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

[ruby sparks]

Except it was the Arab attack that caused the displacements, not the "colonization".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In this case it does.

You guys just keep evading the question:

Why was killing civilians in the liberation of Europe acceptable but killing civilians in the defense of Israel not?

You keep evading the clear unequivocal answers to your bullshit question. I have repeatedly said it was unacceptable in both cases. For some reason you seemed unable to understand that basic statement, even though other posters did understand it.

No, you keep weaseling on it. You say it's unacceptable but we still should have invaded. You can't have it both ways. If it's unacceptable then the Nazis should currently rule Europe (and probably the world as Hitler wouldn't have stopped.)

Moreover, at least two posters have repeatedly said that instead of making up excuses for unacceptable actions, people should take responsibility for their choices and their actions instead of blaming the civilian victims.

No one is evading your bullshit question. You are evading the answers.

When they truly are civilian victims nobody is blaming them. What I have said is that most of those "civilians" are combatants.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you keep weaseling on it.

No, your inability to reason does not make it weaseling.

You say it's unacceptable but we still should have invaded.

No, I said agreed that we should have liberated Europe. You never mentioned invasion. In fact, you brought up bombing Germany.

You can't have it both ways. If it's unacceptable then the Nazis should currently rule Europe (and probably the world as Hitler wouldn't have stopped.)

Hitler got his ass handed to him by Russia. And there is no reason to believe Hitler would have successfully invaded and conquered North America.

I will repeat my position.
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. In the real world, sometimes nations and people have to do unacceptable acts. But they ought to take responsibility for them instead of making up excuses.

When they truly are civilian victims nobody is blaming them. What I have said is that most of those "civilians" are combatants.

That does not make it true.

 

[ruby sparks]

Up next on The Pechtel News Corp History Channel: how the white man bravely fought back against the aggression of the Native North Americans. Stay tuned for more madeupdates, including how the holocaust never happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, your inability to reason does not make it weaseling.
No, I said agreed that we should have liberated Europe. You never mentioned invasion. In fact, you brought up bombing Germany.

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?

I will repeat my position.
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. In the real world, sometimes nations and people have to do unacceptable acts. But they ought to take responsibility for them instead of making up excuses.

How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

 

[Jarhyn]

No, your inability to reason does not make it weaseling.
No, I said agreed that we should have liberated Europe. You never mentioned invasion. In fact, you brought up bombing Germany.

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?

I will repeat my position.
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. In the real world, sometimes nations and people have to do unacceptable acts. But they ought to take responsibility for them instead of making up excuses.

How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Say it happened, apologise, take every reasonable step to investigate whether use of force was appropriate, make polciy changes as a result of those investigations to prevent it in the future, compensate victims when unintended casualties happen. You know, taking responsibility.

 

[laughing dog]

No, your inability to reason does not make it weaseling.
No, I said agreed that we should have liberated Europe. You never mentioned invasion. In fact, you brought up bombing Germany.

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?

If you believe Gandalf existed at that time and had that power, then yes. Duh.

My point is that you are not even paying attention to the blather you post. So why do you expect others to pay attention?

How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

A number of posters have repeatedly explained how to accomplish this in this thread. Which makes me seriously question whether you are actually reading the replies to which you respond.

Besides the excellent response of Jarhyn, I would add make no excuses and do not blame the civilian victims.

 

[J842P]

No, your inability to reason does not make it weaseling.
No, I said agreed that we should have liberated Europe. You never mentioned invasion. In fact, you brought up bombing Germany.

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?

I will repeat my position.
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. In the real world, sometimes nations and people have to do unacceptable acts. But they ought to take responsibility for them instead of making up excuses.

How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Jesus, Loren. Whenever you think you have some gotcha you become blind to basic reasoning. You can still invade Europe without specifically targeting civilians like we did in Dresden and other German cities.

Not only was it not justified, it wasn't effective. It only strengthened the civilian resolve.

And before you give some weak rebuttal about how that wasn't actually targeting civilians, this fact was admitted to by McNamara, who has stated on record that if the US had been on the losing side, himself and LaMay would have been tried as war criminals.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?



How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Jesus, Loren. Whenever you think you have some gotcha you become blind to basic reasoning. You can still invade Europe without specifically targeting civilians like we did in Dresden and other German cities.

Not only was it not justified, it wasn't effective. It only strengthened the civilian resolve.

And before you give some weak rebuttal about how that wasn't actually targeting civilians, this fact was admitted to by McNamara, who has stated on record that if the US had been on the losing side, himself and LaMay would have been tried as war criminals.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki also included a mix of civilian and military targets. And then there was the British area bombing directive.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?



How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Jesus, Loren. Whenever you think you have some gotcha you become blind to basic reasoning. You can still invade Europe without specifically targeting civilians like we did in Dresden and other German cities.

Not only was it not justified, it wasn't effective. It only strengthened the civilian resolve.

And before you give some weak rebuttal about how that wasn't actually targeting civilians, this fact was admitted to by McNamara, who has stated on record that if the US had been on the losing side, himself and LaMay would have been tried as war criminals.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki also included a mix of civilian and military targets. And then there was the British area bombing directive.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as testament to the horrors of nuclear warfare, a festering pockmark of shame and pain, a failure of negotiation on both sides that echoes so strongly it has itself saved the world from a repeat of the horrors.

Nobody wants to do that again.

I don't think it was "justified" or "acceptable". I don't think anyone sane thinks it was. There was an objective and people asked the questions of whether there were other, better ways to accomplish a necessary goal of ending a war. Of preventing future wars. A decision was made. We should, as I keep saying, always continue to ask if it was the right one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?



How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Say it happened, apologise, take every reasonable step to investigate whether use of force was appropriate, make polciy changes as a result of those investigations to prevent it in the future, compensate victims when unintended casualties happen. You know, taking responsibility.

So we should have apologized after every bombing raid over Germany? Launched an investigation after every raid to figure out how to do it better? Compensate every German civilian that gets hurt or killed? We didn't do any of these things.

Reality: Israel's record in this is second to none--including the US. Obviously they are doing what they can to minimize casualties. And compensating civilians in Gaza would cause a lot more civilians to get hurt/killed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you believe Gandalf existed at that time and had that power, then yes. Duh.

My point is that you are not even paying attention to the blather you post. So why do you expect others to pay attention?

How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

A number of posters have repeatedly explained how to accomplish this in this thread. Which makes me seriously question whether you are actually reading the replies to which you respond.

Besides the excellent response of Jarhyn, I would add make no excuses and do not blame the civilian victims.

You still are avoiding answering the question.

 

[laughing dog]

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?



How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Say it happened, apologise, take every reasonable step to investigate whether use of force was appropriate, make polciy changes as a result of those investigations to prevent it in the future, compensate victims when unintended casualties happen. You know, taking responsibility.

So we should have apologized after every bombing raid over Germany? Launched an investigation after every raid to figure out how to do it better? Compensate every German civilian that gets hurt or killed? We didn't do any of these things.

So?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, how were we supposed to liberate it, get Gandalf to cast a Dispel Nazis spell?



How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

Jesus, Loren. Whenever you think you have some gotcha you become blind to basic reasoning. You can still invade Europe without specifically targeting civilians like we did in Dresden and other German cities.

Not only was it not justified, it wasn't effective. It only strengthened the civilian resolve.

And before you give some weak rebuttal about how that wasn't actually targeting civilians, this fact was admitted to by McNamara, who has stated on record that if the US had been on the losing side, himself and LaMay would have been tried as war criminals.

Dresden was wrong. Otherwise, where did we target civilians that weren't war workers?

 

[laughing dog]

If you believe Gandalf existed at that time and had that power, then yes. Duh.

My point is that you are not even paying attention to the blather you post. So why do you expect others to pay attention?

How are they supposed to "take responsibility"?

A number of posters have repeatedly explained how to accomplish this in this thread. Which makes me seriously question whether you are actually reading the replies to which you respond.

Besides the excellent response of Jarhyn, I would add make no excuses and do not blame the civilian victims.

You still are avoiding answering the question.

No, the part in bold is clearly an answer to your stupid question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki also included a mix of civilian and military targets. And then there was the British area bombing directive.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as testament to the horrors of nuclear warfare, a festering pockmark of shame and pain, a failure of negotiation on both sides that echoes so strongly it has itself saved the world from a repeat of the horrors.

Nobody wants to do that again.

I don't think it was "justified" or "acceptable". I don't think anyone sane thinks it was. There was an objective and people asked the questions of whether there were other, better ways to accomplish a necessary goal of ending a war. Of preventing future wars. A decision was made. We should, as I keep saying, always continue to ask if it was the right one.

Ugly as they were Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best option for all groups involved.

They reduced Japanese military deaths.
They reduced Japanese civilian deaths.
They reduced Chinese military deaths.
They reduced Chinese civilian deaths.
They reduced US military deaths.

No group had it's casualties increased.

And note that all other options includes doing nothing.

Just because something is ugly doesn't mean there's a better answer, even though leftist faith says there is.

 

[laughing dog]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki also included a mix of civilian and military targets. And then there was the British area bombing directive.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as testament to the horrors of nuclear warfare, a festering pockmark of shame and pain, a failure of negotiation on both sides that echoes so strongly it has itself saved the world from a repeat of the horrors.

Nobody wants to do that again.

I don't think it was "justified" or "acceptable". I don't think anyone sane thinks it was. There was an objective and people asked the questions of whether there were other, better ways to accomplish a necessary goal of ending a war. Of preventing future wars. A decision was made. We should, as I keep saying, always continue to ask if it was the right one.

Ugly as they were Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best option for all groups involved.

They reduced Japanese military deaths.
They reduced Japanese civilian deaths.
They reduced Chinese military deaths.
They reduced Chinese civilian deaths.
They reduced US military deaths.

No group had it's casualties increased.

Ahem, your claims are as written are absolute nonsense. I suspect you mean they reduced the expected _____ deaths which is not the same as reducing the actual deaths. Expected or predicted deaths are guestimates by definition.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki also included a mix of civilian and military targets. And then there was the British area bombing directive.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as testament to the horrors of nuclear warfare, a festering pockmark of shame and pain, a failure of negotiation on both sides that echoes so strongly it has itself saved the world from a repeat of the horrors.

Nobody wants to do that again.

I don't think it was "justified" or "acceptable". I don't think anyone sane thinks it was. There was an objective and people asked the questions of whether there were other, better ways to accomplish a necessary goal of ending a war. Of preventing future wars. A decision was made. We should, as I keep saying, always continue to ask if it was the right one.

Ugly as they were Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best option for all groups involved.

They reduced Japanese military deaths.
They reduced Japanese civilian deaths.
They reduced Chinese military deaths.
They reduced Chinese civilian deaths.
They reduced US military deaths.

No group had it's casualties increased.

And note that all other options includes doing nothing.

Just because something is ugly doesn't mean there's a better answer, even though leftist faith says there is.

You are trying really hard to not actually pick up my perspective, that I keep providing to you, and look through it to see how accepting responsibility for the past leads to a better future.

I didn't say there was a better answer. I said we must always ask the question of IF there was, so that we never are so bold to think that doing it again is automatically a "good" answer.

In war, you make decisions, take risks and people die. I keep saying that this is a thing that happens. I just keep pointing out that the lens of "acceptability" leads to an unacceptable calculus no matter which side you judge things on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ugly as they were Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best option for all groups involved.

They reduced Japanese military deaths.
They reduced Japanese civilian deaths.
They reduced Chinese military deaths.
They reduced Chinese civilian deaths.
They reduced US military deaths.

No group had it's casualties increased.

Ahem, your claims are as written are absolute nonsense. I suspect you mean they reduced the expected _____ deaths which is not the same as reducing the actual deaths. Expected or predicted deaths are guestimates by definition.

Japanese military deaths & civilian deaths: Anything that didn't bring about a quick surrender meant famine in the winter of 45. That would have killed far more than the bombs.

We had no way to stop the ongoing conflict in China. Thus those deaths would have continued.

You sound like the people who object to evolution because it's just a theory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are trying really hard to not actually pick up my perspective, that I keep providing to you, and look through it to see how accepting responsibility for the past leads to a better future.

I didn't say there was a better answer. I said we must always ask the question of IF there was, so that we never are so bold to think that doing it again is automatically a "good" answer.

In war, you make decisions, take risks and people die. I keep saying that this is a thing that happens. I just keep pointing out that the lens of "acceptability" leads to an unacceptable calculus no matter which side you judge things on.

Of course you look for a better answer. Where's your evidence that Israel doesn't? They have engineered new weapons systems specifically for the purpose of reducing civilian deaths.

You are basically assuming Israel is in the wrong here and using that to "prove" that Israel is in the wrong.