H Even assuming there can be a high enough rate of mutations in the nuclear genome that when selected would counter the accumulation of deleterious mutations in mtDNA [this seems to be suggested more out of necessity and analogy than from evidence], the question remains: what is the compelling evidence in mtDNA?

Hello Ray H, Sure, only mitochondrial DNA from the female is transmitted; and it's no secret mtDNA doesn't go through recombination. But how does that compel one to accept Darwinian evolution? The link you provided does not address this. It basically aims to provide substantiation to the idea that, assuming Darwinian evolution is true, natural selection could only act on mitochondrial genes expressed in females, since mtDNA from males is not transmitted to next generations. In other words, and perhaps in spite of the authors' objectives and yours by linking to their work: natural selection is an inadequate mechanism when it comes to mitochondrial genes that are expressed in males. As the authors rightly point out in their introduction, this failure of selection leads to the accumulation of deleterious male-specific mitochondrial mutations, which will be mostly expressed in reproductive organs [they are sex-specific, after all], which in turn could cause "a sharp decline in male fertility" [i.e., the end of the species]. So again, how is this compelling evidence for the idea that mutations (the main driving force in neo-Darwinian theory) and natural selection (the filter of survival-enhancing traits) are the mechanisms behind the healthy reproductive and complex organisms we have today? Care to share how the fossil record is compelling evidence to you? I'm afraid it is not to me, and like I said before, I am unable to address proposed evidence or argumentation in this topic unless it is presented.

Hello, Like I said in a previous comment, what is this evidence? If it is too much to fit in this topic, only share the strongest most compelling argument. As you might have noticed from my posts, I don't mind getting into detail on this topic (since that's the point of the OP anyway) but I cannot do anything with the almost dogmatic repetition of the statement: it's true because science/all the evidence/strongest model. I haven't argued for intelligent design, only for the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution. But to be complete: 1/ You are assuming intelligent design rests on the watchmaker analogy. That is an incorrect assumption, because, for instance, intelligent design argues the physical world makes spontaneous generation impossible as it is inherently hostile to life (think UV light, oxidation, hydrolysis, etc.) 2/ Your link doesn't say the watchmaker analogy is a fallacy; rather it presents positions which are for and against the watchmaker analogy. You might want to correct that. 3/ As to the fallacious character or not of this analogy you brought up: * For the watchmaker analogy to be valid, living organisms just like the watch must require a designing intelligence. Spontaneous generation/abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. * For the watchmaker analogy to be fallacious, living organisms unlike the watch would not require a designing intelligence; they can and do exist thanks to spontaneous generation and evolution. So, basically, what you need to do before you conclude it's fallacious, is to (sorry to say this again) present evidence of the truth of spontaneous generation and Darwinian evolution. Because you cannot skip the whole controversy and go to your preferred conclusion. Once again that would just be dogmatic repetition, which qualifies as an actual fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion. ____________ @ WasatchMan I agree the OP could have been better formulated, and I'm glad we cleared up a few things. But to make the most of our time, and as you have spoken of lots of evidence again, I have to ask you the same question as before: how about sharing it here? If a mountain of evidence is too much, then by all means only share the strongest most compelling argument. That seems like a fair question to someone repeatedly appealing to "evidence", in a topic about evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/darwinism

Hm ok, I'll try to provide a comprehensive reply. Surely if you take the liberty to parody someone's words then you have no problem with your own getting paraphased. But just to be clear, I read the entirety of the postings. I listed the points I thought are fallacious in a topic asking for evidence. I didn't say they are WasatchMan's fallacies. In fact, I didn't remember who said what as I read everything submitted in this topic, but in this post I'll quote them rather than try to sum them up, restate or "parody" them (oh wait, I suppose I can do the latter). * After checking, I can now say it was you that was arguing from authority as you replied with the following: "People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record." "Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct. If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain. If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome. However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic." * I can also say it was you who brought up Biblical creationism. Rather than address what was presented as potential evidence from the redwood tree against evolution, you chose to focus on the ideology of people who would present it. What you came up with is, well, another classic fallacy (who wants to talk about a tree when they could talk about young earth creationism). The following is what you wrote: "Well, you heard wrong my friend. The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith. "All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that." * As to the last fallacy I listed, I agree that just because someone can't imagine evolution occuring doesn't mean it's not possible. However the user you were replying to clearly wasn't basing the validity of his ideas on his capacity for imagination. This is what he actually put forward: "Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied." One could easily see that he's trying to provide an actual line of argumentation: random processes -> intermediary stages that natural selection can't act upon -> no complex and specialised organ. The phrase "it is hard to imagine" can be understood in this case as interchangeable with something like "it is very unlikely". Your "parody" in response to him would have been perfect if he were presenting a fallacious argument; the truth however is he wasn't. It is therefore your reply that is genuinely fallacious and, once again, one that can't do without Biblical creationism: "Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies. Especially given that there is no evidence for this." The last sentence I just quoted emphasises the fallaciousness of your arguments: one can't doubt the efficiency of posited mechanisms for evolution, because of Biblical creationism! which has no evidence for an omnipotent being creating a species after his image! [once again, this last bit is not something you actually said - it is just an innocuous attempt at parody] So there it is. Initially I didn't know who came up with those fallacies, but now I do. Here they are explained and backed up with your words, not with my attempts to paraphrase you or to use statements that could be likened to a strawman. Hopefully any lack of accuracy in my attempt to restate some of the points is now removed. Also, I hope that wasn't too long a read. PS: No need for name-calling. Glad you removed that.

I'm sorry, but I can only see arguments from fallacies here: - Darwinism is true because Science (underlined and in bold) and We couldn't be wrong - Darwinism is true because Biblical creationism is so riddled with inconsistencies - Darwinism is true because it is hard to imagine an omnipotent being creating and running the show As to "the mountain of evidence" in favour of the evolutionary development of the eye or any part of the body for that matter, how about sharing it here? If a mountain is too much, then by all means only share the strongest most compelling argument. Speaking of the eye, I watched a few episodes of Cosmos the other day, and many times I found myself annoyed by Neil deGrasse Tyson's dogmatism in what is supposed to be a scientific and educational program, as he piled up the classic fantastic claims that he presents as facts, for example he says: Until a few hundred million years passed, and then, one day, there was a microscopic copying error in the DNA of a bacterium. This random mutation gave that microbe a protein molecule that absorbed sunlight. Want to know what the world looked like to a light-sensitive bacterium? Take a look at the right side of the screen. Mutations continued to occur at random, as they always do in any population of living things. Another mutation caused a dark bacterium to flee intense light. What is going on here? Night and day. Those bacteria that could tell light from dark had a decisive advantage over the ones that couldn't. Why? Because the daytime brought harsh, ultraviolet light that damages DNA. The sensitive bacteria fled the intense light to safely exchange their DNA in the dark. They survived in greater numbers than the bacteria that stayed at the surface. Over time, those light-sensitive proteins became concentrated in a pigment spot on the more advanced, one-celled organism. How does that make sense? How is it scientific at all? 1/ he previously concedes that the origin of the cell remains the biggest mystery out there 2/ that doesn't stop him from skipping right to the cell and to that lucky mutation confering to a protein the ability to absorb light 3/ then he finds another mutation that complements the former mutation and recognises night and day [i didn't know you could do that with one mutation!] 3/ doesn't think it necessary to mention how this protein would be deactivated in order to be sensitive to light at the next moment 4/ doesn't think it necessary to mention which cellular structures will detect that a molecular change has occured in this protein 5/ doesn't think it necessary to mention which cellular structures could convert this change into a signal 6/ doesn't think it necessary to mention which cellular structures have the capacity to interpret signals [you don't need actual functional structures, you just need a mutation!] 7/ doesn't think it necessary to mention what super cellular structures have the ability to measure and compare the intensity of these signals in order to know where there is more light and where there is less light (so the cell could flee away from the surface) 8/ doesn't think it necessary to mention what structures could memorise the day and night cycle 9/ doesn't think it necessary to mention how all of this could be translated to effect accordingly the trajectory of the cell (provided it has already found the lucky mutations (!) that make it mobile enough to cross significant distances through day/night cycles or away from the surface) ... So not only is the origin of life a mystery to Neil deGrasse, all of the steps above and more are too, and he either doesn't want to think about them or just takes it all on faith. Like I said before, I have heard such accounts on the evolution of life too many times, from Neil deGrasse, my old lecturers, colleagues, and lots of esteemed scientists who are irreproachable in their fields. But until what they believe in is backed by credible theoretical models or experimentation, it remains nothing but fantastic speculation affirmed with the authority of dogma. /end post about widely advertised manipulative tv program

First, contrary to what Bill Nye and the rest of them dogmatic science guys repeat 10 times a day, Darwinian evolution is irrelevant to scientific inquiry and the human experience: no one ever needed to believe in evolutionism in order to make a discovery or to be a decent human being. And there is no basis in evolution for an objective framework of ethics, like the one Stefan champions. Second, there is no solid theoretical or experimental model supporting spontaneous generation (fancily called: abiogenesis). Furthermore, mutation as neo-Darwinism's main creative and divesifying mechanism is a very inadequate explanation, especially knowing: almost all mutations are corrected (less than one in a million is not, even lesser depending on the correcting system); there is no inter-specific fluidity and interaction of genetic material since mating gametes have specific recognition systems; mutations occurring due to external factors usually happen away from germ cells and thus are not heritable; a new beneficial mutation (rare thing) in the germinal tissues of eggs won't get the chance to be exposed to natural selection until the next or after-the-next generation; the list goes on and on... Consider the above with the number of generations poster Robofox42 speaks of (75000). Knowing that complex organisms such as the aforementioned longevous trees with unique functional genetic arrangements featuring tens if not hundreds of millions of DNA bases: the hard truth is it is impossible for these things to evolve in 75000 generations, particularly through no identifiable mechanisms (since mutations don't qualify; they are as mentioned above chaotic and rare, even more so those that go through natural selection successfully to fit into an operational living system). Personally, I will consider believing in this Darwinian pseudo-science when I find in it actual models rather than incoherent and fantastic speculation. It is unfortunate that in many countries this dogma is being forcibly taught, with little or no counter-argumentation ever being introduced, at places of indoctrination that society now proudly refers to as public secular schools. As since the dawn of times, some people think they've emancipated their minds, when the actual case is anything but...

Stefan shares visions typical of Zionist patriotic propaganda as he brings up genetics to dissipate the disproportionate influence and power the Jewish and/or Zionist lobbies exert on the Western world. REALLY?! My response: The super-achieving Nobel winning Jews Stefan refers to are NOT even close to being a distinct racial group. They come from all corners of Europe (usually where socioeconomic conditions favour higher education and research) http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html. Ethiopian Jews are not discovering and inventing much. Sephardic Jews still living in third world countries are not inventing much. The same goes for Semitic Jews in Arabia and Iran who are not in the process of discovering the next subatomic particle either. The reason there are a lot of Jews in a variety of sectors in the West is because as an religiously inspired and endogamic tribalist community they may or tend to favour their own (usually according to political inclination). An example is Murdoch and his warmongering media networks; Hollywood and its propaganda, Western governments and parliaments and their proportion of MPs who visited Israel (more than 10% of French MPs have Israeli passports), etc. These are areas that do not even require an exceptional IQ but because they are key to maintain power and carry out more colonialism they will not be handed out to the anti-war Jew or the anti-war black guy (by the way, anti-war Jews are rarely spoken of and tend to get beaten up by terror groups like the Jewish Defense League who benefit from complete impunity in countries like France). The rest of Jewry who are not doing so well have suffered a long history of racism from European Jews. Just look up Israeli crimes committed on Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews after WWII (the Israeli government actually had to apologise officially to Sephardi Jews) and the racism Ethiopian Jews have to endure to have a chance in the apartheid colonialist state of Israel. @ Stefan: add these other less mediatised less privileged Jewish people to the equation and then more context to your vision, and you will see that the genetic racialist explanation has no basis. Also, the Zionist "conspiracy" is an agenda that can be verified by the geopolitical developments on the ground (see the expantionist evolution of Israel on the map), the recurring Israeli wars of aggression on its neighbouring countries, the number of politicians who declare their unfailing support for Israel in order to further their political career, disproportionate financial and military aid shipped from Western countries under Zionist influence, the same countries' veto history, etc. Furthermore, it is no secret that this "conspiacy" has been declared by Zionist high-profile personalities many times in the media and in political literature. One example of this is sephardi jew Jacques Attali, known for his reputation as a visionary, and as an advisor to French presidents Sarkozy, Hollande and Mittérand, also an omnipresent figure on TV and philosophical forums, who says: It will be the people's choice whether the new world order will be established either after another world war or without another world war [through the submission of the people]. The new world order will have a central capital, and it is my dream that it would be the city of Jerusalem in Israel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr_yHoUTMEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBiGyA9iDWE Maybe, it's time to snap out of denial... One would expect Stefan to see Zionist/Jewish lobbies as the prime example of the inherently corruptible government system and the limitless extent that can go, instead of using empty language such as "conspiracy theory" or bringing up a racialist explanation.

So much arse-licking in that first video that it's painful to watch...

Actually Hamas were able to form with Fatah a unity government probably for no other reason than to negotiate. This was welcomed by the international community, but rejected by Netanyahu obstinately. After all Netanyahu is an extremist right-winger, a proven liar (he lied to the mothers of the kidnapped teenagers who he knew to be dead, he lied in accusing Hamas of their deaths, he lied about Iraq's WMDs and now Iran's) and an admitted colonialist (he admits on video to sabotaging the Oslo accords). All of this is verfiable fact. Hamas, on the other hand, doesn't want all the jews killed as the liars and apologists of dehumanising coloniasm keep saying; the most prominent of Hamas' lawyers and advisors is an American Jew and as far as I know is still alive with his head attached to his body even though he met them several times. Furthermore, and unlike the Israeli army, Hamas has killed no one neither military nor civilian at least since the beginning of 2014 and until the offensive on Gaza, and they have since killed according to Israeli numbers 65 soldiers and 3 civilians, which means 95% of their targets are military. Although it is important to note Hamas and their armed groups have only been able to target as many soldiers because there was an attempt at a ground invasion. If there were only naval and air strikes but no ground invasion then military targets would be out of reach for the modest weaponry of Hamas. Nevertheless, 95% is a lot more than Israel's 20% of armed targets, and that is when being generous in applying the term "military" to colonised and impoverished people who decided to raise arms against their colonialist aggressors who -- do not fool yourselves -- do not want peace but more stolen land. One only needs to see the chronological and ongoing transformation of the map of Israel and Palestinian territories to know that. Also, by comparing 95% of military casualties caused by Hamas to Obama's kill score as he authorises his drone strikes around the world that despite of being reputed to be of surgical precision have killed hundreds if not thousands of civilians, one would realise Obama and the forces behind him are on a completely different league from Hamas. If Hamas were terrorists for shooting homemade rockets that are mostly intercepted and landing in unpopulated areas (which is why they have not killed more Israelis since they were first shot in 2001 than the IDF would kill of Palestinians in a single bloody day) then what can be said of Obama and Israel? The term terrorist falls short of any accurate description. Therefore, although probably well-meant, saying "killing Palestinians because of Hamas is like killing Americans because of obama" is still by any realistic standard an injustice to Hamas and the Palestinians. And to those who want to make this conflict so complicated that it would be beyond understanding and any subsequent critique (apparently mostly of Israeli policy) irrelevant, I say, unless a bit of history is understood and an accurate description of the facts on the ground are known to us, we will not be able to identify the problematic sides and the aggressors. I think Stef's video does a good job in that regard.