The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!
Despite their protestation to the contrary, the Hamas uses Jews and Zionism interchangeably.
And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it.
“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it
as it had eliminated its predecessors.”
The defeat of Hamas and the establishment of a secular democratic independent state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Israel isn’t in the wrong for defending themselves. Israel is in the wrong for HOW it defends itself.
As I said above, “Hamas” is different from “Palestinians.” Personally, I think Hamas can be defeated by solving the underlying issues and making them irrelevant. I may be wrong, but no one is even trying.
Let’s say the Sinaloa cartel sets up a missile battery on the roof of a hospital in Tijuana and starts firing rockets into random houses in suburban San Diego, and the Mexican government refuses to do anything about it.
What do you think the US response would be in that moment?
Because I think shooting a Hellfire directly at the hospital’s roof would be the likeliest result.
Apparently a sniper, an artillery barrage, and an air strike are exactly the same response.
Up next: Why Trump carpet bombing Iran with nukes is a perfectly acceptable military response.
(Not that Smapti will realize that’s what his position logically infers.)
You’re going to disable a missile battery fortified on a rooftop with a sniper? Yeah, sure.
Meanwhile, while you’re trying to execute some kind of surgical strike that only happens in movies, that battery is firing missile after missile, and every one that launches is another family dead in their homes. Could be your family, even.
How many Israeli civilians is Israel obliged to let Hamas kill before they’re allowed to use maximal force?
How about we start with all of the many ways the US has to deal with a missile battery on the roof of a hospital in Tijuana that do not result in the destruction of the hospital, or Tijuana, first?
Alright, but five more people just died while you were wringing your hands about less-lethal solutions. One of them was a newborn baby whose parents just brought her home this morning.
Ask directly, then. Zero losses are acceptable, obviously. I’m not okay with killing of “us” and I’m not okay with killing of “them.”
When such violence or destruction happens, it is wrong and terrible. The trick is responding in a way that doesn’t reward the perpetrators by giving into their demands (because that’s just bullying), for retaliation in kind (because that escalates the revenge cycle).
I know in that situation I would want to hurt people. I’d be furious. But I have a moral code that wouldn’t allow me to go through with it. I don’t think that’s true of most Americans, given the entirety of American history.
I’m also not under the illusion that what I propose is simple or quick. It’s just that making things worse doesn’t make them better.
Then you’re in no position to judge the way Israel wages war, because you’re constitutionally incapable of making the kind of tough decisions that have to be made when lives are on the line and seconds count. If you got the proverbial 3 AM phone call you’d sit there wringing your hands while preventable deaths occurred, and if you’d been in charge of Israel on 10/7 there’d be a lot more dead Israelis and things would be a lot worse for everyone involved.
If you care about saving American lives? Yes.
By the way, while you were trying to analyze the systemic origins of the war on drugs as if you could disable a missile battery by building affordable housing at it, one of their missiles leveled a hospital in Chula Vista. Isn’t that ironic? But hey, you can sleep at night knowing that their lives were a small price to pay to preserve your moral integrity.
And there we have it, some people’s lives have no value to your kind. Mexicans and Palestinians are just NPCs who exist to be killed without a thought from the PCs.
“analyze the systemic origins of the war on drugs” you sound more and more like a right winger everyday.
You might want to address small prices to pay to preserve their moral integrity to the folks who’s need to sleep at night included a President Trump.
(I never took the artillery barrage/air strike/nuke them from orbit off the table, I just suggested that maybe we should consider other effective alternatives that produce less collateral damage first. If I live in the movies then you live in comic books . . . but that’s a given, isn’t it Demon Master?)
You may have noticed that I’m pretty much against war. War doesn’t solve problems: it defers them. If you’re in favour of war, you won’t listen to someone like me telling you that killing and destruction don’t build a better world, and they sure as hell don’t solve the problems that are prompting you to kill and destroy.
But you do you, and see how well it works out. The last 80 years haven’t brought lasting peace, but maybe if you keep at it, it magically will. Or you’ll just kill all the inconvenient reminders that you’re not the only people with ties to that region.
I’m sorry, have you just emerged from a portal to the Land of Make-Believe, where everyone resolvez their disputes with a friendly conversation over a bowl of strawberry ice cream? Because I’m not sure you actually understand the concept of war at this point. I’ll give you a hint; Patton, who I’m sure you think was a bloodthirsty savage who should’ve just figured out what Hitler was so darn mad about so they could find a way to both be happy, said “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
Fighting a war means people have to die, and better it the enemy who gets killed than your own. Sometimes it even results in LESS death in the long run. A lot of people died when we nuked Japan. A lot more people would’ve died if we’d had to invade the Japanese mainland and Stalin had invaded China. If you’re unwilling to accept that calculus, you may as well surrender and beg your conqueror for mercy.
And how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for that alternative?
Then you are a fool, because war is often necessary for countries that respect the rights and freedoms of their citizens to protect them against those that don’t. If you refuse to fight even in self-defense then you are conceding that the future of mankind will be decided by tyrants and despots.
The people we liberated from the concentration camps would beg to differ, I bet.
I’m not “in favor of war” - I acknowledge that it is an unfortunate necessity. Your hippy-dippy pacifist ideals are all well and good until you’ve got an enemy who DOESN’T think that way.