4 year old child killed in Gaza bombing

[docmauser1]

The argument is only "dryvel" because you obviously didn't understand it. Shocking.

[yawn] Dryvel.

 

[Phoenall]

Essentially, though theoretically it doesn't have to. Regardless, we don't get to redefine words simply because the State does them. Murdering innocent civilians becomes "collateral damage," yet it's still one group of people killing innocent people. Sorry, still murder.

Just as firing unguided rockets into civilian homes and neighborhoods is a War Crime.

Who's denying that? The problem is that this war crime somehow justifies the war crime of blowing up entire civilian neighborhoods, with the civilians still present, in the minds of some people.

Just in the minds of the uneducated are blowing up neighborhoods war crimes, Ethel.

Then you don't object to Hamas firing into Israeli neighborhoods either, right?

Only in the minds of the uneducated that can only see one side of the argument. The fact that they cease to be civilian areas once hamas puts a rocket launcher in place as detailed in the Geneva conventions. I would advise you to read them, all 4 so you get an idea of just how much hamas is in breach of them and how Israel is working well within them

I condemn both Hamas and the Israeli government equally, and I'm the one only seeing one side of the argument? I'm afraid this discussion is beyond you.

Haven't seen any condemnation of hamas in your posts, but plenty of misinformed condemnation if Israel based on LIES, BLOOD LIBELS and Jew hatred.

Outright trolling now. Boring.

WRONG and this is the cry of the beaten when they have no returning argument

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The argument is only "dryvel" because you obviously didn't understand it. Shocking.

[yawn] Dryvel.

English. Try it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Essentially, though theoretically it doesn't have to. Regardless, we don't get to redefine words simply because the State does them. Murdering innocent civilians becomes "collateral damage," yet it's still one group of people killing innocent people. Sorry, still murder.

Just as firing unguided rockets into civilian homes and neighborhoods is a War Crime.

Who's denying that? The problem is that this war crime somehow justifies the war crime of blowing up entire civilian neighborhoods, with the civilians still present, in the minds of some people.

Just in the minds of the uneducated are blowing up neighborhoods war crimes, Ethel.

Then you don't object to Hamas firing into Israeli neighborhoods either, right?

Only in the minds of the uneducated that can only see one side of the argument. The fact that they cease to be civilian areas once hamas puts a rocket launcher in place as detailed in the Geneva conventions. I would advise you to read them, all 4 so you get an idea of just how much hamas is in breach of them and how Israel is working well within them

I condemn both Hamas and the Israeli government equally, and I'm the one only seeing one side of the argument? I'm afraid this discussion is beyond you.

Haven't seen any condemnation of hamas in your posts, but plenty of misinformed condemnation if Israel based on LIES, BLOOD LIBELS and Jew hatred.

Outright trolling now. Boring.

WRONG and this is the cry of the beaten when they have no returning argument

Now claiming some form of mythical victory on the internet. Even more boring.

 

[docmauser1]

Now claiming some form of mythical victory on the internet. Even more boring.

Drivel.

 

[aris2chat]

If a house is filled with 10 serial killers and 1 boy, is it a civilian area or a legitimate one.

Police are not restricted to "proportional" force, but Israeli soldiers are expected to respond to attacks while handcuffed. This makes no sense. You are not playing Badminton, you are eliminating a dangerous threat, and unfortunately some civilians/hostages might be killed by either side in the process.

radical elements don't bother with trials, they execute those they capture and use it as a form of media promotion. Anyone want to kill indiscriminately, and brutally kill hostages, forget the video and paintball games, come play the game for real.

These are not people that you can engage by some UN type Marquess of Queensberry rules of war.

 

[Lipush]

...Now you're getting it: All of those men should have stood trial for their crimes against humanity. The fact that they didn't has nothing to do with whether they were right, but the fact that they won.

As I said before, that dog won't hunt.

According to your logic... if you embed rocket launchers in your living room, then fire at me and my family, it would be criminal of me to fire back, because I might hit your family.

The Real World doesn't work like that.

Never has.

Never will.

Next slide, please.

No, according to my logic it would be criminal for you to hit my family, or my neighbors, assuming they're innocent of the crime for which I committed in your analogy. You completely ignore the analogy of the officer firing into a crowd because you have no answer for it. There's a reason police aren't supposed to fire into the crowd after fleeing suspects, and that's because they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians in the hunt for a suspect.

Your policeman firing into a crowd scenario is a canard in this instance.

Other than that, your so-called logic has you positioned just north of Never-Never Land.

It's simply not Real World thinking.

Automatic gainsay... did too, did not... am too, am not... is too, is not... is painful enough and pointless enough when dealing with Reality, but, when dealing with some kind of Alternate Universe in which such things might be operative, well, there's simply no profit in such an exchange.

Inflicting civilian casualties during the course of legitimate wartime targeting operations is both justifiable and defensible, regardless of the way in which you would like The Universe to operate.

The guy was never part of war, he see things how he believes should be done. Can't hold it against him really. Sadly, he also doesn't get that things don't work like he wishes them to work, in real life.

Oh brother.

Thanks for making my point for me

You didn't have a point other than to dismiss me because I've never been a part of "war." I've also never been part of a serial killer's murder spree, but I have no problem saying those are morally wrong.

I didn't dismiss you because you've never been in war, I dismiss you because what you say have no grounds in the real world.

 

[Lipush]

That's only partly true.

We enterd this current war because we had no other choice.

It was Netanyahoo's choice how to end it. He had no choice but to start it.

That any war is inevitable is a lazy response, because they're not. It's only inevitable in the sense that politicians, especially politicians being armed and funded by the United States government, have little incentive to find an alternative path to peace.

That's nonsense. Israeli civilians (myself included) were under attack 24/7. When your civilians are under attack, you fight back.

No cliches about "politic interests" here.

And yet you don't see the problem? Why is Hamas attacking you, in fact, why is Hamas in power at all? The reason is that Palestinians see the Israeli government as an aggressor. It doesn't matter if you disagree, it's a fact that that's how they feel, so they elect a group that helps them in many ways, claims to care about them, and is willing to "fight back" against Israel.

The problem is it's a never-ending cycle: Hamas fires rockets, Israel goes for shock-and-awe, Hamas fires rockets, Israel goes for shock-and-awe, Hamas fires rockets, Israel goes for shock-and-awe, Hamas fires rockets, Israel goes for shock-and-awe, etc... Both sides get to blame the other. There are only two ways to stop it that I can see. The first way is completely wiping out the Palestinians in an actual genocidal purge, which I don't think you or much of anybody else is advocating, and would ultimately lead to other issues as I think Israel would then find itself fending off other Muslim countries. The second is that Israel become the adult, we know Hamas isn't going to do it, and change the way they deal with Palestinians in general. Israel has enough defense capabilities to protect its citizens against the majority of weak attacks from Hamas, and in the meantime could change the way they are perceived by Palestinian citizens through peaceful means.

Violence from Israel, whether they started it or not, is only going to lead to more violence from Hamas. Israel changing the way they're perceived by Palestinian civilians, however, would leave Hamas marginalized and with no base of support.

The Israelis are always the agressors*eyroll*

Israelis are also the one who feed the "victims", like a patient offering the cancer more bodycells to consume.

"It's a question of how they feel". And why should we care how they feel? they care how we feel?

Israel tried to be the reponsible adult in 2005. It caused rockets on our towns. you want rockets to be on Jerusalem? because that's the "adult step" next result.

I didn't say Israel was always the aggressor, I said it's irrelevant who the initial aggressor was. Israelis see it as being Hamas, and Palestinians see it as being Israel. Shocking that maybe they're simply both at fault.

So what's your solution then? Continuing to do this dance with Hamas, exterminating all Palestinians, or what? If diplomacy is off the table then what's the solution?

There is no solution, since they're taught to hate since birth. You take out one, you get a new one.

Hypothetically, we can destroy Hamas, but we don't know what might happen afterwards.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now claiming some form of mythical victory on the internet. Even more boring.

Drivel.

I see you found your mistake.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

...Now you're getting it: All of those men should have stood trial for their crimes against humanity. The fact that they didn't has nothing to do with whether they were right, but the fact that they won.

As I said before, that dog won't hunt.

According to your logic... if you embed rocket launchers in your living room, then fire at me and my family, it would be criminal of me to fire back, because I might hit your family.

The Real World doesn't work like that.

Never has.

Never will.

Next slide, please.

No, according to my logic it would be criminal for you to hit my family, or my neighbors, assuming they're innocent of the crime for which I committed in your analogy. You completely ignore the analogy of the officer firing into a crowd because you have no answer for it. There's a reason police aren't supposed to fire into the crowd after fleeing suspects, and that's because they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians in the hunt for a suspect.

Your policeman firing into a crowd scenario is a canard in this instance.

Other than that, your so-called logic has you positioned just north of Never-Never Land.

It's simply not Real World thinking.

Automatic gainsay... did too, did not... am too, am not... is too, is not... is painful enough and pointless enough when dealing with Reality, but, when dealing with some kind of Alternate Universe in which such things might be operative, well, there's simply no profit in such an exchange.

Inflicting civilian casualties during the course of legitimate wartime targeting operations is both justifiable and defensible, regardless of the way in which you would like The Universe to operate.

The guy was never part of war, he see things how he believes should be done. Can't hold it against him really. Sadly, he also doesn't get that things don't work like he wishes them to work, in real life.

Oh brother.

Thanks for making my point for me

You didn't have a point other than to dismiss me because I've never been a part of "war." I've also never been part of a serial killer's murder spree, but I have no problem saying those are morally wrong.

I didn't dismiss you because you've never been in war, I dismiss you because what you say have no grounds in the real world.

Only because you want to justify killing civilians.

 

[docmauser1]

I see you found your mistake.

Found wot?

 

[docmauser1]

Only because you want to justify killing civilians.

Activist civilians, or statist civilians?

 

[Lipush]

...Now you're getting it: All of those men should have stood trial for their crimes against humanity. The fact that they didn't has nothing to do with whether they were right, but the fact that they won.

As I said before, that dog won't hunt.

According to your logic... if you embed rocket launchers in your living room, then fire at me and my family, it would be criminal of me to fire back, because I might hit your family.

The Real World doesn't work like that.

Never has.

Never will.

Next slide, please.

No, according to my logic it would be criminal for you to hit my family, or my neighbors, assuming they're innocent of the crime for which I committed in your analogy. You completely ignore the analogy of the officer firing into a crowd because you have no answer for it. There's a reason police aren't supposed to fire into the crowd after fleeing suspects, and that's because they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians in the hunt for a suspect.

Your policeman firing into a crowd scenario is a canard in this instance.

Other than that, your so-called logic has you positioned just north of Never-Never Land.

It's simply not Real World thinking.

Automatic gainsay... did too, did not... am too, am not... is too, is not... is painful enough and pointless enough when dealing with Reality, but, when dealing with some kind of Alternate Universe in which such things might be operative, well, there's simply no profit in such an exchange.

Inflicting civilian casualties during the course of legitimate wartime targeting operations is both justifiable and defensible, regardless of the way in which you would like The Universe to operate.

The guy was never part of war, he see things how he believes should be done. Can't hold it against him really. Sadly, he also doesn't get that things don't work like he wishes them to work, in real life.

Oh brother.

Thanks for making my point for me

You didn't have a point other than to dismiss me because I've never been a part of "war." I've also never been part of a serial killer's murder spree, but I have no problem saying those are morally wrong.

I didn't dismiss you because you've never been in war, I dismiss you because what you say have no grounds in the real world.

Only because you want to justify killing civilians.

II justify killing terrorists.

If the civilians are so eager to die for the terrorists, I don't see why it's my problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

...Now you're getting it: All of those men should have stood trial for their crimes against humanity. The fact that they didn't has nothing to do with whether they were right, but the fact that they won.

As I said before, that dog won't hunt.

According to your logic... if you embed rocket launchers in your living room, then fire at me and my family, it would be criminal of me to fire back, because I might hit your family.

The Real World doesn't work like that.

Never has.

Never will.

Next slide, please.

No, according to my logic it would be criminal for you to hit my family, or my neighbors, assuming they're innocent of the crime for which I committed in your analogy. You completely ignore the analogy of the officer firing into a crowd because you have no answer for it. There's a reason police aren't supposed to fire into the crowd after fleeing suspects, and that's because they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians in the hunt for a suspect.

Your policeman firing into a crowd scenario is a canard in this instance.

Other than that, your so-called logic has you positioned just north of Never-Never Land.

It's simply not Real World thinking.

Automatic gainsay... did too, did not... am too, am not... is too, is not... is painful enough and pointless enough when dealing with Reality, but, when dealing with some kind of Alternate Universe in which such things might be operative, well, there's simply no profit in such an exchange.

Inflicting civilian casualties during the course of legitimate wartime targeting operations is both justifiable and defensible, regardless of the way in which you would like The Universe to operate.

The guy was never part of war, he see things how he believes should be done. Can't hold it against him really. Sadly, he also doesn't get that things don't work like he wishes them to work, in real life.

Oh brother.

Thanks for making my point for me

You didn't have a point other than to dismiss me because I've never been a part of "war." I've also never been part of a serial killer's murder spree, but I have no problem saying those are morally wrong.

I didn't dismiss you because you've never been in war, I dismiss you because what you say have no grounds in the real world.

Only because you want to justify killing civilians.

II justify killing terrorists.

If the civilians are so eager to die for the terrorists, I don't see why it's my problem.

Your problem is that you assume they all want to die for Hamas, when it's more likely they're just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your problem is that you think their lives are worth less than yours. Your problem is that because they dislike the Israeli government's policies towards them that they maybe make the mistake of disliking all Israelis so you think they can be killed, even though you make the exact same mistake towards them. Your problem is that any justification you can make towards killing Palestinian civilians can also be used to justify killing Israeli civilians.

 

[docmauser1]

Your problem is that you assume they all want to die for Hamas,

They elected hamass in the first place, so now, dying for/ by hamass is a very much logical occupation, of course.

... when it's more likely they're just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Funny how palistanians happen to pick the right place at the right time to be in the wrong place at the wrong time! Fantastique!

Your problem is that you think their lives are worth less than yours.

If palistanians don't value their lives themselves, noone will do that for them ,of course.

Your problem is that because they dislike the Israeli government's policies towards them that they maybe make the mistake of disliking all Israelis so you think they can be killed, even though you make the exact same mistake towards them. Your problem is that any justification you can make towards killing Palestinian civilians can also be used to justify killing Israeli civilians.

Palistanians should change their occupation, of course.

 

[Lipush]

...Now you're getting it: All of those men should have stood trial for their crimes against humanity. The fact that they didn't has nothing to do with whether they were right, but the fact that they won.

As I said before, that dog won't hunt.

According to your logic... if you embed rocket launchers in your living room, then fire at me and my family, it would be criminal of me to fire back, because I might hit your family.

The Real World doesn't work like that.

Never has.

Never will.

Next slide, please.

No, according to my logic it would be criminal for you to hit my family, or my neighbors, assuming they're innocent of the crime for which I committed in your analogy. You completely ignore the analogy of the officer firing into a crowd because you have no answer for it. There's a reason police aren't supposed to fire into the crowd after fleeing suspects, and that's because they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians in the hunt for a suspect.

Your policeman firing into a crowd scenario is a canard in this instance.

Other than that, your so-called logic has you positioned just north of Never-Never Land.

It's simply not Real World thinking.

Automatic gainsay... did too, did not... am too, am not... is too, is not... is painful enough and pointless enough when dealing with Reality, but, when dealing with some kind of Alternate Universe in which such things might be operative, well, there's simply no profit in such an exchange.

Inflicting civilian casualties during the course of legitimate wartime targeting operations is both justifiable and defensible, regardless of the way in which you would like The Universe to operate.

The guy was never part of war, he see things how he believes should be done. Can't hold it against him really. Sadly, he also doesn't get that things don't work like he wishes them to work, in real life.

Oh brother.

Thanks for making my point for me

You didn't have a point other than to dismiss me because I've never been a part of "war." I've also never been part of a serial killer's murder spree, but I have no problem saying those are morally wrong.

I didn't dismiss you because you've never been in war, I dismiss you because what you say have no grounds in the real world.

Only because you want to justify killing civilians.

II justify killing terrorists.

If the civilians are so eager to die for the terrorists, I don't see why it's my problem.

Your problem is that you assume they all want to die for Hamas, when it's more likely they're just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your problem is that you think their lives are worth less than yours. Your problem is that because they dislike the Israeli government's policies towards them that they maybe make the mistake of disliking all Israelis so you think they can be killed, even though you make the exact same mistake towards them. Your problem is that any justification you can make towards killing Palestinian civilians can also be used to justify killing Israeli civilians.

Yeah, they're always at the wrong place at the wrong time.

What a nonsense!

I don't think their lives are worth less than mine; I think that there is no reason to sympathize with people who call for my destruction. I refuse to kiss the hand that smacks me. "Turn the other cheek" is for fools and naive.

The difference that for me, every Israeli life matters, while their own lives don't matter to them. In the past few days you've seen them loke monkies on exstacy, dancing and celebrating their "victory" like people on druges. 2000+ dead and they celebrate.

DISGUSTING.

Israeli army chief first words were to mourn for our dead, and we had fewer in numbers. He named them, he thanked their sacrifies, he blessed their souls.

He cherished their lives. Celebrating is for evil people. They don't care about their own dead, they would have celebrated with 10,000 in the ground. While Israel endlessly mourns even when ONE of us is taken.

So don't compare us to them. We're much better in that aspect at least.

 

[Indofred]

They elected hamass in the first place, so now, dying for/ by hamass is a very much logical occupation, of course

America elected G wubbleyou Bush - did they vote to have thousands of Americans killed in illegal wars?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They elected hamass in the first place, so now, dying for/ by hamass is a very much logical occupation, of course

America elected G wubbleyou Bush - did they vote to have thousands of Americans killed in illegal wars?

Apparently I, who was never even old enough to have voted for Bush, am personally responsible for everything he did because "we" elected him.

 

[Hossfly]

They elected hamass in the first place, so now, dying for/ by hamass is a very much logical occupation, of course

America elected G wubbleyou Bush - did they vote to have thousands of Americans killed in illegal wars?

Apparently I, who was never even old enough to have voted for Bush, am personally responsible for everything he did because "we" elected him.

Yes and you should be proud of your accomplishments.

 

[Indofred]

...Now you're getting it: All of those men should have stood trial for their crimes against humanity. The fact that they didn't has nothing to do with whether they were right, but the fact that they won.

As I said before, that dog won't hunt.

According to your logic... if you embed rocket launchers in your living room, then fire at me and my family, it would be criminal of me to fire back, because I might hit your family.

The Real World doesn't work like that.

Never has.

Never will.

Next slide, please.

No, according to my logic it would be criminal for you to hit my family, or my neighbors, assuming they're innocent of the crime for which I committed in your analogy. You completely ignore the analogy of the officer firing into a crowd because you have no answer for it. There's a reason police aren't supposed to fire into the crowd after fleeing suspects, and that's because they're not supposed to hurt innocent civilians in the hunt for a suspect.

Your policeman firing into a crowd scenario is a canard in this instance.

Other than that, your so-called logic has you positioned just north of Never-Never Land.

It's simply not Real World thinking.

Automatic gainsay... did too, did not... am too, am not... is too, is not... is painful enough and pointless enough when dealing with Reality, but, when dealing with some kind of Alternate Universe in which such things might be operative, well, there's simply no profit in such an exchange.

Inflicting civilian casualties during the course of legitimate wartime targeting operations is both justifiable and defensible, regardless of the way in which you would like The Universe to operate.

The guy was never part of war, he see things how he believes should be done. Can't hold it against him really. Sadly, he also doesn't get that things don't work like he wishes them to work, in real life.

Oh brother.

Thanks for making my point for me

You didn't have a point other than to dismiss me because I've never been a part of "war." I've also never been part of a serial killer's murder spree, but I have no problem saying those are morally wrong.

I didn't dismiss you because you've never been in war, I dismiss you because what you say have no grounds in the real world.

Only because you want to justify killing civilians.

II justify killing terrorists.

If the civilians are so eager to die for the terrorists, I don't see why it's my problem.

Your problem is that you assume they all want to die for Hamas, when it's more likely they're just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your problem is that you think their lives are worth less than yours. Your problem is that because they dislike the Israeli government's policies towards them that they maybe make the mistake of disliking all Israelis so you think they can be killed, even though you make the exact same mistake towards them. Your problem is that any justification you can make towards killing Palestinian civilians can also be used to justify killing Israeli civilians.

Yeah, they're always at the wrong place at the wrong time.

What a nonsense!

I don't think their lives are worth less than mine; I think that there is no reason to sympathize with people who call for my destruction. I refuse to kiss the hand that smacks me. "Turn the other cheek" is for fools and naive.

The difference that for me, every Israeli life matters, while their own lives don't matter to them. In the past few days you've seen them loke monkies on exstacy, dancing and celebrating their "victory" like people on druges. 2000+ dead and they celebrate.

DISGUSTING.

Israeli army chief first words were to mourn for our dead, and we had fewer in numbers. He named them, he thanked their sacrifies, he blessed their souls.

He cherished their lives. Celebrating is for evil people. They don't care about their own dead, they would have celebrated with 10,000 in the ground. While Israel endlessly mourns even when ONE of us is taken.

So don't compare us to them. We're much better in that aspect at least.

They elected hamass in the first place, so now, dying for/ by hamass is a very much logical occupation, of course

America elected G wubbleyou Bush - did they vote to have thousands of Americans killed in illegal wars?

Apparently I, who was never even old enough to have voted for Bush, am personally responsible for everything he did because "we" elected him.

It seems you are, because all the people of Gaza are guilty of voting for Hamas, even the babies.