Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against brown people].
Generally not Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against white people]. — Baden

Have you ever been to Israel? If you have then you'd know that most Israelis aren't white. Palestinians and Israelis are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Israelis are POC. And they're indigenous.

Yes, most Israelis are Jewish, so what? My thesis above is that Palestinians are non-white and that's a significant factor in why their deaths are more acceptable to westerners than the deaths of, say, white Irish. So, would it have bothered you if the British had sent warplanes in to bomb the Catholic population of Northern Ireland in which IRA operatives were embedded (something you have supported in the case of Israel)? Yes or no? And, do you not agree, at least, it was inconceivable for that to happen? Have you asked yourself why?

They're Jewish and they're also brown people.

I've stated earlier than Hamas is not the IRA and that these two organizations are not morally comparable.

In any case, white people constantly suppress and murder other white people and I thought ssu flushed this point out pretty well.

EDIT: We've also seen quite a bit of backlash in the US with 26 antisemetic attacks since May 10th in response to Gaza. If israelis are valid targets why not American Jews?

, I won't hold my breath. — 180 Proof

I'll keep asking the question until one of them has the guts to answer it

Your argument now is that the IRA didn't kill civilians or didn't target civilians as in the Birmingham pub bombings or Enniskillen? Because they did. So, you're reduced to arguing that if Hamas had blown up pubs full of Israeli civilians or a hotel with the entire Israeli cabinet in it, they would only have been as bad as the IRA and Israel would not be justified in responding as they are now. Your position is quickly being revealed as absolutely absurd.

For the most part, the IRA did not intentionally target civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas does, and in doing so effectively legitimizes attacks on Jewish communities elsewhere. If Israeli civilians are valid targets, why not American Jews? Especially ones in "Zionist" communities. We've already seen this start to happen here in the US.

"As well as its campaign against the security forces, the IRA became involved, in the middle of the decade, in a "tit for tat" cycle of sectarian killings with loyalist paramilitaries. The worst examples of this occurred in 1975 and 1976. In September 1975, for example, IRA members machine-gunned an Orange Hall in Newtownhamilton, killing five Protestants. On 5 January 1976, in Armagh, IRA members operating under the proxy name South Armagh Republican Action Force shot dead ten Protestant building workers in the Kingsmill massacre.

In similar incidents, the IRA deliberately killed 91 Protestant civilians in 1974–76."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign

More than Hamas have killed in the past ten years.

More fairy tales or are you going to address the issue, finally?

Has he asked you about Japan yet?

Or brought up East Germany before realizing that it's actually a really great comparison to the misery of occupation and then turning tail like the disingenuous coward he is?

Bitconnect, from your own statements, you are happy to defend a white so-called terrorist group while you consider an Arab so-called terrorist group worse though they have inflicted less civilian casualties. At the same time, you are apparently undisturbed to see Arab civilians killed in large numbers while you find the killing of white Irish civilians unacceptable. You are making my case for me better then I ever could.

I don't think he or the others realize that they're racists, or Islamophobic, or bigoted in whatever way, part of what's so pernicious about it, but until they stop demonstrating they are by their own words and the contradictions inherent in their arguments, they'll be judged as such and I'll keep pursuing this line.

The dude straight up advocated for Israel's being the ethnostate that it is - a religious supremacist power, so no, he knows very well that he's a racist asshole, he's just convinced that it's OK.

Do you support attacks on jewish/zionist communities in the US? If attacks on Israelis are ok, why not these attacks?

Don't troll here. We both know I never said I support attacks on any community. In fact, the only thing I've done here is argue against attacks that are likely to kill innocent civilians.

I condemn all attacks on civilians on both sides without reservation — Baden

This is a deliberate attempt to derail. Don't even think about trying that again.

His last comment has convinced me you are right. On to the rest of you, you've argued Israel's actions are justified. I have established that the IRA, for example, carried out more damaging attacks on Protestant civilians than Hamas has on Israelis. So, would you have supported the bombing of Catholic neighbourhoods in which IRA operatives were embedded? Yes or no? Why or why not? Give me a reason to think this is not primarily about race, ethnicity etc.

Israeli domestic terror.

Maybe try to be less personally offended given I have no idea who you are, and consider my question a reflection of the current atmosphere.

Maybe don't be a disingenuous fuck.

I know. As if we didn't just have the conversation where I was arguing that attacks on civilians were wrong. He just forgot. Won't be taking that bait any more.

Nah, show him up for what he is. Embarrass this stupid motherfucker and his bigoted piece of shit views at every opportunity.

when were we arguing? This is the first time we've talked in this thread.

I'd ask you what your stance on is on violence but I've had enough conversations with you to know that you basically just support violence against everyone who doesn't think like you. Bash the fash.

From page 1.

Bash the fash. — BitconnectCarlos

Absolutely. Like the state of Israel.

I wasn't responding to you because I had like 5 other people talking to me. Count it as a conversation if I respond to you.

Absolutely. Like the state of Israel. — StreetlightX

And everyone who supports capitalism, or who thinks their own culture is special, or who supports the police etc.... I've never really been personally offended by you because your general hatred for humanity is just so widespread that I've never really felt personally attacked.

I wasn't responding to you because I had like 5 other people talking to me. Count it as a conversation if I respond to you. — BitconnectCarlos

You responding to me on page 1.

No, it's not. If that were true then every general or commander would be a war criminal because civilian casualties are inevitable in war. Bombing of German industrial targets? War crime. Bombing on Japan? War crime.

Come on, Baden. — BitconnectCarlos

And on page 2.

So, presumably you believe war against Israel by the Palestinians is justified? Again, in their position, living under a foreign occupation, how would you react?
— Baden

No, all I said was in some instances war is justified and in during warfare or military action intention does matter. That's all I was seeking to establish. — BitconnectCarlos

Etc.

Are you ok?

Ok ya got me we exchanged a couple sentences almost 2 weeks ago where all I really did was clarify my position. I know next to nothing about what you believe or who you are.

Israelis are POC — BitconnectCarlos

I think the essence of @Baden's point is intact: what is the distinction between Palestinians and Southern Irish that would've made the UK bombing civilians to get at the IRA not ok but the IDF bombing Palestinians to get at Hamas okay?

I've said on multiple occasions that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is just not comparable to the one between the UK and the IRA. To the best of my understanding, the IRA didn't intentionally target uninvolved civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. I don't recall them ever recruiting child suicide bombers either. I go into more detail here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540254

Ok ya got me we exchanged a couple sentences almost 2 weeks ago where all I really did was clarify my position. — BitconnectCarlos

To the best of my understanding, the IRA didn't intentionally target uninvolved civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. — BitconnectCarlos

This reply to you was three hours ago:

"As well as its campaign against the security forces, the IRA became involved, in the middle of the decade, in a "tit for tat" cycle of sectarian killings with loyalist paramilitaries. The worst examples of this occurred in 1975 and 1976. In September 1975, for example, IRA members machine-gunned an Orange Hall in Newtownhamilton, killing five Protestants. On 5 January 1976, in Armagh, IRA members operating under the proxy name South Armagh Republican Action Force shot dead ten Protestant building workers in the Kingsmill massacre.

In similar incidents, the IRA deliberately killed 91 Protestant civilians in 1974–76."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign

More than Hamas have killed in the past ten years.

More fairy tales or are you going to address the issue, finally? — Baden

So, you've been refuted on that.

Over 1300 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian terror attacks in the past 20 years. Thousands more injured.

The IRA does not indiscriminately target civilians as their MO. There may have been times where this happened, I don't know, but it's not how the group normally operates. The group also doesn't seek to destroy England in their charter.