Israel-Hamas Thread II

[Bradskii]

According to a poll, three quarters of the Palestinians supported the massacre of Israelis.

Well that leaves nearly 150,00 (less the 56 you already took in of course). But darn it, the GOP want none at all. Zero! If they were only as warm hearted and caring as so many seem to be in this thread where the well known Christian compassion suffuses every post.

How many do you think you should take? Out of all the ones who don't support Hamas. Australia managed 800. Base a figure on that and be sure to let me know.

 

[Valletta]

This response is ringing a failure to understand, for what is at stake here is the universal human need to belong, and express something of that belonging with place. The ancient people of the book have long desired to return to the homeland, given to their father Abraham. Yet this land is also the homeland of the Palestinian people who also see themselves as descendants of Abraham and so they are generally all Semitic people (from the seed of Abraham). The answers are not easy, and giving them South Dakota will not fix the problem, and would probably make the residents of South Dakota a little unhappy.

The majority are supporting genocide, some even followed the Hamas soldiers to rape the women. For that majority it doesn't matter to me what they think about a homeland. They certainly cannot be allowed to self rule in Gaza.

 

[Robban]

This response is ringing a failure to understand, for what is at stake here is the universal human need to belong, and express something of that belonging with place. The ancient people of the book have long desired to return to the homeland, given to their father Abraham. Yet this land is also the homeland of the Palestinian people who also see themselves as descendants of Abraham and so they are generally all Semitic people (from the seed of Abraham). The answers are not easy, and giving them South Dakota will not fix the problem, and would probably make the residents of South Dakota a little unhappy.

Off the top of my head so to speak, did not Abraham originate from Iraq?
Mesipatanian (not a good speller, not so here early in the morning at any rate.)

 

[Robban]

Off the top of my head so to speak, did not Abraham originate from Iraq?
Mesipatanian (not a good speller, not so here early in the morning at any rate.)

Mesopotamien.

 

[o_mlly]

The deaths are higher than the average proportion in all conflicts since 1900 and you post that as some sort of positive?

The article's correction indicates the number of civilian deaths (as reported by that beacon of truth, Hamas) is within the range.

Leaving aside, that asymmetrical wars are categorically different in this regard than other types of wars, the correction that you should have quoted would have taken all of the drama out of your emotionally charged post that civilian deaths are "significantly higher than the average". One has to ask, why did you misquote the article? Blinded by emotion?

 

[o_mlly]

... that innocent civilians, and children for heaven's sake are all valid targets.

People have actually said that children can be valid targets.

No one has posted such a ridiculous claim. Please stop straw manning this thread.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't say so. I think it was someone else who mentioned 12. Let's see:

'...and a 12yo pointing a rifle at an IDF soldier'.

Same guy posted links to articles that said this:

'...a bomb in the bag of 12-year-old Abdullah Quran...'

So yeah, seems that the age of innocence is being promoted as anything less than 12.

So now we know that you don't know the difference between an example and a factual statement......unsurprising.

 

[Bradskii]

...your emotionally charged post that civilian deaths are "significantly higher than the average". One has to ask, why did you misquote the article? Blinded by emotion?

It was a direct quote from the article. You should have read it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Interesting back and forth between an elderly gazan and reporter. You hamas sympathizers.....you can skip this one......

 

[o_mlly]

Well, one seems to but don't expect him to lift a finger to help. He is too busy peddling propaganda to the masses.......

If he were in charge of the Australian Defense Force then all Australians would be learning Chinese.

 

[Bradskii]

No one has posted such a ridiculous claim. Please stop straw manning this thread.

You don't seem to be following the thread.

'Yes a Palestinian with a rifle in a war zone is a valid target even if they are 12'.

What an absolutely outrageous statement to make. But this is exactly why pictures of kids with guns have been posted. This is why links to Hamas camps and numerous links to children coerced into carrying bombs have been posted. All the while trying to peddle this puerile and morally bankrupt insinuation that the children being killed may not have been that innocent.

There is no other reason for it.

 

[Bradskii]

So now we know that you don't know the difference between an example and a factual statement......unsurprising.

The kid with the bomb was a factual event. To which you linked for heaven's sake. Do you not read your own posts? An example of what you want to claim are dangerous children. And for what purpose? Because it's been pointed out numerous times that innocent children are being killed. And you want to suggest that hey, they may not all have been that innocent.

A desperate and shameful implication indeed.

 

[o_mlly]

It was a direct quote from the article. By Levy. You should have read it.

I did ... the entire article. Apparently, you did not. Or did you just read until you read what you were looking for?

 

[Bradskii]

I did ... the entire article.

Then you would have seen the portion I quoted. That's what these little marks are for '...' so you'll know they were copied and pasted from the article to which I linked. And which you now say you did read. Yet you still say it was misquoted? Maybe read it again a little slower.

 

[o_mlly]

'Yes a Palestinian with a rifle in a war zone is a valid target even if they are 12'.

Why do you think that statement is outrageous? If a 12 year old stood in front of your wife and pointed a locked and loaded AK-47 at her, would you say, "Don't worry, dear, he's just a kid. What kind of flowers should I bring to your funeral?

How's your Chinese lessons going?

 

[o_mlly]

Then you would have seen the portion I quoted.

I did. And the same article corrected its mistake a week before you misquoted it.

 

[Bradskii]

Why do you think that statement is outrageous?

I don't know how many times I have to keep posting this, but all this bulldust is being done to suggest that some of the children being blown apart in this conflict are perhaps not all as innocent as people might think.

I'll say it again. It's a position that is shameful, outrageous and morally bankrupt.

 

[Bradskii]

I did. And the same article corrected its mistake a week before you misquoted it.

If you read the article then you know I didn't misquote it. And the difference made by the correction you noted made no difference whatsoever. You have ignored what it said and haven't addressed it in any way.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't know how many times I have to keep posting this, but all this bulldust is being done to suggest that some of the children being blown apart in this conflict are perhaps not all as innocent as people might think.

I'll say it again. It's a position that is shameful, outrageous and morally bankrupt.

No. It's a position based on long-standing rational principles accepted in Western Civilization i.e, just war theory, on the just cause to go to war and the just means of conducting war. You've been given many citations in this thread but choose to ignore them labelling them Latin gibberish.

Trying to conduct a rational argument with an emotional child is a waste of time. Same is true with an emotional non-child.

 

[o_mlly]

If you read the article then you know I didn't misquote it.

Perhaps, you'd like to try reading it again ... this time try reading the entire article.

Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds

Civilian proportion of deaths is higher than the average in all world conflicts in second half of 20th century, data suggests

www.theguardian.com

In case your reading skills diminish as you read, here's the salient part you conveniently missed (ignored?)

This article was amended on 9 December 2023 to clarify that +972 Magazine is an Israeli-Palestinian publication, rather than Israeli. It was then amended on 10 December because an earlier subheading said the proportion of civilian deaths was higher than that in all world conflicts in the 20th century; as the main text indicated, this should have referred to it being higher than the average proportion of civilian deaths in these conflicts. And it was further amended on 18 December due to a clarification made in the source article, stating that the conflicts being analysed were those from the second world war to the 1990s, not those during the whole of the 20th century.​