Is it possible to be more anti-Israel than what they already are?
IMO Israel does bear responsibility here. My preference would have been that they somehow flood the tunnels that Hamas built.
2 hostages vs dozens of citizens....
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
Is it possible to be more anti-Israel than what they already are?
IMO Israel does bear responsibility here. My preference would have been that they somehow flood the tunnels that Hamas built.
In that case, ceasefire and leave the murderous usurpers of Gaza in charge, amirite?
If they’re trying to ‘kill everything that moves’ why do they keep warning them? What’s that about?
Is that what I said? I better go back and check.
There are at least three instances of the Israelis hitting the "safe havens" they directed Palestinian civilians to flee to. Warning them into harm's way? What's that about?
Let’s get you on the record.
Do you support a ceasefire leaving the undemocratic Hamas regime in power?
LOL...do you support the murder of children to root out the "undemocratic Hamas regime"? Can they raze a hospital filled with people to get the Hamas killers hiding in the basement? Is that you "on the record"?
In every conflict, there comes a point where the costs exceed the benefits. The Israelis need to figure out where that line lies.
You didn’t answer.
Do you support a ceasefire leaving the undemocratic Hamas regime in power?
I do not. The death of innocents won’t end until the Hamas leadership submits. If left in place the Hamas regime will again deliberately target civilians.
They’ve promised more attacks like Oct 7th.
Will you answer the question?
FIFY
Would you advocate Hamas leaving tunnels and hospitals and fighting the IDF head on then? Push the women and children south and put the men up front to face the IDF coming from the north head on?
If yes (which of course is the only right answer) do you wonder why Hamas fought in the exact opposite fashion???
He's stated he's trying to eliminate Hamas, which he is. He wants Hamas completely annihilated.
The Palestinians who haven't left are more than likely Hamas supporters (don't forget Hamas was elected by a 70-80% majority). So while they may not be militants per se, they're also probably not quite squeaky clean innocent civilians either.
Because of that, I have less issues with Israel continuing on. I do think they'd be more amenable to cease fire if the hostages were released alive and well. But let's be honest, they're being raped, abused, and many are probably dead or near death.
I believe Israel has the right to defend itself and that this war is just.
I also believe that Israel has intentionally been heavy handed in the way they’ve prosecuted this war, especially with regard to collateral damage and civilian protections.
I don’t trust Bibi or his motives.
I also believe that Israel has intentionally been heavy handed in the way they’ve prosecuted this war, especially with regard to collateral damage and civilian protections.
I don’t trust Bibi or his motives.
Right. But then you'll get the argument that this isn't what eradicating (necessarily) means.
forgive the metaphor, but i generally try not to leave 99% of the roaches in the house, or weeds in the yard, when i try to eradicate them
ultimately, it just underscores how the choice of the word is itself a political advocacy exercise - you 'mean' it until you don't
Last edited:
I support a solution that protects innocent people. If that's a ceasefire that prevents Israeli military attacks on THEM and allows humanitarian aid to reach those people, then I support it. You support killing those innocent people in order to wipe out Hamas. The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" philosophy from Vietnam. It worked as well there as it will for the Israelis.
So you would support the following then correct?
- Hamas releases all remaining hostages
- Hamas soldiers declare unconditional surrender and move all active soldiers north and lay down all arms
- Hamas moves women & children south towards Rafah gates
- IDF enters into ceasefire once the above is secured
Yes or No?
I had it correct the first time.
And yes I'd advocate for combat strategies that minimize the risk for civilian casualties.
How many innocent civilians is it okay to kill/injure as collateral damage in order to kill a member of Hamas?
Didn’t we kill about 250,000 civilians in Iraq?
Actually, it was higher
Iraqi Civilians | Costs of War
The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Would you advocate for the combat strategy that involves the following with the goal of zero additional casualties?
- Hamas releases all remaining hostages
- Hamas soldiers declare unconditional surrender and move all active soldiers north and lay down all arms
- Hamas moves women & children south towards Rafah gates
- IDF enters into ceasefire once the above is secured
Allegedly. Allegedly reportedly from known liars and exaggerators.
Do you PERSONALLY still believe Hamas’ claims that 500 people died at 2 AM in an empty hospital parking lot?
Yes or no?
Sure. I also support world peace and puppies for everyone. Climate change SOLVED! I support that. I support all kinds of things that are ridiculous in reality.
A few thoughts...
1. At the end of the day, we (the public, at least) don't really have much granular data on casualties and deaths, including whether the approaching 30k number is accurate in the aggregate (I suspect understated), what the mix of civilians and irregulars (I hesitate to call them soldiers) is, how the death rate has changed over time, or how they died.
2. I continue to believe that in a densely populated area of 2.5 million or so, 30k total casualties is not a shock the conscience number given the nature and scope of the Israeli response, and if anything, creates more of an inference of care than recklessness. (That assumes, of course, that you have a conscience that is willing to set aside, for the sake of argument, the general immorality yet occasional necessity of war.) And indeed some of that has been borne out quite literally with announced evacuation routes, such as they are.
3. From the little that I've seen, it would appear that the bulk of deaths occurred in the first half of the Israeli response, and that things have slowed down a bit since then (with obvious spikes as new territorial thrusts began). Again, the better inference here would seem to be relatively focused rather than indiscriminate activity.
4. One can always quibble about what the 'appropriate' ratio of civilian collateral damage should be in the aggregate numbers. But to me, the images that we see of coordinated and conscious hamas infrastructure, which in turn led to initial response using missiles and artillery, suggest that ratio might be higher than, say, a target sniper response or some of the on or under the ground clearing operations going on now.
At the end of the day, it's war, and it sucks. But perhaps we 21st century types ought to rethink our unwillingness to have one side actually win a war on occasion when they break out, rather than perpetuating grievances across generations.
1. At the end of the day, we (the public, at least) don't really have much granular data on casualties and deaths, including whether the approaching 30k number is accurate in the aggregate (I suspect understated), what the mix of civilians and irregulars (I hesitate to call them soldiers) is, how the death rate has changed over time, or how they died.
2. I continue to believe that in a densely populated area of 2.5 million or so, 30k total casualties is not a shock the conscience number given the nature and scope of the Israeli response, and if anything, creates more of an inference of care than recklessness. (That assumes, of course, that you have a conscience that is willing to set aside, for the sake of argument, the general immorality yet occasional necessity of war.) And indeed some of that has been borne out quite literally with announced evacuation routes, such as they are.
3. From the little that I've seen, it would appear that the bulk of deaths occurred in the first half of the Israeli response, and that things have slowed down a bit since then (with obvious spikes as new territorial thrusts began). Again, the better inference here would seem to be relatively focused rather than indiscriminate activity.
4. One can always quibble about what the 'appropriate' ratio of civilian collateral damage should be in the aggregate numbers. But to me, the images that we see of coordinated and conscious hamas infrastructure, which in turn led to initial response using missiles and artillery, suggest that ratio might be higher than, say, a target sniper response or some of the on or under the ground clearing operations going on now.
At the end of the day, it's war, and it sucks. But perhaps we 21st century types ought to rethink our unwillingness to have one side actually win a war on occasion when they break out, rather than perpetuating grievances across generations.
Last edited:
Why is it ridiculous? A few phone calls and you could have all that done in a matter of a couple days. Ceasefire by end of week. It’s only what Israel has been asking for for months. Hamas just needs to say “yes.”
Ridiculous, no.
Ridiculously that simple, yes!
Assuming Palestinians largely support Hamas, who the fugg else would they support? They don't have a state. Blah blah Hamas is bad. Israel has had Gaza under siege for more than 15 years. They strictly control the movement of Palestinians not stuck in Gaza. Gazans have no rights under the actual regime holding them captive, no voice internationally, they're prisoners of Israel until Israel can kill as many as they feel like until they can force them to relocate. Then Israel will probably have the nerve to chastise majority Arab nations for not being so accommodating of Israel's ethnic cleansing. Oh BTW it's not the Palestinians' fault they've had their homeland stolen from them. Thank whitey for that
Sure...and just ask people to stop using fossil fuels and we've solved climate change. Simple. People just need to say "yes". Not the least bit ridiculous.
And the US was pursuing bilateral agreements between Israel and other Middle Eastern states that didn't mention the Palestinian people. The Palestinians were watching that and realizing they were on the verge of being sold out for the sake of Israel. Shocking they got pissed. None of that excuses at all what Hamas did. It can't be excused under ANY scenario. But the violence was only a matter of time.
Add
No new settlements in the West Bank
Both sides to commit towards a 2 state solution
And you'd have a deal that would work for everyone.
Is launching an offensive to a music festival and raping and setting fire to women & children just as ridiculous?
Neither side wants the 2 state solution. That solution works for everyone except Israel and the Palestinians.
Lots of folks advocating for the ceasefire. That is defending Hamas since a ceasefire only benefits them.
You’re right, it puts innocent Israeli citizens at risk since Hamas would have time to rest and re-arm.
A ceasefire would have benefitted German civilians in WW2, when do you think the Allies should have offered one?
We get it...you have no problem killing innocent people to eliminate Hamas. Kinda sounds like the Hamas plan to murder innocent people to get at the Israeli govt, doesn't it. Extremism at both ends.
