Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

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?

There's a huge difference. Hamas is targetting civilians. The IDF are targetting Hamas fighters. Who are hiding behind Palestinian civilians, using them as human shields. You can't compare the sides when it comes to barbarity.

What else is Israel to do other than doing their best to destroy Hamas? It's not their fault that Hamas are doing their best to make sure Palestinian civilians get caught in the violence.

I’ll rephrase the question your response completely avoided. How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity or nationality solve the problem of extremists of any ethnicity or nationality causing death and destruction?

It doesn't. That's why Hamas should stop trying to get civilians killed. IDF is trying to avoid killing civilians. This is a one sided conflict. IDF are clearly the good guys and Hamas are clearly the bad guys.

The solution is if Hamas just stop being horrible people and stop trying to get civilians killed. Hamas are doing their damndest to make sure both Israeli and Palestinian civilians are killed. If Hamas stops with this then no cilivians will get killed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Until you can admit that a piece of toilet paper lead to this conflict you're a part of the problem.

It is actually the Roman conquest of Israel that led to this conflict. They even came up with the name that the Arabs culturally appropriated in the 1960s when they invented "Palestinian" ethnic identity.

Ehe. Back then Judaism was Palestine's ethnic idenity. Last time I checked Hamas are Muslims.

 

[Gospel]

Why is only European colonialism worthy of criticism? Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula. Why is their colonialism in the Levant and North Africa etc. never condemned?

Could the absence of a discussion thread on the topic be the reason? What seems to be eluding you and your supporters is the notion that condemning past colonialism by any entity doesn't justify or validate Israel's colonial actions. In fact it seems you're in agreement with me so what gives?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

There's a huge difference. Hamas is targetting civilians. The IDF are targetting Hamas fighters. Who are hiding behind Palestinian civilians, using them as human shields. You can't compare the sides when it comes to barbarity.

What else is Israel to do other than doing their best to destroy Hamas? It's not their fault that Hamas are doing their best to make sure Palestinian civilians get caught in the violence.

I’ll rephrase the question your response completely avoided. How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity or nationality solve the problem of extremists of any ethnicity or nationality causing death and destruction?

It doesn't. That's why Hamas should stop trying to get civilians killed. IDF is trying to avoid killing civilians. This is a one sided conflict. IDF are clearly the good guys and Hamas are clearly the bad guys.

The solution is if Hamas just stop being horrible people and stop trying to get civilians killed. Hamas are doing their damndest to make sure both Israeli and Palestinian civilians are killed. If Hamas stops with this then no cilivians will get killed.

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

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

There's a huge difference. Hamas is targetting civilians. The IDF are targetting Hamas fighters. Who are hiding behind Palestinian civilians, using them as human shields. You can't compare the sides when it comes to barbarity.

What else is Israel to do other than doing their best to destroy Hamas? It's not their fault that Hamas are doing their best to make sure Palestinian civilians get caught in the violence.

I’ll rephrase the question your response completely avoided. How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity or nationality solve the problem of extremists of any ethnicity or nationality causing death and destruction?

It doesn't. That's why Hamas should stop trying to get civilians killed. IDF is trying to avoid killing civilians. This is a one sided conflict. IDF are clearly the good guys and Hamas are clearly the bad guys.

The solution is if Hamas just stop being horrible people and stop trying to get civilians killed. Hamas are doing their damndest to make sure both Israeli and Palestinian civilians are killed. If Hamas stops with this then no cilivians will get killed.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

There's a huge difference. Hamas is targetting civilians. The IDF are targetting Hamas fighters. Who are hiding behind Palestinian civilians, using them as human shields. You can't compare the sides when it comes to barbarity.

What else is Israel to do other than doing their best to destroy Hamas? It's not their fault that Hamas are doing their best to make sure Palestinian civilians get caught in the violence.

I’ll rephrase the question your response completely avoided. How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity or nationality solve the problem of extremists of any ethnicity or nationality causing death and destruction?

It doesn't. That's why Hamas should stop trying to get civilians killed. IDF is trying to avoid killing civilians. This is a one sided conflict. IDF are clearly the good guys and Hamas are clearly the bad guys.

The solution is if Hamas just stop being horrible people and stop trying to get civilians killed. Hamas are doing their damndest to make sure both Israeli and Palestinian civilians are killed. If Hamas stops with this then no cilivians will get killed.

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.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

There's a huge difference. Hamas is targetting civilians. The IDF are targetting Hamas fighters. Who are hiding behind Palestinian civilians, using them as human shields. You can't compare the sides when it comes to barbarity.

What else is Israel to do other than doing their best to destroy Hamas? It's not their fault that Hamas are doing their best to make sure Palestinian civilians get caught in the violence.

I’ll rephrase the question your response completely avoided. How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity or nationality solve the problem of extremists of any ethnicity or nationality causing death and destruction?

It doesn't. That's why Hamas should stop trying to get civilians killed. IDF is trying to avoid killing civilians. This is a one sided conflict. IDF are clearly the good guys and Hamas are clearly the bad guys.

The solution is if Hamas just stop being horrible people and stop trying to get civilians killed. Hamas are doing their damndest to make sure both Israeli and Palestinian civilians are killed. If Hamas stops with this then no cilivians will get killed.

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.

You're not making any sense. Stop posting antisemetic propaganda. It IS Hamas fault. Only Hamas can fix this, by stopping with doing what they're doing. IDF has a right to defend themselves. And if Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, then Hamas is to be blamed for Palestinian civilians dying. Israel has a right to defend itself.

Your argument is basically, "Unless you do what I say I will drown my own children". If I did that, would you feel guilty for killing my children? Of course not. You'd think I was a loony. And you'd think anyone accusing you, was a loony. But here you are.

 

[TomC]

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.

And everytime you insist that Israel needs to change their tactics to protect Israelis from Islamic terrorists and their violence you are defending the use of human shields.

Killing thousands of civilians might not accomplish the goal of providing safety for noncombatants, Israeli or Gazan. But destroying the military installations and violent combatants shows the only likelihood of doing so. That's what Israel is doing. That thousands more civilians are dying is nearly all the result of Gazan terrorists's policies of using human shields.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

You're not making any sense. Stop posting antisemetic propaganda. It IS Hamas fault. Only Hamas can fix this, by stopping with doing what they're doing. IDF has a right to defend themselves. And if Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, then Hamas is to be blamed for Palestinian civilians dying. Israel has a right to defend itself.

If you actually thought about it, instead of making these emotional rhetorical accusations, you'd avoid these straw men and see that it makes sense.

The primary problem is Hamas. No doubt. They are awful human beings. But the issue is how to get peace. If you think killing 1000s of civilians will not achieve it, then why engage in such a policy.

Peace will require that some bad actors go insufficiently punished. It grates on people's sense of justice. But that is the way of the world. There is no such thing as perfect justice, especially since justice is in the eye of the beholders.

Your argument is basically, "Unless you do what I say I will drown my own children". If I did that, would you feel guilty for killing my children? Of course not. You'd think I was a loony. And you'd think anyone accusing you, was a loony. But here you are.

I suppose a loony might understand that psychobabble. But I do not.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

And everytime you insist that Israel needs to change their tactics to protect Israelis from Islamic terrorists and their violence you are defending the use of human shields.

I think you can do better than offer such stupid reasoning.

Expecting any group to stand out in the open to be slaughtered by their enemy is insane. Israeli commanders and politicians are nowhere near any combatant. They have plenty of "human shields" between themselves and their enemy's capabilities. That does not mean it is okay for Hamas or anyone who feels they are defending themselves against Israeli aggression (which there certainly is on the West Bank) to kill noncombatants.

Killing thousands of civilians might not accomplish the goal of providing safety for noncombatants, Israeli or Gazan. But destroying the military installations and violent combatants shows the only likelihood of doing so.

Nonsense.

That's what Israel is doing. That thousands more civilians are dying is nearly all the result of Gazan terrorists's policies of using human shields.

Israel is reacting to the barbaric Hamas provocation. How Israel's reacts is Israel's responsibility.

 

[Bomb#20]

Until you can admit that a piece of toilet paper lead to this conflict you're a part of the problem.

It is actually the Roman conquest of Israel that led to this conflict. They even came up with the name that the Arabs culturally appropriated in the 1960s when they invented "Palestinian" ethnic identity.

Then it is incumbent upon the Romans to come and cleanup this mess. Stat!

And you think that would help? Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're not making any sense. Stop posting antisemetic propaganda. It IS Hamas fault. Only Hamas can fix this, by stopping with doing what they're doing. IDF has a right to defend themselves. And if Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, then Hamas is to be blamed for Palestinian civilians dying. Israel has a right to defend itself.

If you actually thought about it, instead of making these emotional rhetorical accusations, you'd avoid these straw men and see that it makes sense.

The primary problem is Hamas. No doubt. They are awful human beings. But the issue is how to get peace. If you think killing 1000s of civilians will not achieve it, then why engage in such a policy.

Peace will require that some bad actors go insufficiently punished. It grates on people's sense of justice. But that is the way of the world. There is no such thing as perfect justice, especially since justice is in the eye of the beholders.

Israel has tried being nice to the Palestinians. Super nice and patient. They’re not getting their act together. For reasons. But those reasons are an explanation. Not excuses.

So basically, they tried not killing civilians. Didn’t work. So now they’re trying this.

Its also funny how you think my side is using emotional rhetoric. Sir, that's the crime you are guilty of, imho.

Your argument is basically, "Unless you do what I say I will drown my own children". If I did that, would you feel guilty for killing my children? Of course not. You'd think I was a loony. And you'd think anyone accusing you, was a loony. But here you are.

I suppose a loony might understand that psychobabble. But I do not.

I explained your logic with a equivalent example

 

[Bomb#20]

Why is only European colonialism worthy of criticism? Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula. Why is their colonialism in the Levant and North Africa etc. never condemned? In fact, it is so normalized that most people erroneously believe Arabs to be "indigenous" in the land of Israel. If Arabs were indigenous, why would they use a colonial term "Palestine" that originally goes back to a non-Semitic people from 3 millennia ago (Philistines, most famous of whom are the Biblical characters of Goliath and Delilah)? That's why they call cities like Shechem (that's the indigenous name) by the Roman colonial name "Neapolis" which they corrupted to "Nablus" since "p" does not exist in Arabic (which makes them calling themselves "Palestinian" even more absurd).

According to Wikipedia they call themselves al-Filasṭīniyyūn; Palestinian is the English version. We got the word from Latin; the Romans got it from Greek; the Greeks got it from Herodotus. From what I've read, Herodotus appears to have invented the word, starting from the various local groups' words for the Philistines, by ethnocentrically taking for granted that the "correct" spelling was the spelling of whichever preexisting Greek word the variant spellings of "Philistine" most closely resembled, which happened to be "palaistês", Greek for "wrestler".

(Curiously, the word "Israel" was Hebrew for "wrestler". This has naturally led to the hypothesis that "Palestine" started out simply as the Greek translation of "Israel". But this explanation is generally considered implausible because Herodotus doesn't appear to have known enough about the Jews to even have been aware of the word "Israel".)

(Also, the historical connection of the name to the Philistines has naturally led to the hypothesis that the Philistines were the progenitors of the Palestinians. But this explanation is generally considered implausible because the Philistines were genetically, culturally and linguistically Europeans and the Palestinians are genetically, culturally and linguistically Middle-Easterners. For two thousand years "Palestine" was only a word for a region, not an ethnicity. The Filasṭīniyyūn were named after the region, not vice versa.)

 

[laughing dog]

So basically, they tried not killing civilians. Didn’t work. So now they’re trying this.

So if you first you don't succeed, just kill a lot of people who are not the problem? That is brilliant reasoning.

Your argument is basically, "Unless you do what I say I will drown my own children". If I did that, would you feel guilty for killing my children? Of course not. You'd think I was a loony. And you'd think anyone accusing you, was a loony. But here you are.

I suppose a loony might understand that psychobabble. But I do not.

I explained your logic with an equivalent example.

Perhaps if you patiently explained your argument, I might be able to make sense of it. And that should not be difficult if you actually used logic.

 

[TomC]

So if you first you don't succeed, just kill a lot of people who are not the problem? That is brilliant reasoning.

Well, the Israelis didn't do that.
Gazans did though and now they're complaining about sensible efforts to end the violence.
Oh well.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Until you can admit that a piece of toilet paper lead to this conflict you're a part of the problem.

It is actually the Roman conquest of Israel that led to this conflict. They even came up with the name that the Arabs culturally appropriated in the 1960s when they invented "Palestinian" ethnic identity.

Then it is incumbent upon the Romans to come and cleanup this mess. Stat!

And you think that would help? Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Splitter!

 

[Bomb#20]

Until you can admit that a piece of toilet paper lead to this conflict you're a part of the problem.

About nine million historical events led to this conflict; the piece of toilet paper is one of them. Tensions between the immigrants and the natives were already rising when the toilet paper was signed; it's entirely likely the Jews would have declared independence even if the British government's overall pro-Arab position hadn't been temporarily interrupted by toilet paper.

 

[laughing dog]

So if you first you don't succeed, just kill a lot of people who are not the problem? That is brilliant reasoning.

Well, the Israelis didn't do that.
Gazans did though and now they're complaining about sensible efforts to end the violence.
Oh well.
Tom

According to Dr. Zoidberg, that is what the Israelis are doing.

 

[TomC]

So if you first you don't succeed, just kill a lot of people who are not the problem? That is brilliant reasoning.

Well, the Israelis didn't do that.
Gazans did though and now they're complaining about sensible efforts to end the violence.
Oh well.
Tom

According to Dr. Zoidberg, that is what the Israelis are doing.

No he didn't.
But your inability to read posts that don't match your ideology means you probably can't read Zoid with comprehension.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

No he didn't.
But your inability to read posts that don't match your ideology means you probably can't read Zoid with comprehension.
Tom

The quote (which you conveniently clipped from your response) is "So basically, they tried not killing civilians. Didn’t work. So now they’re trying this. " My description is not inaccurate.

From my view, it is either illiteracy, ideology or blatant disingenuity prompt your increasingly embarrassing responses.