I’m saying that Hamas is about the same level of threat to Israel as a 5-year-old is to an adult. I’m saying that Hamas can’t really hurt Israel. The rocketing is a nuisance, but it’s not a sufficient threat to justify the response. Israel has now killed something like 12 times as many civilians in the last week as Hamas rockets have killed in the last 8 years.
That would be funny as hell. Even better than the shoe.
And you’d therefore change your tune if Hamas was managing to actually kill civilians in significant numbers? No judgement on intentions or effect?
Bonus question: What exactly do you think Hamas is trying to accomplish by firing rockets that aren’t, apparently, killing much of anyone?
That’s correct.
Expressing impotent rage. It’s basically the same reason convicts throw cups of piss at the guards.
Yeah, it’s called massive retaliation. I think it’s a pretty good strategy against an enemy that can’t destroy you but can continue to annoy you.
The chance that a five-year-old child will kill someone by kicking them in the shins is practically nil. The same cannot be said about Hamas’ rockets.
Yeah, that’s where the idea of “maximizing state interests” comes in–the reactions of “another state” are factored in.
No, because you could stop him with less.
I’d be interested in seeing your answer to the other questions I’ve posed to you, though.
But the insinuation is that Hamas rockets are somehow an existential threat to Israel. They aren’t.
Not even close. What is wrong with Zeriel’s?
The 5-year-old analogy is beyond stupid. A 5-year old, by all standards of law, is not capable of distinguishing right from wrong. This has nothing to do with physical capability, but about moral culpability. Hamas is an adult organization fully capable of making moral decisions. **Dio **needs to provide some actual reasoning rather than these ridiculous statements. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to offer alternative analogies. Make **Dio **back up the statements he is making and justify the analogy his is offering.
Give us a cite to show that “attack” has to be an existential threat.
Does an act of war have to be existential threat? If not, then let’s call it an act of war instead of an attack.
I just scrolled back twice through this entire thread and I can’t find a post where you asked me any questions. What questions are you referring to?
Already answered. The threat level.
So, the only justification that Israel would have were if Hamas was a threat to their very existence? Don’t you think that the state of Israel has an obligation to it’s citizenry to take action so that bombs don’t come falling out of the sky? Especially since they know where they’re coming from?
They are an existential threat to Israeli citizens. Your analogy totally breaks down because it comes with the assumption that a 5-year-old is basically innocent and easily restrained. Hamas is neither.
I am not unsympathetic to your position. Hamas fires rockets and Israel responds with a ground offensive which, IMO, plays into Hamas’ strengths. But Hamas is trying to kill Israeli citizens and even if it is doing a piss-poor job at it Israel must respond.
How else can it possibly be defined? How can it be said that an entity is being “attacked” if it has no possibility of injury? Israel as a state is not in any jeopardy from the rockets, so it’s improper to say that the “Israel” is being attacked. That’s ridiculous.
In my opinion, yes.
The posts were 118 and 119. Granted that that there are no question marks, but I was hoping to see your responses to my responses.
The first one went to your characterization of 911 not being an attack on the U.S.:
Here’s the other, having to do with your claim that “Collateral damage is an intentional outcome.”:
Probably not a good idea, razncain, although I can understand the impulse. We don’t want accidentally-alerted folks coming over just to gawk at us (although joining and participating is welcome), and it behooves us to not go over to other communities to gawk at them.
Welcome to the SDMB, btw.
As with Israel, it was not any kind of serious attack on the US as a state. It was not a military action. It was just a single (albeit massive) criminal act.
That’s just a speech, not a question. My short answer is that if you know collateral damage will occur if you do X, but you do X anyway, then that collateral damage becomes intentional.