You are making an unsupported claim here: that there were no other messages about safe zones.
-
Features
Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
To denote when two or more threads have been merged
You are the one claiming things will be different than historical precedent.
The reality is the prisoners released last time around killed more during 10/7 than Israel got back from that previous exchange. Why should we expect a different outcome this time around?
The problem is that you are demanding perfection. A strict enforcement of your approach means evil always prevails.
You think. Doesn't make it so. Lots and lots of military minds are in a position to evaluate what's happening--and nobody's presented specifics as to what Israel should do differently. I find that silence very meaningful.
laughing dog
Contributor
Yet another straw man.
That does not rebut my observation about the reduction in death and destruction.Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog
Contributor
If there were no other messages, then those zones that have been designated as safe should still be considered safe.
laughing dog
Contributor
Since I don’t demand perfection, your conclusion is s straw man.
None, basic reason makes it so.Loren Pechtel said:
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Ok, then. How come the Islamic fundies are the only credible organisations able to take control in the Middle-East? Don’t you think it's because of popular support?
I think the main problem is that enlightenment and liberal values are linked with colonialism. And therefore the idea of personal freedoms are tainted. Which is unfortunate. Fun fact though, the idea of nationalism is also a European import. But they seem to let that slide. Popular narratives are weird that way. Classic meme theory
DrZoidberg
Contributor
You're the one ignoring the broader reality of what the argument implies. If you get your way the Israel - Palestine conflict will never be resolved
"Most". Lol. No, not most. Both parties do not share responsibility
Your moral compas seems completely broken
But you are the one who doesn't care about the suffering and dying children in Gaza. You.
Yes, it should make us stop and pause. So why don't you stop and think about how the Palestinian children can best be protected?
When parents are unfit to take care of their children we remove custody and put them in a safer home. Right now IDF is removing the unfit parents. The fact that Hamas keeps putting children in harms way just means IDF should get it over with as soon as possible. The longer it takes the more will the Palestinian people suffer
Attachments
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Because of IDF now we have a chance to destroy Hamas. But you don't want that to happen.
In what way do you want to destroy Hamas? Asking them nicely?
Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields. They’re going to get hurt if we want to remove Hamas. The alternative is to prolong the conflict longer which will lead to more Palestinian suffering. And sooner or later Hamas has to go, which means suffering and dying children later.
You seem to have constructed some sort of fantasy scenario. You seem to completely ignore what Hamas say they want to do and have done. Hamas is not the organisation you think it is. They cannot be negotiated or reasoned with.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
@Loren Pechtel -- Perhaps I missed it, but where did you address the question I've emphasized above?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
Your argument relies on a false binary (destroy Hamas by any means necessary or do nothing) and a straw man (that I don’t want Hamas defeated). It ignores ethical considerations around civilian protection and the predictable fallout of killing innocent children, which could easily breed more extremism instead of preventing future violence. I fully acknowledge Hamas’s brutality and still insist on the moral imperative to protect children. You sidestep that moral question entirely by misrepresenting purposefully and repeatedly my stance (that's what propagandist do btw). Again you claim that I “don’t want” Hamas destroyed. In reality, I've repeatedly stated the opposite so continuing to call me a Hamas apologist is simply untrue, since apologists don’t call for the group’s destruction at all. You frame the issue as if child casualties are the only path to eliminating Hamas, ignoring any possibility of reducing or avoiding civilian deaths. It’s a simplistic “kill or be killed” narrative that dismisses legitimate ethical concerns about BOMBING CHILDREN. So again, I'd rather be labeled antisemitic than a child killer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
Dear Child Killer:
Your argument rests on a deeply flawed premise: accusing me of not caring about Gazan children simply because I question the indiscriminate violence against them. In fact, I’ve consistently called for their protection, which is the opposite of apathy.
Labeling all Gazan parents as “unfit” simply because Hamas governs their territory paints every civilian with the same brush. If the real goal is to protect children, suggesting their parents deserve to be targeted is both cruel and illogical.
Removing children from “unfit” parents typically involves social services and legal frameworks, not bombings. Pretending that killing parents is an act of safeguarding children is a chilling distortion of any genuine protective measure.
Hamas’s use of civilians as shields is reprehensible, but international law and basic morality still demand that efforts be made to spare innocent lives. Claiming children are bound to die anyway and urging a “quick end” dismisses the ethical and legal responsibility to minimize harm.
Even if massive force weakens Hamas temporarily, it often entrenches resentment and creates fertile ground for future extremism. That means children could be at risk again, hardly a lasting solution.
You imply that I’m the one ignoring children’s suffering, yet it is your argument that justifies turning a blind eye to their deaths. If anything, the stance that child casualties are an acceptable collateral damage is what truly shows disregard for their welfare.
Accusing me of indifference to Palestinian children does not absolve you of rationalizing their deaths. If you truly care about minimizing their suffering, you would advocate for strategies that protect these innocent lives, not ones that write them off as an inevitable cost.
Yours truly the anti-Semite
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
Your reply makes it painfully clear you’re whitewashing the slaughter of children under the guise of “necessary defense,” then pinning it all on Hamas. Let’s cut through the spin:
Saying “it’s Hamas’s fault” does not absolve Israel of the obligation to minimize civilian harm. You’re using Hamas’s heinous tactics to justify every dead child on the ground, as if Israel bears no moral or legal duty to distinguish between combatants and innocents.
You claim I’ve “ascribed a false position” to you, yet your own words boil down to a warped moral calculus: protecting Israeli lives is worth the cost of Gazan children’s blood. Label that however you want, but it’s exactly the stance I’ve criticized. If you truly believed civilian lives matter, you wouldn’t be so eager to write off dead children as “the price we pay.”
While Hamas’s use of human shields is vile, there’s still a clear legal and ethical requirement to avoid killing civilians whenever possible. Bombing residential areas, hospitals, or schools because “Hamas is somewhere inside” means innocent children pay the price for Hamas’s crimes—yet you blame everyone but those launching the attacks.
You bring up what’s happening in the north as if it’s proof Israel would show restraint if Hamas fought differently. That sidesteps the core issue: in Gaza, the IDF is conducting strikes in densely populated civilian areas. The fact that the enemy employs vile tactics doesn’t mean you can ignore the risk to innocents.
Portraying dead children as merely “Hamas’s weapon” is grotesque. These are real children, human beings. If this is your way of sidestepping genuine moral accountability, it only underscores how callous your position truly is.
Criticizing the killing of children does not mean I endorse Hamas. Pretending otherwise is a feeble distraction. In reality, I condemn Hamas unequivocally while also rejecting any mindset that waves away civilian massacres as unavoidable.
Ultimately, you’ve offered nothing but a blame-shifting narrative that tries to make the IDF’s actions seem blameless, even admirable, regardless of how many innocent lives are snuffed out. If you truly cared about children’s lives, you wouldn’t be cheering on or justifying actions that destroy them. Instead, you’d acknowledge that both Hamas and the IDF carry moral responsibilities, and that killing children, under any pretext, is a grievous wrong.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I'm not misrepresenting your position. I'm just following your arguments to it's logical conclusion.
You seem to demand a fantasy scenario that doesn't exist. Hamas are in power in Gaza. As long as Hamas are in control children will be used as meat shields for their warriors. Backing down because one is afraid of hurting those children is to encourage Hamas' behaviour. That's's not sidestepping the moral question. That's having a moral compass that works and doing something about it. Each time a child is hurt in Gaza we should blame Hamas. Not IDF. And shoot more.
I think you have managed to convince yourself you aren't a Hamas' apologist. But I think you are. I think you've eaten all of their progaganda. You are defending their actions by being angry at Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian civilians. You are playing into their propagnda. If you want Hamas destroyed, how about you present some plausible scenario that can make that happen?
Your ethics are fucked, Sir.
I don't think it's possible to breed more extremism in the Middle-East that there's there already. They've been at max since 1948. And nothing Israel has done to placate them has made a dent in that. Something the Israelis are very much aware of. I suspect the problem is Islam. That religion doesn't seem to be conducive to reasonable people. It just seem to breed intolerance and extremism.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Yes. Which Israel is doing. They are moving extremely slowly, for that reason. Going to extreme lengths to minimise Palestinian civilian casualities. Gaza is not big. IDF could have been in and out in weeks and wiped all the Palestinians out. They didn't. Hamas insists to do this as hard as possible for IDF and IDF is responding, in a very impressive way.
They've bombed refugee camps each time Hamas' has used refugee camps to shoot rockets from. That's a reasonable response. We can't give Hamas a free pass to shoot rockets just because they use civilian refugee's as human shields.
I wish you would make an effort to show a little apreciation for what Israel is doing to protect Palestinian civilians.
Israel has been cooperative and have been more than fair with the Palestinians. Israel has had an angel's patience, and you demand that they're nicer? The problem with the Palestinians is that they are completely unreasonble. They're not going to be more resentful. They've been at max since 1948. I fail to see the point in continuing to appease the Palestinians. I don't think anything will be good enough for them.
Yes, I think you seem to think children are acceptable collateral damage. I see no evidence of outrage of how Hamas' treats the Palestnians they're supposed to be ruling.
Accusing me of indifference to Palestinian children does not absolve you of rationalizing their deaths. If you truly care about minimizing their suffering, you would advocate for strategies that protect these innocent lives, not ones that write them off as an inevitable cost.
Yours truly the anti-Semite
I think you are confused and are placing blame on the wrong people.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
Your response is riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and unsubstantiated claims, which I’ll address point by point:
You accuse me of demanding a “fantasy scenario,” yet you provide no evidence that indiscriminate bombing is the only option for dealing with Hamas. Suggesting there is no alternative to slaughtering children shows a lack of imagination, strategy, and morality. If your “moral compass” leads you to justify bombing children without exploring alternatives, then your compass is broken.
You insist that “each time a child is hurt in Gaza, we should blame Hamas.” That’s not how accountability works. Hamas’s despicable tactics don’t absolve the IDF of its responsibility to minimize civilian casualties. Blaming Hamas for using human shields doesn’t excuse killing the children they’re hiding behind, it only highlights the failure to adapt tactics to avoid those deaths.
Calling my ethics “fucked” while advocating for more bombing and “shooting more” children is not moral superiority; it’s moral bankruptcy. You can’t claim the high ground while justifying actions that ensure the very suffering you pretend to condemn.
You claim I’m a propagandist for Hamas, yet my position explicitly condemns their actions while calling for a moral approach to the conflict. Meanwhile, you’ve swallowed the “kill them all and let God sort them out” narrative wholesale, pretending it’s the only viable option. If anyone is parroting propaganda, it’s you, mindlessly regurgitating a line that excuses indiscriminate killing.
Your assertion that “you can’t breed more extremism in the Middle East” is historically and factually false. Extremism is fueled by grievances, injustices, and suffering, exactly the kind of suffering you’re advocating to perpetuate. Killing children and blaming Hamas only ensures the cycle of hatred continues.
Your statement that “the problem is Islam” reeks of prejudice. Blaming an entire religion for extremism ignores the complex socio-political realities of the region, and it reflects a level of intolerance that undermines any claim you have to a “moral compass.”
You demand I present a plausible scenario to destroy Hamas while rejecting any path other than indiscriminate bombing. Solutions that focus on undermining Hamas’s support base, through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and addressing root causes of extremism, are deliberately ignored because they don’t align with your simplistic, violent narrative.
Your argument boils down to justifying atrocities under the guise of necessity while dismissing all criticism as propaganda. If your “moral compass” points toward slaughtering children and perpetuating cycles of violence, you’re not navigating morality, you’re excusing inhumanity. Your bigoted dismissal of Islam and refusal to acknowledge alternative strategies reveal a mindset that is more interested in perpetuating violence than solving the conflict.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
[Rant]
I have deep respect for the IDF soldiers who are navigating an impossibly volatile and morally complex situation. They are tasked with protecting their people while operating in an environment where every decision carries the weight of innocent lives and the potential for further escalation. These soldiers face unimaginable pressure, often making split-second choices in a landscape shaped by decades of conflict. Supporting them means acknowledging their humanity, the sacrifices they make, and the heavy burden they carry as they strive to fulfill their duty in one of the most difficult circumstances imaginable. They deserve my understanding and I actively support their efforts to pave the way for lasting peace.
As someone who reflects on my country’s history, I recognize that the United States has faced similar moral challenges in war, decisions that have led to significant civilian harm, like the tragedies at My Lai and Abu Ghraib. War is undoubtedly horrific, yet sometimes it’s necessary. Mistakes happen, and much like the United States, I doubt any systemic changes in military operations will be made nor would changes fully prevent them. I’m not blind to this reality and understand how they arise, but that does not give me or anyone license to promote the slaughter of children.
[/Rant]
I have deep respect for the IDF soldiers who are navigating an impossibly volatile and morally complex situation. They are tasked with protecting their people while operating in an environment where every decision carries the weight of innocent lives and the potential for further escalation. These soldiers face unimaginable pressure, often making split-second choices in a landscape shaped by decades of conflict. Supporting them means acknowledging their humanity, the sacrifices they make, and the heavy burden they carry as they strive to fulfill their duty in one of the most difficult circumstances imaginable. They deserve my understanding and I actively support their efforts to pave the way for lasting peace.
As someone who reflects on my country’s history, I recognize that the United States has faced similar moral challenges in war, decisions that have led to significant civilian harm, like the tragedies at My Lai and Abu Ghraib. War is undoubtedly horrific, yet sometimes it’s necessary. Mistakes happen, and much like the United States, I doubt any systemic changes in military operations will be made nor would changes fully prevent them. I’m not blind to this reality and understand how they arise, but that does not give me or anyone license to promote the slaughter of children.
[/Rant]
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
Yes. Which Israel is doing. They are moving extremely slowly, for that reason. Going to extreme lengths to minimise Palestinian civilian casualities. Gaza is not big. IDF could have been in and out in weeks and wiped all the Palestinians out. They didn't. Hamas insists to do this as hard as possible for IDF and IDF is responding, in a very impressive way.
They've bombed refugee camps each time Hamas' has used refugee camps to shoot rockets from. That's a reasonable response. We can't give Hamas a free pass to shoot rockets just because they use civilian refugee's as human shields.
I wish you would make an effort to show a little apreciation for what Israel is doing to protect Palestinian civilians.
Israel has been cooperative and have been more than fair with the Palestinians. Israel has had an angel's patience, and you demand that they're nicer? The problem with the Palestinians is that they are completely unreasonble. They're not going to be more resentful. They've been at max since 1948. I fail to see the point in continuing to appease the Palestinians. I don't think anything will be good enough for them.
Yes, I think you seem to think children are acceptable collateral damage. I see no evidence of outrage of how Hamas' treats the Palestnians they're supposed to be ruling.
Accusing me of indifference to Palestinian children does not absolve you of rationalizing their deaths. If you truly care about minimizing their suffering, you would advocate for strategies that protect these innocent lives, not ones that write them off as an inevitable cost.
Yours truly the anti-Semite
I think you are confused and are placing blame on the wrong people.
Your dismissive attitude toward casualties is appalling. You blithely acknowledge that the IDF “could have wiped Palestinians out” and then present it as if it’s some noble act of restraint. That’s not moral high ground, it’s a barely veiled threat of genocide. Children are not some tragic but acceptable collateral damage; they are innocents whose deaths stain the very idea of “self-defense” you claim to champion.
You talk about how “unreasonable” the Palestinians have been “since 1948,” as though that justifies endless punishment for entire communities; most of whom had no hand in creating their circumstances. This is not an argument for genuine security; it’s a naked endorsement of violence on a mass scale. And trying to weaponize accusations of antisemitism against anyone who dares question the killing of children is not only disingenuous; it cheapens the real fight against anti-Jewish hate.
Yes, Hamas is despicable for using civilians as shields. But at the end of the day, no one forced the IDF to drop bombs on residential areas or reduce refugee camps to rubble. Don’t pretend that those choices carry zero moral responsibility. No civilized society should treat the lives of innocents as an unfortunate footnote. If your best defense is “they deserve it” or “they brought it on themselves,” then your worldview is as bankrupt as it is inhumane.
It takes no bravery to cheer on a military juggernaut over a captive population. If you really cared about Jewish lives, you’d want a lasting peace that doesn’t rely on snuffing out entire families on the other side. Instead, you flaunt raw power and collective punishment, tactics that guarantee fresh generations of resentment and perpetuate this bloodshed. If your position is that child casualties are a fair trade for security, then you might as well admit you’re indifferent to innocent deaths. That’s a level of moral callousness no amount of justification can excuse.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
By the way, I’d do that more often if I didn’t have to spend most of my logged on time rebutting the nonsense you post. Quit justifying the slaughter of children, and I’ll have time to address other issues.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,479
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
So give the example of the urban combat you used to make that determination.