Just as they are now encouraging us to go to war with Iran.
Fair enough, and you will note that I didn’t make a mention of Nazis in my post. I was more going for an oppressed becomes the oppressor relationship than trying to invoke nazis in particular.
To use your analogy, it would be as if your young mother is abusing her children, and pointing out that she is abusing her children gets pushback that you are comparing her to her father.
And anyone in the general vicinity in which you think the rock came from.
And the people that are near where you think a rock came from.
Right, and you made the choice that if someone causes you a bit of fear, with virtually no threat of actual injury or harm, you will gun down anyone in the general vicinity of where you think the person that you are afraid is.
Your words:
You really did seem upset here that I didn’t agree with you that rocks are in some way comparable in danger to guns, so as an attempt at concession, I threw out a number that I thought would calm you enough that we could get by that, and allow you to move on.
Zero danger, sure, not really. If they were throwing beach balls there is some danger there too. But pretty damn close to zero.
If you note, there were no deaths nor injuries bad enough to report from the IDF, while dozens killed and thousands wounded by them. Empirical data suggests that the danger of rocks is pretty insignificant next to that of guns.
Okay, I misunderstood you. If shooting them is not necessary to ensure your safety, then why are you shooting them?
I am not talking about a scenario - I am talking about Hamas-led rioters with rocks and some rifles and other weapons rushing the border fence.
Are you really unaware that you posted this -
Some justifications are valid, some are not. That’s how we do moral reasoning.
And it is difficult to do valid moral reasoning when the principles involved are misstated. Hamas justifies its actions from a desire to kill Israelis and take their land away. Israel doesn’t justify killing civilians because the civilians are dissatisfied - they kill them when they rush the fence and try to break thru, using rocks and some rifles and other weapons, so that other armed terrorists can go into Israel and kill civilians. So, we see that Hamas is not justified in its actions, and Israel is.
Working towards peace is almost always preferable. Israel is willing to work towards peace. Hamas isn’t.
As mentioned, Israel offered a deal to the PA with 95+% of what they asked for. The PA refused. No counter-offer, no negotiations, not even a gesture of good faith. Total rejection, and the launch of another intifada.
It is mildly entertaining, in a disgusting kind of way, to see Hamas attack Israel, and then hear condemnations of Israel for not working towards peace and de-escalation.
No, that’s ridiculous and you’re completely wrong.
Israel exists because of a UN mandate creating the state of Israel. It exists in its current borders because it has been repeatedly attacked by those who want to destroy her and grab her territory, and those attackers have been repeatedly defeated and driven out. So Israel exists because the UN established them, in contrast to almost every other country on earth, and by right of conquest. As mentioned, the losers of a war do not get to dictate terms to the winners, especially when the losers are the ones who attacked first.
And this offensive garbage about how Israel is acting like Nazi Germany is contemptible, stupid, and wrong. Israel does not murder Palestinians just for being Palestinians, does not round them up into concentration camps, and does not make lampshades out of their skin or soap out of their bodies.
The ones taking a page are the Palestinians. You do know that they largely allied themselves with the Nazis during WWII, don’t you?
But that’s not it at all: you stated that the rock would cause no harm; and I replied that I think you’re incorrect; and you replied that I must therefore think it would be as dangerous as bullets. And that last bit, right there, is ludicrous: I don’t think it’s zero, but that doesn’t mean I must think it’s As Dangerous As Bullets; I can easily think it’s something in between.
If you say something is ‘zero’ and I say ‘I think you are incorrect’, then it makes no sense to reply by saying ‘then you must think it is a hundred’. I could be thinking of nine or nineteen or ninety; I could be thinking of all sorts of things. You don’t need to throw out a number to calm me; the fact that you disagree with me doesn’t upset me. The only thing that mystifies me is why you jumped to the conclusion.
Well, just to be clear: you said — and I’m of course quoting, here — that my position was “that shooting them was the only way to preserve one’s safety”. But I didn’t say it’s “the only way” to preserve my safety; after all, I don’t actually know whether it’s “the only way” to preserve my safety, and I’d be lying if I said otherwise.
If, for example, I shot a guy dead, and you asked whether a warning shot would’ve preserved my safety, I probably couldn’t honestly reply that no, shooting him was the only way to preserve my safety. I’d probably reply: well, maybe a warning shot would’ve preserved my safety? Yeah, that might have worked. I mean, it might not have worked — but I freely grant that, yes, it might have worked.
I’m not saying it’s “the only way” to preserve my safety; once again, I’m talking about something that is — if you will — between zero and a hundred percent.
This is just as contemptible. Any Nazi allies among Palestinians are long dead. The vast majority of Palestinians are just trying to live their lives, and shouldn’t be held responsible for the misdeeds of their ancestors, their leaders, and Hamas.
For me, the key point is how well thought out this decision was.
Did the President consult the State Department, senior Republicans and Democrats, close allies and carefully consider the ramifications?
Or did Trump just wake up one morning and decide it might help his chances of re-election?
Given that this Administration has insulted Mexico, lied about incidents in Europe and started a trade war with China - I think my second scenario is very plausible.
Really? Unless your point is that literally there is no longer a Nazi regime for them to ally with, but that fact is neither to their credit nor, it would seem, their desire.
From noted bigot Pam Gellar? Might as well cite David Duke.
Not that I would be shocked if there are a non-zero number of neo-Nazi sympathizers among the Palestinians. If so, those guys suck, but that wouldn’t change my point.
I know nothing about her, I had read of that item off-line and when I looked for it on-line, that link was the first one I found with an image. The matter can be found mentioned elsewhere, e.g., here. Yes, the source is Israeli. If you think that makes it less than believable, I don’t know what would convince you.
Your point that most Palestinians aren’t guilty of wanting to destroy Israel or wipe out the Jews? That’s fine. You might also note that most Palestinians aren’t at the border wall in the crowd that contains those throwing stuff in varying degrees of harm-ability at Israelis on the other side of the border. I’m sure the ones who want to go about their lives are actually doing so, and are unharmed. Israel isn’t carpet-bombing the Gaza Strip.
I’m not willing to condemn mostly peaceful protesters for the violence of a relative few. Especially when these are truly desperate people. Desperate and impoverished people tend to act desperately. Palestinians are human, just like desperate people anywhere else. That doesn’t excuse violence, but then most Palestinians aren’t violent.
The violent ones are using the non-violent ones as human shields. Any non-violent protesters being harmed because of this fact are victims of the violent ones in their midst, not of those trying to stop the violent ones from causing harm.
So…desperation doesn’t excuse violence, but those attempting defending themselves against violence shouldn’t do so because the attackers are, or are mixed in with a crowd of, desperate people.
Are you aware of one critically important fact: ?
Hamas itself proudly declared that of the 62 deaths , 50 of the victims were members of Hamas. cite from cnn
I assume that we can all agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
And when a terror organization proudly lists you as one of their members, then you are a terrorist.
So Israeli snipers correctly identified, located, and killed 50 terrorists–within masses of 40,000 people demonstrating violently.
Why is that “more severe” than warranted?
It seems like damn good work: precision fire at appropriate targets.
I do have to admit that I am concerned that that is the entire point of floating and pushing that argument.
With the world becoming more comfortable with the violence, and many defending any act by Israel as being justified, I do worry that if israel decides to commit an atrocity and simply massacre all the people that are causing it problems, that there will not be any international pushback.