Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police

[laughing dog]

You made an explicit accusation against me based on a blatant misreading/mischararacterization of clear language. Your blatant distortion was so obvious a number of posters pointed it out. Furthermore, your claim about "some" is unsubstantiated.

How about addressing the point instead of derailing?

I realize you fully believe that showing your "fact" is truthiness is a derail, but it is not.

How about you practice what you preach and address the point by
1) either substantiating your claim of fact or admit that is your opinion,
2) stop making blatantly false accusations about other posters.

I asked a simple question: Why are civilian casualties unacceptable when Israel defends itself against the Muslims but acceptable when the US defends itself against the Nazis?

After you got the answer "It is not", you continued on pushing that canard.

Stuff like "try better" is simply a derail, not addressing the root issue. ..

It is not a derail to any actual member of the human race. "Try better" or "minimize casualties" is an excellent goal for any actual member of the human race. No one suggests zero civilian casualties - that is another of your straw men derails.

I noticed in your response that you failed to substantiate your claims. And you added in a few new straw men which are implied false accusations against other posters.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've said it before in different contexts, but the thing that makes us strive to be better than we were in a situation is the feeling of guilt. You don't improve from the past unless you feel guilt, or situationally contextual regret, as a result of it. Does that necessarily mean that there need to be additional consequences? No. But the improvement on the past begins with that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Area bombing, as practiced by both the RAF and USAAF during WWII was a war crime. Fortunately for the people who developed and ordered these criminal acts, the winning side in that war wasn't put on trial for their crimes.

It was the best we could do at the time, it was not considered a war crime.

That zero is unachievable is not an excuse for accepting any rate greater than zero, no matter how high or how avoidable.

But you have no evidence it can be reduced.

If a military cannot achieve its strategic or tactical goals without civilian casualties, then it has a moral duty to ensure that those goals are sufficiently important as to be worth committing war crimes to achieve them.

In this case the goal is to prevent being the victim of genocide.

Arguably this was true in WWII. Though it's doubtful that area bombing was essential for victory in Europe, it's certain that other strategies and tactics that caused civilian deaths were essential. So the deaths from area bombing were not justified, despite the fact that some civilian deaths were justified by the overarching goal of removing Hitler from power, and thereby saving far more civilians from violent deaths in the long run.

Invasion tends to leave things even more of a mess.

None of the Israeli tactics in Gaza appear to be effective in preventing significant numbers of civilians from being violently killed; So the killing of significant numbers of civilians through the use of such tactics is immoral.

1) You have no evidence it's possible to do better.

2) The IDF's record in this regard is second to none. It's strange to see the claim that the best is an obvious wrong.

What any of this has to do with ICE and the attack on their facility in Washington, I do not know.

I don't recall what caused this discussion, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I asked a simple question: Why are civilian casualties unacceptable when Israel defends itself against the Muslims but acceptable when the US defends itself against the Nazis?

After you got the answer "It is not", you continued on pushing that canard.

Stuff like "try better" is simply a derail, not addressing the root issue. ..

It is not a derail to any actual member of the human race. "Try better" or "minimize casualties" is an excellent goal for any actual member of the human race. No one suggests zero civilian casualties - that is another of your straw men derails.

I noticed in your response that you failed to substantiate your claims. And you added in a few new straw men which are implied false accusations against other posters.

You sound like the EPA bozo that kept giving my former employer trouble because we wouldn't improve emissions more than the technology permitted. Took them 10 years to finally figure out what we were telling them all along--the comparison was with a company who was totally faking the reports.

 

[laughing dog]

After you got the answer "It is not", you continued on pushing that canard.
It is not a derail to any actual member of the human race. "Try better" or "minimize casualties" is an excellent goal for any actual member of the human race. No one suggests zero civilian casualties - that is another of your straw men derails.

I noticed in your response that you failed to substantiate your claims. And you added in a few new straw men which are implied false accusations against other posters.

You sound like the EPA bozo that kept giving my former employer trouble because we wouldn't improve emissions more than the technology permitted. Took them 10 years to finally figure out what we were telling them all along--the comparison was with a company who was totally faking the reports.

Cool story, bro.

To use your standard, clearly you have no argument since you fail to address the actual content and use ad homs to deflect from
1) the fact you have no argument, and
2) that you still have failed to substantiate any of your claims of fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After you got the answer "It is not", you continued on pushing that canard.
It is not a derail to any actual member of the human race. "Try better" or "minimize casualties" is an excellent goal for any actual member of the human race. No one suggests zero civilian casualties - that is another of your straw men derails.

I noticed in your response that you failed to substantiate your claims. And you added in a few new straw men which are implied false accusations against other posters.

You sound like the EPA bozo that kept giving my former employer trouble because we wouldn't improve emissions more than the technology permitted. Took them 10 years to finally figure out what we were telling them all along--the comparison was with a company who was totally faking the reports.

Cool story, bro.

To use your standard, clearly you have no argument since you fail to address the actual content and use ad homs to deflect from
1) the fact you have no argument, and
2) that you still have failed to substantiate any of your claims of fact.

You are taking it as a given that Israel can do better--but making no attempt to show this.

 

[laughing dog]

Cool story, bro.

To use your standard, clearly you have no argument since you fail to address the actual content and use ad homs to deflect from
1) the fact you have no argument, and
2) that you still have failed to substantiate any of your claims of fact.

You are taking it as a given that Israel can do better--but making no attempt to show this.

Wrong. I am simply saying that the gov't of Israel and its kneejerk apologists should simply own up to the facts that the IDF is responsible for its decisions and the effects of those decisions and not blame others for their unacceptable behavior.

Since you have plenty of time to substantiate your accusations and claims of fact and have not bothered to do so, it is reasonable to conclude that you realize your accusations and claims are bogus (as usual, I might add).

 

[Jarhyn]

Cool story, bro.

To use your standard, clearly you have no argument since you fail to address the actual content and use ad homs to deflect from
1) the fact you have no argument, and
2) that you still have failed to substantiate any of your claims of fact.

You are taking it as a given that Israel can do better--but making no attempt to show this.

Personally, I do not take it as a given that they CAN do better. I merely reject that they have no obligation to feel guilt or face criticism. IF they can do better, this is the only path there.

There is no justification for failing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Owning those consequences is the only way to say "I WILL BE BETTER, IF I CAN".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cool story, bro.

To use your standard, clearly you have no argument since you fail to address the actual content and use ad homs to deflect from
1) the fact you have no argument, and
2) that you still have failed to substantiate any of your claims of fact.

You are taking it as a given that Israel can do better--but making no attempt to show this.

Personally, I do not take it as a given that they CAN do better. I merely reject that they have no obligation to feel guilt or face criticism. IF they can do better, this is the only path there.

There is no justification for failing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Owning those consequences is the only way to say "I WILL BE BETTER, IF I CAN".

The criticism makes the implicit assumption that their actions are wrongful.

 

[laughing dog]

Personally, I do not take it as a given that they CAN do better. I merely reject that they have no obligation to feel guilt or face criticism. IF they can do better, this is the only path there.

There is no justification for failing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Owning those consequences is the only way to say "I WILL BE BETTER, IF I CAN".

The criticism makes the implicit assumption that their actions are wrongful.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious - you have deduced what ""unacceptable" means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personally, I do not take it as a given that they CAN do better. I merely reject that they have no obligation to feel guilt or face criticism. IF they can do better, this is the only path there.

There is no justification for failing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Owning those consequences is the only way to say "I WILL BE BETTER, IF I CAN".

The criticism makes the implicit assumption that their actions are wrongful.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious - you have deduced what ""unacceptable" means.

The point is you are saying their actions are unacceptable without having provided the slightest evidence they could have done better.

That leaves the obvious reason: They're Jews.

 

[laughing dog]

Congratulations, Captain Obvious - you have deduced what ""unacceptable" means.

The point is you are saying their actions are unacceptable without having provided the slightest evidence they could have done better.

That leaves the obvious reason: They're Jews.

It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.
That is true for the US's bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and it is true for the IDF - which has been previously pointed out to you after your first accusation of anti-semitism. So, you can shove your accusation of anti-semitism right back up the originating orifice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Congratulations, Captain Obvious - you have deduced what ""unacceptable" means.

The point is you are saying their actions are unacceptable without having provided the slightest evidence they could have done better.

That leaves the obvious reason: They're Jews.

It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.
That is true for the US's bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and it is true for the IDF - which has been previously pointed out to you after your first accusation of anti-semitism. So, you can shove your accusation of anti-semitism right back up the originating orifice.

Goalposts!!

If it's unacceptable to kill civilians then it was unacceptable for us to liberate Europe from the Nazis.

 

[laughing dog]

It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.
That is true for the US's bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and it is true for the IDF - which has been previously pointed out to you after your first accusation of anti-semitism. So, you can shove your accusation of anti-semitism right back up the originating orifice.

Goalposts!!

If it's unacceptable to kill civilians then it was unacceptable for us to liberate Europe from the Nazis.

Talk about shifting the goalposts!!! Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.
That is true for the US's bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and it is true for the IDF - which has been previously pointed out to you after your first accusation of anti-semitism. So, you can shove your accusation of anti-semitism right back up the originating orifice.

Goalposts!!

If it's unacceptable to kill civilians then it was unacceptable for us to liberate Europe from the Nazis.

No, just saying -- as I keep saying -- that the consequences must be owned. Making statements like "bombing Dresden was wrong", and "the deaths of Hiroshima were a tragedy to be mourned and thought about when discussing nuclear deployment" helps us ask if there is a better option next time.

Our guilt over the failures of the past, and especially over the killing of Innocents, is what drives us to do better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.
That is true for the US's bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and it is true for the IDF - which has been previously pointed out to you after your first accusation of anti-semitism. So, you can shove your accusation of anti-semitism right back up the originating orifice.

Goalposts!!

If it's unacceptable to kill civilians then it was unacceptable for us to liberate Europe from the Nazis.

Talk about shifting the goalposts!!! Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

There was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians. Lots of non-German civilians, even. I'm not shifting the goalposts, I'm taking your logic and putting it in another scenario. Either both are right or both are wrong or your logic is wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.
That is true for the US's bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and it is true for the IDF - which has been previously pointed out to you after your first accusation of anti-semitism. So, you can shove your accusation of anti-semitism right back up the originating orifice.

Goalposts!!

If it's unacceptable to kill civilians then it was unacceptable for us to liberate Europe from the Nazis.

No, just saying -- as I keep saying -- that the consequences must be owned. Making statements like "bombing Dresden was wrong", and "the deaths of Hiroshima were a tragedy to be mourned and thought about when discussing nuclear deployment" helps us ask if there is a better option next time.

Our guilt over the failures of the past, and especially over the killing of Innocents, is what drives us to do better.

You're talking about specific incidents. I'm talking about the overall liberation--no way to do it without killing a lot of civilians. Your side's inability to address this shows you don't really hold to the position in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

Talk about shifting the goalposts!!! Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

There was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians. Lots of non-German civilians, even. I'm not shifting the goalposts, I'm taking your logic and putting it in another scenario. Either both are right or both are wrong or your logic is wrong.

You are shifting the goalposts. It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. And there is no reason to accept your conclusion that there was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians as an accepted fact.

Moreover, as usual, you seem incapable of understanding/accepting
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, just saying -- as I keep saying -- that the consequences must be owned. Making statements like "bombing Dresden was wrong", and "the deaths of Hiroshima were a tragedy to be mourned and thought about when discussing nuclear deployment" helps us ask if there is a better option next time.

Our guilt over the failures of the past, and especially over the killing of Innocents, is what drives us to do better.

You're talking about specific incidents. I'm talking about the overall liberation--no way to do it without killing a lot of civilians. Your side's inability to address this shows you don't really hold to the position in the first place.

A liberation is composed exactly of many specific incidents.

Your inability to expect or accept ownership of those incidents shows your lack of ethics in this matter.

I am a soldier. I accept that, in the course of my life, I may end up in conflicts where I kill people. I will remember and mourn those who die by my hand, and always attempt a course of action to avoid it, because I see deaths as tragic. I see the deaths of Israelis as tragic. I see the deaths of Palestinians as tragic. People are attempting to give a pass to Israelis on the guilt and mourning of the deaths they inflict, and to blame those deaths on Palestinian civilians who die in the course. YOU are doing this same thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Talk about shifting the goalposts!!! Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

There was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians. Lots of non-German civilians, even. I'm not shifting the goalposts, I'm taking your logic and putting it in another scenario. Either both are right or both are wrong or your logic is wrong.

You are shifting the goalposts. It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. And there is no reason to accept your conclusion that there was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians as an accepted fact.

Moreover, as usual, you seem incapable of understanding/accepting
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.

You're still evading.

What were we supposed to do in WWII?