[annatar1914]

That people tend to do all sorts of terrible things because of their feelings is nothing new... But why would others glorify that?

@wat0n :

Not to start an argument, but why are you deflecting? I wasn't talking about glorifying anything, was I?

I think that it's safe to say that there's no real heroes with either combatants. Evil is repaid with evil, in a vicious cycle. Problem is that nobody is seeing the obvious truth here which is that eventually one side is going to militarily end the political existence of the other, most likely Israel's. But Jews will be integrated into the Islamic world and likely thrive there not only in Palestine but places like Dubai too.

[wat0n]

@wat0n :

Not to start an argument, but why are you deflecting? I wasn't talking about glorifying anything, was I?

I think that it's safe to say that there's no real heroes with either combatants. Evil is repaid with evil, in a vicious cycle. Problem is that nobody is seeing the obvious truth here which is that eventually one side is going to militarily end the political existence of the other, most likely Israel's. But Jews will be integrated into the Islamic world and likely thrive there not only in Palestine but places like Dubai too.

There are those who do indeed glorify violence against civilians, even in conflicts they have no part in.

[noemon]

Anyone who views Hamas or Nat Turner as a hero or laud their actions while knowing what they did is an unethical human being. Violent acts specifically targeting children is disgusting.

I don't know about Nat Turner but Hamas is definitely not targeting children any more than Israel is. Since Israel has killed way more children than Hamas and is torturing these people for a few decades and still going, this argument becomes quite out there.

Painting Israel as the "avengers of the killers of children" is quite --->

In a Marvel Studio production, not in real life.

In real life, Israel is just trying to land grab Gaza and the West Bank and is torturing and ghettoizing 6 million people in the process. Literally entering their homes, raping their lives, and eventually taking down their homes too creating refugees every decade for 7 decades in a row while at the same time setting the stage up at almost every round.

At this point, it has become ritualistic theater going on for 70 seasons.

[noemon]

@wat0n :

Not to start an argument, but why are you deflecting? I wasn't talking about glorifying anything, was I?

I think that it's safe to say that there's no real heroes with either combatants. Evil is repaid with evil, in a vicious cycle. Problem is that nobody is seeing the obvious truth here which is that eventually one side is going to militarily end the political existence of the other, most likely Israel's. But Jews will be integrated into the Islamic world and likely thrive there not only in Palestine but places like Dubai too.

That shows as being more your own wishful thinking than actual reality.

[Potemkin]

I don't know about Nat Turner but Hamas is definitely not targeting children any more than Israel is. Since Israel has killed way more children than Hamas, this argument becomes quite out there.

And children are routinely killed in conflicts, since before history began. How many innocent German children were incinerated in the Allied bombing raids during WWII? Does that make Churchill a baby-killer? And I can remember the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - the Americans had received an intelligence report that Saddam and his sons were dining at a particular restaurant, so they fired a missile at it, killing everyone inside. I remember thinking to myself at the time, how many children died in that restaurant? Why do the Allies in WWII or the Americans in Gulf War II get a free pass, but Nat Turner doesn’t? Or why do the Israelis get a free pass to kill children, but Hamas doesn’t? What is different about the two cases?

[noemon]

And children are routinely killed in conflicts, since before history began. How many innocent German children were incinerated in the Allied bombing raids during WWII? Does that make Churchill a baby-killer? And I can remember the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - the Americans had received an intelligence report that Saddam and his sons were dining at a particular restaurant, so they fired a missile at it, killing everyone inside. I remember thinking to myself at the time, how many children died in that restaurant? Why do the Allies in WWII or the Americans in Gulf War II get a free pass, but Nat Turner doesn’t? Or why do the Israelis get a free pass to kill children, but Hamas doesn’t? What is different about the two cases?

Yes, indeed.

For the non-interest-involved spectator, it is imagery & perspective.

[wat0n]

And children are routinely killed in conflicts, since before history began. How many innocent German children were incinerated in the Allied bombing raids during WWII? Does that make Churchill a baby-killer? And I can remember the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - the Americans had received an intelligence report that Saddam and his sons were dining at a particular restaurant, so they fired a missile at it, killing everyone inside. I remember thinking to myself at the time, how many children died in that restaurant? Why do the Allies in WWII or the Americans in Gulf War II get a free pass, but Nat Turner doesn’t? Or why do the Israelis get a free pass to kill children, but Hamas doesn’t? What is different about the two cases?

There is a difference between killing children while hitting a legitimate military target, and setting out with the purpose to kill them.

The former is a regrettable yet unavoidable aspect of war - if there are rocket launchers next to (or even inside) a school, hitting them will likely harm children. It doesn't matter if you use planes or missiles to do so and if you tried to get ground troops to do so "safely", the process of making your way there would also lead to the deaths of other children as it would be natural for such an advance to be resisted.

Yet the latter is different. There is no reason for children to be killed when there's no resistance and the civilian population has effectively surrendered.

It's also why one can and should draw a distinction between Russia's actions in Ukraine. There have been several Russian missile strikes against military infrastructure (or dual use infrastructure) that have killed Ukrainian civilians. This is awful, but it's not comparable to what the Russians did in Bucha, where they executed hundreds of civilians (raping and torturing some beforehand) while there were no Ukrainian troops present and Bucha's population was not resisting the Russian presence.

For the former, there was military necessity while the latter was completely unnecessary and avoidable.

[annatar1914]

That shows as being more your own wishful thinking than actual reality.

@noemon :

Not necessarily my own wishful thinking, and maybe it sounds optimistic, but isn't it possible that the state of Israel will end up more like it's Apartheid era ally South Africa instead of a bloody abattoir that it's been so far?

[noemon]

@noemon :

Not necessarily my own wishful thinking, and maybe it sounds optimistic, but isn't it possible that the state of Israel will end up more like it's Apartheid era ally South Africa instead of a bloody abattoir that it's been so far?

The end of the Jewish State of Israel is not somewhere on the horizon as far as I can see.

'Not necessarily your own wishful thinking' if it were the first time.

[Unthinking Majority]

I don't know about Nat Turner but Hamas is definitely not targeting children any more than Israel is. Since Israel has killed way more children than Hamas and is torturing these people for a few decades and still going, this argument becomes quite out there.

Painting Israel as the "avengers of the killers of children" is quite --->

In a Marvel Studio production, not in real life.

In real life, Israel is just trying to land grab Gaza and the West Bank and is torturing and ghettoizing 6 million people in the process. Literally entering their homes, raping their lives, and eventually taking down their homes too creating refugees every decade for 7 decades in a row while at the same time setting the stage up at almost every round.

At this point, it has become ritualistic theater going on for 70 seasons.

Strawmen here as I didn't make these arguments.

[annatar1914]

The end of the Jewish State of Israel is not somewhere on the horizon as far as I can see.

'Not necessarily your own wishful thinking' if it were the first time.

@noemon :

I don't think that I've ever expressed a desire to see the end of the nation state of Israel. In fact, I have not too long ago stated that Jewish settlement is an established thing. Those aren't quite the same thing. What I have expressed is the opinion that Israel will go out with more of a whimper than a bang.

[Potemkin]

@noemon :

I don't think that I've ever expressed a desire to see the end of the nation state of Israel. In fact, I have not too long ago stated that Jewish settlement is an established thing. Those aren't quite the same thing. What I have expressed is the opinion that Israel will go out with more of a whimper than a bang.

Demographics is destiny, as Ben-Gurion understood very clearly. Israel will fall if it tries to take and keep too much land. It needs to maintain a Jewish majority at all times.

[wat0n]

Demographics is destiny, as Ben-Gurion understood very clearly. Israel will fall if it tries to take and keep too much land. It needs to maintain a Jewish majority at all times.

Indeed, which is why it will eventually leave the West Bank.

Any views on my distinction above Pote?