Israel vs Hamas (4 Viewers)

Virgil said:

Civilian population is protecting the HAMAS fighters. The fighters are not going out to meet their enemy.

The HAMAS fighters had no problem going out to meet unarmed civilians though. and the 'children' 'babies' bs is nauseating. Everyone seems to be using the victims for political/ideological cheap points.

Click to expand...

It's asymmetrical warfare. America fought similar enemies in: Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

You use the civilian population as camouflage. The tactic worked better against America, because we were far more reluctant to kill civilians.

I don't remember us ever blaming the native population for their own deaths. We understood the idea of innocents, even if they harbored the enemy.

Man, showing an ounce of empathy for Israeli's enemies melts some people's brains.

J-DONK said:

It's asymmetrical warfare. America fought similar enemies in: Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

You use the civilian population as camouflage. The tactic worked better against America, because we were far more reluctant to kill civilians.

I don't remember us ever blaming the native population for their own deaths. We understood the idea of innocents, even if they harbored the enemy.

Man, showing an ounce of empathy for Israeli's enemies melts some people's brains.

Click to expand...

One thing I think of is America's wars were not fought here or next door. Israel fights enemies on her doorstep. Huge difference in things tactics wise, strategy wise, and ultimate goals.

Empathy makes humanoids, civilized human beings. Without empathy, there is no civilization. But empathy is also used by some to mask agendas.

Virgil said:

I suggest no such thing.

Click to expand...

The statement was "you seem to be suggesting that it's not wrong to kill innocent people, as long as you think you're killing some guilty people at the same time". But you've only bolded the "it's not wrong to kill innocent people" part in your response, making it ambiguous as to whether or not you think striking at guilty people justifies killing innocents. Could you clarify?

Virgil said:

The reporter and others are selling ads by playing on 'children' 'babies' and it sux. The reporter themself may also have an agenda, as opposed to a bias. Your Nausea is amusing. Why? You keep imagining you've taken some high road and are using straw men to mount a personal attack on me. For what? I don't know. But you come across as emotionally unstable here. Hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

You're doing the same thing again though; attempting to dismiss the fact and significance of the death of children and babies. Previously you did it by suggesting that it was 'bs' and 'used for political/ideological reasons'. And now, you're implying that the deaths of innocent children and babies is not in itself newsworthy, suggesting instead that it's being 'played on' for 'selling ads', and/or maybe down to an agenda or bias.

But the deaths of innocent children and babies clearly is inherently newsworthy. And it is remains nauseating - a term you introduced to the conversation - to imply that it isn't.

The article itself also does not support your assertion. It leads on Gaza losing telecom contact and Israel's military surrounded Gaza City. The deaths of children isn't even mentioned until the sixth paragraph. It's clearly reporting it, not 'playing' on it.

RobF said:

The statement was "you seem to be suggesting that it's not wrong to kill innocent people, as long as you think you're killing some guilty people at the same time". But you've only bolded the "it's not wrong to kill innocent people" part in your response, making it ambiguous as to whether or not you think striking at guilty people justifies killing innocents. Could you clarify?


You're doing the same thing again though; attempting to dismiss the fact and significance of the death of children and babies. Previously you did it by suggesting that it was 'bs' and 'used for political/ideological reasons'. And now, you're implying that the deaths of innocent children and babies is not in itself newsworthy, suggesting instead that it's being 'played on' for 'selling ads', and/or maybe down to an agenda or bias.

But the deaths of innocent children and babies clearly is inherently newsworthy. And it is remains nauseating - a term you introduced to the conversation - to imply that it isn't.

The article itself also does not support your assertion. It leads on Gaza losing telecom contact and Israel's military surrounded Gaza City. The deaths of children isn't even mentioned until the sixth paragraph. It's clearly reporting it, not 'playing' on it.

Click to expand...

Clarification: I don't believe justification comes into play. Even the rules of war speak to this. But innocents will get killed when conducting wars or instigating military responses with para military attacks on innocent civilians. Justification? This isn't a freshman college course on ethics, or even a grad school course on ethics. It's the real world. The real world often sucks. If the idea is that all war is bad because innocents get killed, then ok. There is no justification. But that bumps up into reality.

Now do I justify killing innocents? Don't be so terribly nasty. It's uncivil, and disgusting.

Noe one, especially me attempts to dismiss the facts that children and babies are among the killed. Not sure why that emphasis is always put forth as if it's okay or worse than the death of some child's older siblings, older relatives. I refrain from asking and accusing you of belittling the deaths of people over the ages of what you consider children and babies. But see, we digress.

And of course ' the deaths of innocent children and babies clearly is inherently newsworthy.' I just wonder about the not innocent ones. Where is the news on that one? But every day, every story, it encourages empathy to sneak away. Overload.

Virgil said:

I suggest no such thing.

The reporter and others are selling ads by playing on 'children' 'babies' and it sux. The reporter themself may also have an agenda, as opposed to a bias. Your Nausea is amusing. Why? You keep imagining you've taken some high road and are using straw men to mount a personal attack on me. For what? I don't know. But you come across as emotionally unstable here. Hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Can you address his points without resorting to personal insults?

MT15 said:

Can you address his points without resorting to personal insults?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Virgil said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Could you prove it to us?

MT15 said:

Could you prove it to us?

Click to expand...

First go back to post $1,115.

I started out at post #1,094 replying to a zztop

RobF jumped in at post #1,104

I reply to RobF in post #1,113

RobF jumps in at post #1,115 with -- read it: https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/israel-vs-hamas.280162/page-62#post-430034

POST #1,116 I reply inkind

You first jump in at post #1,121

Virgil said:

One thing I think of is America's wars were not fought here or next door. Israel fights enemies on her doorstep. Huge difference in things tactics wise, strategy wise, and ultimate goals.

Empathy makes humanoids, civilized human beings. Without empathy, there is no civilization. But empathy is also used by some to mask agendas.

Click to expand...

Israel is not in an fight for it's existence with Hamas. This is not the war from 1948. I don't even understand the argument of "war crimes if they live close by". I can promise you if the cartels did a 9/11, America would not answer by carpet bombing Mexico City.

Virgil said:

Clarification: I don't believe justification comes into play. Even the rules of war speak to this. But innocents will get killed when conducting wars or instigating military responses with para military attacks on innocent civilians. Justification? This isn't a freshman college course on ethics, or even a grad school course on ethics. It's the real world. The real world often sucks. If the idea is that all war is bad because innocents get killed, then ok. There is no justification. But that bumps up into reality.

Now do I justify killing innocents? Don't be so terribly nasty. It's uncivil, and disgusting.

Noe one, especially me attempts to dismiss the facts that children and babies are among the killed. Not sure why that emphasis is always put forth as if it's okay or worse than the death of some child's older siblings, older relatives. I refrain from asking and accusing you of belittling the deaths of people over the ages of what you consider children and babies. But see, we digress.

And of course ' the deaths of innocent children and babies clearly is inherently newsworthy.' I just wonder about the not innocent ones. Where is the news on that one? But every day, every story, it encourages empathy to sneak away. Overload.

Click to expand...

All you're doing here is saying you're not doing the things you clearly are doing.

That's not how that works.

If you respond to a relevant reference to the deaths of children as 'bs', and then subsequently as 'selling ads' or a product of 'bias or agenda', then you are very obviously attempting to dismiss the fact and significance of it. You can't then just say you're not. Everyone can see that you already did. You're even doing it in the process of claiming that you're not, by attempting to suggest that the reference to it belittles the deaths of others, even though it clearly does not necessitate that either in principle, or, here, in practice, where the relevance of the reference to those particular deaths was already made explicit.

As for the rest, ethics applies in the real world. Including in war. You've heard of 'war crimes' right?

MT15 said:

What part of his statement that his agency does not and never have lobbied for UAE is that you don’t get? They produce some podcasts about UAE, that’s it. They don’t lobby. But even if the agency did, what part of the thread I posted shows that he is being influenced by UAE? You didn’t even read what he said, did you? You just attack for some reason, maybe even just because I posted it.

As usual you will give the people you like a complete pass, even when they post actual propaganda straight from the Kremlin. And condemn this guy without any substance whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you wouldn't comment on how he does PR for an oppressive dictatorship. You constable lecture me about what I post while you are posting stuff from a guy that's a literal foreign agent.

Do you think we should trust someone opinion who works for an oppressive dictator? Were you aware of who he worked for before you posted his tweets? Are you concerned at all about what the UAE does and supports?

Only a CIA simp would think that any criticism of US foreign policy is Russian propaganda.

SaintForLife said:

Only a CIA simp would think that any criticism of US foreign policy is Russian propaganda.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to me here?

And I don’t think just any criticism of US policy is Russian propaganda, I think when GG parrots Kremlin talking points in their entirety that he is spewing Russian propaganda.

J-DONK said:

Israel is not in an fight for it's existence with Hamas. This is not the war from 1948. I don't even understand the argument of "war crimes if they live close by". I can promise you if the cartels did a 9/11, America would not answer by carpet bombing Mexico City.

Click to expand...

Really? Panama ring a bell?

I believe Israel is not facing an existential threat, because she can defend herself, but having a neighboring area where the people in power are sworn to your total destruction? Let's be fair and honest here.

RobF said:

All you're doing here is saying you're not doing the things you clearly are doing.

That's not how that works.

If you respond to a relevant reference to the deaths of children as 'bs', and then subsequently as 'selling ads' or a product of 'bias or agenda', then you are very obviously attempting to dismiss the fact and significance of it. You can't then just say you're not. Everyone can see that you already did. You're even doing it in the process of claiming that you're not, by attempting to suggest that the reference to it belittles the deaths of others, even though it clearly does not necessitate that either in principle, or, here, in practice, where the relevance of the reference to those particular deaths was already made explicit.

As for the rest, ethics applies in the real world. Including in war. You've heard of 'war crimes' right?

Click to expand...

Oh please. So I'm creeped out by people who always hide behind 'the children!' 'the babies!'

This doesn't make me a terrible person. It says nothing about me except I call bs posturing and feigned outrage tied to agendas for what they are.

War crimes? That will eventually come up, but just so you know -- it is far more complicated than to scream and shout 'What about the babies!'

I do not apologize if people like you have gotten all hysterical people people like me won't jump on board the 'But the babies!' bandwagon.

GrandAdmiral said:

Right move or wrong move, especially for the 22 Democrats who voted with the Republicans?

Tlaib again faces censure resolutions over Israel comments | CNN Politics

Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib is again facing Republican-led efforts to censure her over comments critical of Israel and in support of Palestinians amid Israel’s war against Hamas.

www.cnn.com

Click to expand...

Wrong move. Especially given the insane, hateful things Republicans say on the regular with no consequences.

It's definitely a two-tiered system.

They should have been very vocal about it.

"Tell you what. We'll vote to censure Tlaib for saying this when you guys vote to censure Gaetz, MTG, Jordan and Boebert for saying that, that, that and that."

J-DONK said:

Israel is not in a fight for it's existence with Hamas. This is not the war from 1948. I don't even understand the argument of "war crimes if they live close by". I can promise you if the cartels did a 9/11, America would not answer by carpet bombing Mexico City.

Click to expand...

Eh, maybe not. But you could bet your arse that plenty would be screaming for it.

Taurus said:

Wrong move. Especially given the insane, hateful things Republicans say on the regular with no consequences.

It's definitely a two-tiered system.

They should have been very vocal about it.

"Tell you what. We'll vote to censure Tlaib for saying this when you guys vote to censure Gaetz, MTG, Jordan and Boebert for saying that, that, that and that."

Click to expand...

Please don’t hold your breath. Congress has become a schlitzhole.

Virgil said:

Oh please. So I'm creeped out by people who always hide behind 'the children!' 'the babies!'

Click to expand...

Protect "the children" is the rallying cry of people fighting to take away the rights of people who are LGBTQIA+, not white and/or not Christian.

Protect "the babies" is the rallying cry of people fighting to take away the rights of women and healthcare providers.

Hope you're consistent and that you avoid having double standards with your "creeped out" outrage.