Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Try to maintain a connection with reality in the discussion. Hamas has zero chance of annihilating Israel. On their own. They were even losing support amongst the Palestinians.Are you serious, "lose friends"? How about annihilation?
I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this thread.You'd think that this would be a blazingly obvious fact even to the most politicaly naive observer. Hamas had zero hope of winning against Israel. Absolutely none whatsoever. But isn't there anyone in their military who can string a few observations together and run a war game scenario matching what has happened? And the result of it?
What's the worst possible scenario in any given situation for Israel? One, that they lose the support of their friends. And two, that they drastically increase the number of their enemies.
Well, you can get out your Sharpie and put two very large ticks in those boxes.
Those lofty thoughts are not actually the jot and tittle of Geneva Convention, however.I don't think you can be persuaded as it seems you are dug into the wrong notion that Israel is the unjust aggressor.
Proportionality requires that the innocent lives saved by the use of force against a legitimate military target be greater than the innocent lives lost as unavoidable collateral damage.
Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?
Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified? page for Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at USNA.edu. Updated Fri Mar 14 09:17:47 EDT 2025.www.usna.edu
International law and just war theory only insist that the anticipated collateral damage — the “merely foreseen” secondary effects — must be “proportionate” to the military advantage sought in attacking the legitimate military target. This sense of proportionality is the second jus in bello criterion; it has to do almost entirely with the foreseen but unintended harm done to noncombatants and to noncombatant infrastructure.
On Proportionality in War | National Review
Although passions can carry us beyond proportionality in war, Israel has repeatedly demonstrated caution and exceptional patience with its enemies.www.nationalreview.com
You are effectively moving the goal posts. My post was in specific response to those who argue that no matter how extreme Israel's response might be, the responsibility for the deaths Gazans lies with Hamas.Nope.
Imagine American terrorists launched 13,000 rockets at Canadian civilians over the course of the last decade....and not only did we not do anything about it, we celebrated every time a Canadian died.
Now add a mass invasion of hundreds of American terrorists slaughtering, raping, and burning Canadian citizens.
Under those circumstances, I'd definitely understand Canada deciding it was the last straw and killing thousands.
I have not failed. Your position is self-evidently ridiculous. No reasonable person would argue that an agent B is relieved of all responsibility for their actions simply because they have been provoked by an agent A.So far you have only disagreed with my statement and offered imaginary scenarios to a real situation in an effort to justify your position. So far you are failing miserably. Care to try again? It is very entertaining.
It is literally what you suggested:Strawman.
How is it not blazingly obvious, to steal a term from Bradskii, that this is absurd reasoning. You would never see any serious politician or statesman making such a claim. Yes, a country has the right to defend itself when attacked. But no reasonable person would say that no matter what the response of the attacked country is, the attackers bear all the responsibility.Hamas is responsible for all the casualties. Without their attack Israel would not be there and none of this would have happened.
That's most definitely the way I see it. And any suggestion that Hamas wanted to annihilate a nation with one of the best equipped military forces on the planet is so nonsensical it isn't even wrong. So there obviously was another reason. And provoking Israel into a massive overreaction is the only other possibility. They have succeeded.I've mentioned this before, maybe not in this thread.
Hamas committed specific atrocities on Oct 7 that had no effect on reducing Israel's military capabilities, but seem expressly designed to provoke the maximum outrage among Israelis and the most brutal retaliation and loss of Palestinian civilian life. Knowing Israel, they could have no other expectation.
Why would they do that? Certainly not just to cost Israel the support of friends. The only objective that makes sense for Hamas is an expectation that a sufficiently brutal Israeli retaliation would draw the other Muslim nations into open war with Israel.
But if a hospital is bombed must we assume that the “military” being bombed was using the hospital to further their war efforts?The Geneva Conventions permit civilian structures, including hospitals, schools, and religious centers, to be struck if any armed force is using them for any military purposes. In that case, the war crime is attributed to the military that's using them, not the military that struck them.
Who says they are being used? The doctors who deny it or the occupiers finding or planting evidence later? The hospitals were starved of food, power, water, medical supplies,drugs etc. That is a crime. Claiming Hamas used a hospital as a base seems like a thin excuse to continue mass murdering a population without limits.The Geneva Conventions permit civilian structures, including hospitals, schools, and religious centers, to be struck if any armed force is using them for any military purposes. In that case, the war crime is attributed to the military that's using them, not the military that struck them.
There is no question that Hamas has opened fire on fleeing civilians.Bombing an ambulance or fleeing convoy of people, or apartment buildings pretending you targeted a hamas person is fiction. Totally imaginary.
To say that Israel is bombing "without limits" is hyperbole. They certainly are not, or the whole of Gaza would be completely leveled by now.Who says they are being used? The doctors who deny it or the occupiers finding or planting evidence later? The hospitals were starved of food, power, water, medical supplies,drugs etc. That is a crime. Claiming Hamas used a hospital as a base seems like a thin excuse to continue mass murdering a population without limits.
Jihadists will lie. Hamas is responsible for the murder of Israeli children and Palestinian children too. Yes there are doctors and many other Palestinian jihadists who support Hamas. Hamas has lied and butchered babies. The Israelis are the victims, trying to save the hostages. Hamas and their supporters are indeed trying to "mass murder a population without limits." Understand these jihadists want every Jew dead and then every Christian dead. They seek to impose Sharia law on the world. They have no excuse.Who says they are being used? The doctors who deny it or the occupiers finding or planting evidence later? The hospitals were starved of food, power, water, medical supplies,drugs etc. That is a crime. Claiming Hamas used a hospital as a base seems like a thin excuse to continue mass murdering a population without limits.
If all they hoped was to make Israel less popular, that juice would not be worth the squeeze.My only disagreement with you is that they wanted to prompt open warfare. I believe that they wanted Israel to lose friends and gain enemies.
Well that's your story anyway.Bombing an ambulance or fleeing convoy of people, or apartment buildings pretending you targeted a hamas person is fiction. Totally imaginary.
When I say enemies I don't mean people that are mildly disappointed with them.If all they hoped was to make Israel less popular, that juice would not be worth the squeeze.
The Geneva Conventions permit civilian structures, including hospitals, schools, and religious centers, to be struck if any armed force is using them for any military purposes. In that case, the war crime is attributed to the military that's using them, not the military that struck them.
When I say enemies I don't mean people that are mildly disappointed with them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?