Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Gospel]

IMO a single state solution is the only option. to me, the Jewish people should have organically remerged in the region without the stupid wigs waving toilet paper around. Their butt wipes always leave a trail of poop.

This is genocide, if you don't see that you have your head in the sand.

They would continue to benefit from the same safeguards provided by the international community as they do currently. The notable distinction, however, would lie in the absence of provocative territorial acquisitions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas ( or Hamas replacements) will always be the problem. So are ardent Zionists.

How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity solve those problems?

How do strawmen help matters?

What are you under the delusion is a straw man?

The only side that wants dead civilians is Hamas. But they're quite effective at ensuring some die if Israel defends itself.

Some? For a side that allegedly does not want dead civilians, the IDF manages to kill and injure magnitudes more than Hamas.

And you continue to stick your head in the sand and see that those civilian deaths are Hamas putting them in harm's way.

Is it possible for you to either provide evidence for your claim or even to address the actual content of a post instead of imputing motives on the part of the poster?

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

If you admit that killing 1000s of civilians doesn’t solve the problem, why do you defend such a policy?

I don't. I just said I am pro Israel. They're not tryning to kill civilians. Hamas is.

While the IDF is not trying to kill civilians, they are much more proficient and prolific in that regard than Hamas has ever been.

But you do defend that policy. Every time you post the functional equivalent of "It's Hamas's fault", you defend a policy you admit will not solve the problem.

The problem here is that you assume it's a policy rather than an undesirable side effect of a policy being done for other reasons.

Stop projecting your MO onto others. It is a fact that the IDF is more prolific than Hamas in killing civilians.

And we know this policy of massive undesired killing of civilians does not make Israel safer in the longer run. So the question that rational pragmatists should ask is whether the shorter run improvement in safety and emotional satisfaction of revenge is worth the carnage, the longer run reduction in safety and international support?

And once again you assume your conclusion in the argument because you don't want to address the reality.

Keep practicing "Every accusation is a a confession".

Which is not a rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The developed world -- and IIDB -- is mostly divided into two camps re: the Israel-Hamas conflict.

One camp soundly condemns Hamas terrorism and believes Israel's Defense Force should take the steps necessary to prevent further attacks. This camp has strong support in the U.S.A., throughout Europe, and in Israel itself.

The other camp also condemns Hamas terrorism but is intent on vengeance. The number of Palestinian deaths from Israel's rampages is already 20 times the Palestinian toll; huge numbers of homes in Gaza and vast infrastructure have been destroyed; the homeless toll is up to 2 million; and Israeli atrocities continue. Hospitals are without blood and other supplies. Children are literally starving to death or dying of thirst. Israeli soldiers fire on innocent women and children. Could they be taking their cue from the Old Testament where Yahweh commanded King Saul to destroy his enemies and not spare women or children? Defenders of these atrocities shrug their shoulders and say "Maybe those 2-year old babies were innocent; so what? If left to grow up they'd probably become terrorists: A stitch in time saves nine."

Rational observers understand that Israeli atrocities will just prolong and increase terrorism. The hate-filled anti-Palestinian ilk who support Israel's atrocities surely understand this. Perhaps this prospect pleases them: The more terrorists that Israel can breed, the more future massacres there can be to assuage this perverse blood-lust.

At least nine killed in Israeli attack on aid truck in Gaza: Report

At least nine people killed in attack on aid distribution vehicle, according to Palestinian media.

www.aljazeera.com

You take the word of terrorists? Because Al Jaazeera is effectively a terrorist mouthpiece at this point.

Strangely, we have claims from Israel that they fired warning shots into the air and then fired low when that was inadequate to keep them from being overrun. And all the imagery we have is consistent with this, none shows the supposed massacre. (And I will not fault them at all for that. Had they been overrun they probably would have been taken captive if they survived.)

And history shows that when the terrorists claim massacre and Israel provides a very different story on the use of force that it's basically 100% that Israel is right.

Hamas has falsely cried massacre so many times yet you continue to believe them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The developed world -- and IIDB -- is mostly divided into two camps re: the Israel-Hamas conflict.

One camp soundly condemns Hamas terrorism and believes Israel's Defense Force should take the steps necessary to prevent further attacks. ...

The other camp also condemns Hamas terrorism but is intent on vengeance.

Whom are you referring to? Who on IIDB is intent on vengeance?

They believe we seek vengeance because they don't want to accept the reality that Hamas is putting their people in harm's way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow bomb. Way to go bruh. EL15 , in order to solve a problem you ought to know what is causing it. That's all I'm saying. But you go ahead and do the usual Bomb thing and make way more out of what I'm saying than I actually said. I preferred it when you simply ignored my posts. It was more productive.

Yeah, you need to. Your answer appears to be the existence of the Jews.

That's how you read it.

The answer is always that Israel didn't kowtow enough. Never mind that kowtow has always turned out bad for Israel and that Hamas has explicitly said the reason for the war is the existence of Israel. They used to explicitly call for genocide, now they have watered this down a bit to be ambiguous.

 

[laughing dog]

Is it possible for you to either provide evidence for your claim or even to address the actual content of a post instead of imputing motives on the part of the poster?

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

That is not providing evidence, it is irrelevant testimkny.

Keep practicing "Every accusation is a a confession".

Which is not a rebuttal.

I did encourage you to practice “every accusation is a confession”, so I really cannot complain.

 

[repoman]

I will make this more specific,

The Right Wing Israeli Cries Out in Pain as he Strikes You"

Gradually, I began to hate them.

 

[Arctish]

Wow bomb. Way to go bruh. EL15 , in order to solve a problem you ought to know what is causing it. That's all I'm saying. But you go ahead and do the usual Bomb thing and make way more out of what I'm saying than I actually said. I preferred it when you simply ignored my posts. It was more productive.

Yeah, you need to. Your answer appears to be the existence of the Jews.

That's how you read it.

The answer is always that Israel didn't kowtow enough. Never mind that kowtow has always turned out bad for Israel and that Hamas has explicitly said the reason for the war is the existence of Israel. They used to explicitly call for genocide, now they have watered this down a bit to be ambiguous.

When did Israel kowtow? Who was the Prime Minister, and what exactly did this alleged kowtowing include?

Also, was this alleged kowtowing one of the concessions you say Israel made to the Palestinians? You've been asked several times to list them but haven't done it yet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The best thing about this thread if you can walk away from it for several days and come right back to the exact same posts, just several pages later.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only side that wants dead civilians is Hamas. But they're quite effective at ensuring some die if Israel defends itself.

Some? For a side that allegedly does not want dead civilians, the IDF manages to kill and injure magnitudes more than Hamas.

And you continue to stick your head in the sand and see that those civilian deaths are Hamas putting them in harm's way.

Is it possible for you to either provide evidence for your claim or even to address the actual content of a post instead of imputing motives on the part of the poster?

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Could you please cite Hamas source that says it is 20+x to 1? That number seems remarkably impossible. Areas would need to be void of civilians to manage that. I mean, it is possible we were talking 100 dead Hamas over a period of 1 year, but 10k to 15k in several months... and but a pittance is civilian casualties?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The developed world -- and IIDB -- is mostly divided into two camps re: the Israel-Hamas conflict.

One camp soundly condemns Hamas terrorism and believes Israel's Defense Force should take the steps necessary to prevent further attacks. This camp has strong support in the U.S.A., throughout Europe, and in Israel itself.

The other camp also condemns Hamas terrorism but is intent on vengeance. The number of Palestinian deaths from Israel's rampages is already 20 times the Palestinian toll; huge numbers of homes in Gaza and vast infrastructure have been destroyed; the homeless toll is up to 2 million; and Israeli atrocities continue. Hospitals are without blood and other supplies. Children are literally starving to death or dying of thirst. Israeli soldiers fire on innocent women and children. Could they be taking their cue from the Old Testament where Yahweh commanded King Saul to destroy his enemies and not spare women or children? Defenders of these atrocities shrug their shoulders and say "Maybe those 2-year old babies were innocent; so what? If left to grow up they'd probably become terrorists: A stitch in time saves nine."

Rational observers understand that Israeli atrocities will just prolong and increase terrorism. The hate-filled anti-Palestinian ilk who support Israel's atrocities surely understand this. Perhaps this prospect pleases them: The more terrorists that Israel can breed, the more future massacres there can be to assuage this perverse blood-lust.

At least nine killed in Israeli attack on aid truck in Gaza: Report

At least nine people killed in attack on aid distribution vehicle, according to Palestinian media.

www.aljazeera.com

You take the word of terrorists? Because Al Jaazeera is effectively a terrorist mouthpiece at this point.

Strangely, we have claims from Israel that they fired warning shots into the air and then fired low when that was inadequate to keep them from being overrun. And all the imagery we have is consistent with this, none shows the supposed massacre. (And I will not fault them at all for that. Had they been overrun they probably would have been taken captive if they survived.)

And history shows that when the terrorists claim massacre and Israel provides a very different story on the use of force that it's basically 100% that Israel is right.

Hamas has falsely cried massacre so many times yet you continue to believe them.

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

Yeah, and in some posts, you've said the Palestinians were enabling Hamas, so this is on them. Life's a bitch.

Please don't pretend to care.

Hamas' strike on Israel was an atrocity.
Israel's response has been incredibly harsh, with scents of potential intended displacement of the Gazans in mind.
The events that led up to all of this were instigated by short-sighted Netanyahu policy over the last few decades and Iran's willingness to use Gazans as pawns to stir up trouble to manage their control of domestic power. There is so much blood on so many hands.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

Yeah, and in some posts, you've said the Palestinians were enabling Hamas, so this is on them. Life's a bitch.

Please don't pretend to care.

What the fuck? Where did that comment come from?

Hamas' strike on Israel was an atrocity.
Israel's response has been incredibly harsh, with scents of potential intended displacement of the Gazans in mind.
The events that led up to all of this were instigated by short-sighted Netanyahu policy over the last few decades and Iran's willingness to use Gazans as pawns to stir up trouble to manage their control of domestic power. There is so much blood on so many hands.

Agreed

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

Yeah, and in some posts, you've said the Palestinians were enabling Hamas, so this is on them. Life's a bitch.

Please don't pretend to care.

What the fuck? Where did that comment come from?

You mean other than all of your both sides of your mouth speak regarding the Gazans and Hamas?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

Yeah, and in some posts, you've said the Palestinians were enabling Hamas, so this is on them. Life's a bitch.

Please don't pretend to care.

What the fuck? Where did that comment come from?

Your posting history. For example, the italicized bold-faced sentence above that is yours. "Some" is a truly misleading characterization of a policy that results in the killing of 1000s of civilians . That more than "sucks", regardless of their ethnicity or "side".

And characterizing a policy that is killing 1000s of civilians as "sucks" is fairly heartless. At least own up to your feelings.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

Yeah, and in some posts, you've said the Palestinians were enabling Hamas, so this is on them. Life's a bitch.

Please don't pretend to care.

What the fuck? Where did that comment come from?

Your posting history. For example, the italicized bold-faced sentence above that is yours. "Some" is a truly misleading characterization of a policy that results in the killing of 1000s of civilians . That more than "sucks", regardless of their ethnicity or "side".

And characterizing a policy that is killing 1000s of civilians as "sucks" is fairly heartless. At least own up to your feelings.

Also included in that sentence is the phrase “an environment where rockets and bombs are flying” as if that is an environment that just happens to be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

Yeah, and in some posts, you've said the Palestinians were enabling Hamas, so this is on them. Life's a bitch.

Please don't pretend to care.

What the fuck? Where did that comment come from?

Your posting history. For example, the italicized bold-faced sentence above that is yours. "Some" is a truly misleading characterization of a policy that results in the killing of 1000s of civilians . That more than "sucks", regardless of their ethnicity or "side".

And characterizing a policy that is killing 1000s of civilians as "sucks" is fairly heartless. At least own up to your feelings.

As far as I am concerned this war is to protect the Israeli people AND the Palestinian people from Hammas.

 

[laughing dog]

As far as I am concerned this war is to protect the Israeli people AND the Palestinian people from Hammas.

Well, the 1000s killed don’t have to be protected, so you have a point. Strange way of achieving the kill.

 

[JohnG]

I've been a 2 state solution guy for a long time. I'm leaning towards a no state solution these days. Neither has shown the ability to govern itself.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've been a 2 state solution guy for a long time. I'm leaning towards a no state solution these days. Neither has shown the ability to govern itself.

That btw is the position of my Israeli-Jewish ex-wife. She thought both sides behaved horribly. Which weighs heavy since she lived in Jerusalem. Side note, she dated both Palestinians and Jews. She also hated all religion, and was very very atheist. She thinks it was the root of a lot of evil. Also, a quite common attitude among Jews.