Yeah, I can see that. In fact, when I posted last night i could forsee this happening. I find myself largely in agreement with BB. It’s Smapti and Babale I don’t understand. How can you keep defending the indefensible?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
If I believed the blood libel being spread against Israel, I guess I would consider their actions indefensible. But I don’t, so I don’t.
I’ll only say this as I do not want to hi-jack this thread at the request of the creator: I know exactly what it means. I know exactly what I think. Murdering children of any stripe is wrong. Full on civilian slaughter is wrong no matter which side is doing it or what excuse they are using.
My apologies. I will not post on this topic in this thread again. Good luck.
Huh, were you one of my high school math teachers?!
And this was my problem with being a Libertarian after I hit the real world…
Ever read Heinlein’s short story “Coventry”? The protagonist strikes me as the type of idealistic libertarian who’s never lived in a society that actually runs by his ideals, who gets the shock of his life when he discovers reality.
@madmonk28 is a disingenuous piece of shit.
He’s decided that I don’t think Palestinians are humans, and in his determination to prove this, has resorted to leading and baiting questions; when that didn’t work, he decided to just straight up quote me out of context in order to make it seem like I said the opposite of what I had actually said.
Here’s his complete bullshit of a post:
Of course, if he read one additional line down, he’d have seen that I said:
So the answer to his question, in case his single withered brain cell struggles to process it, is "no; if I was convinced that exterminating all of the Palestinian children was militarily necessary, I would consider the military goals in question impossible to accomplish. Like any other normal person, because I’m not a genocidal maniac, you piece of lying trash."
Fuck you and your lies, asshole.
I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the rules against misquoting people. That’s a deliberate attempt to make it look like you said the opposite of what you actually said.
In fact I flagged that post.
I agree with this sentence wholeheartedly. But I also think that if killing the number of Palestinian children currently killed is militarily necessary, the military goals in question are impossible to accomplish.
Somewhere between what I think and “all Palestinian children killed,” there’s a point where you say, “That’s too much: that many dead children renders the military goals in question impossible to accomplish.” Where–or, rather, along what lines–do you reach that point?
For me, it’s difficult to understand your reasoning. If there’s a number of dead Palestinian children that renders the military goals impossible to accomplish, surely that must mean “morally impossible” and not “pragmatically impossible,” unless I’m really misunderstanding. And if you mean “morally impossible,” it’s very hard for me to understand how that point hasn’t already been reached.
You have said that you are okay with thousands of dead Palestinian children to remove Hamas. What’s the number? What number is so many dead Palestinian children you would say enough is enough?
ETA and why are you better than Hamas terrorists?
You’re acting as if “dead Palestinian children” is a specific objective of Israel’s and not an unfortunate inevitability that occurs as a consequence of urban warfare.
If Israel could destroy Hamas without a single Palestinian child dying, they would, but we don’t live in Middle-Earth.
What the hell. @Babale is not going out killing people.
Fine than how are they better than a Hamas supporter?
“Specific objectives” are not a salient moral feature of an action.
The very short version of my ethical beliefs is:
Moral agents share responsibility for the predictable effects of their choices.
Moral agents=any being (typically, mentally sound adult humans) able to evaluate different actions and their consequences.
Share=it’s not a pie cut into pieces. If Hamas has responsibility for something, that doesn’t mean IDF doesn’t have responsibility for the same thing. Multiple parties can have responsibility for the same events.
Responsibility: I’m aware there’s no consensus on morality, so spare me any lecture on moral relativity. It’s how I believe responsibility is allocated.
Predictable: if something wild happens due to your choices, I’m not gonna lay blame. But if something happens that you did predict or could have predicted, you’re on the hook.
Choices: Distinguishing between “action” and “inaction” is a distraction. Everything is about the choices you make.
In this case, Hamas chooses to operate out of civilian areas. It’s predictable that doing so will result in the death of children. Hamas shares responsibility for those deaths. IDF chooses to attack Hamas in those civilian areas. It’s predictable that doing so will result in the death of children. IDF shares responsibility for those deaths. Hamas should stop acting in a way that results in kids dying. IDF should stop acting in a way that results in kids dying. Neither party is justified in blaming the other party until they stop making decisions that result in those deaths themselves.
The best way to stop Palestinian children from dying is to destroy Hamas.
The alternative is the perpetual maintenance of the status quo. Why do you want to condemn the Palestinian people to spending the rest of their lives in tyranny, poverty, and in constant fear of an early death?
That is very, very close to “We must destroy the village in order to save it.” That way lies atrocity.
If only there were an unexcluded middle. How about not asking me about beating my wife next time?
Edit: I just remembered what a sociopathic fuckwit you are on this issue. You suck, and I shouldn’t bother engaging.
So “the village” is Hamas, then?
What do you think Hamas is?
Yes, I mean morally impossible. I think “pragmatically impossible” is the wrong comparison, because it’s also pragmatically impossible - if Netanyahu decided that this was something he wanted to do, for example, I don’t think he would be able to get the IDF to do it, and even if he could, doing something like that would destroy Israel, both due to dissent from within and due to the international response.
I’d say it’s physically possible, I guess.
As for why I don’t believe that point has been reached? Simple - because I consider the alternnative. Say we give Hamas what they want and negotiate a ceasefire. From Hamas’ perspective, they struck a heavy blow against Israel, won massive concessions from Israel by trading kidnapped civilians for people arrested for violence against Israel, and got away with it free and clear. (You and I may not consider thousands dead and severe infrastructure damage as “free and clear”, but as we established civilians are not something Hamas mourns very much).
Hamas would claim victory and start preparing Gaza for the next Oct 7 - and the next Oct 8-Dec 30+…
Oct 7 showed us that Israel cannot simply play defense forever while ignoring the situation in the Gaza strip. 5 or 10 or 15 years from now we will be in exactly the same place, with Hamas successfully breaching Israeli defenses and with Israel retaliating, with Palestinian civilians dying in droves.