Ok, cool. :up:

Yes. It is the reason why there is a conflict. More states were suppose to become Muslim, not less.

Thank you for your response.

So the Israeli terrorists are still exchanging hostages. Glad to see the ceasefire is holding up, despite Trump and companies best efforts to derail it.

Hey remember when Trump said “ALL hostages must be released by Saturday or there will be hell to pay?” :lol: Thankfully, no one takes that imbecile seriously.

So the two Bibas brothers (4 and 10 months) were brutally murdered by Palestinian civilians a month after being captured with their bare hands via strangulation. But who cares? Thousands of Palestinian children have died. Why should two even matter?

Remember guys, as long as a non-state actor is fighting a state, the non-state is virtually always in the right because there's no way that small terrorist organization/non-state actor/battered population has caused more deaths (rightfully or wrongfully) than the state has over its long history.

So kill as many Israeli or American babies as you like; you are always the good one as long as your opponent is that state. :up:

Had this situation happened the other way around, we would say that Israel killed them, but on this occasion, it is simply a few Palestinian civilians -- certainly not representative of Palestinians in general -- who did the deed. Palestinians commit crimes individually, Israel as a collective. That's how the game works.

So kill as many [Palestinian] babies as you like — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, that’s been the status quo for a long time. You always seem fine with it— or find a creative way to justify it. Just do the same when it’s Palestinians killing Israelis.

So whichever side kills more babies is the bad side? Is that how we see history?

So whichever side kills more babies is the bad side? Is that how we see history? — BitconnectCarlos

That’s a decent rule of thumb, sure.

The US did kill many more Japanese babies than Japan killed US babies.

Additionally, we should note the difference between the intentional murder of babies (as occurred on 10/7 and to 10/7 hostages in captivity) and babies dying as a byproduct of a strike on a legitimate target.

:yawn:

Trotting out the tired WWII comparisons and the trusty ol’ “when the good guys do it, it’s not intentional.” Keep up the good work. :up:

You presented an idea - a universal rule of thumb - and then rejected my historical application of that principle. :up:

What other wars/time periods are we not allowed to use as historical examples? Just for future reference.

EDIT: And yes, when pilots bomb military bases (where do babies live) that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range because it belongs to a certain race and to draw a moral equivalency between the two is deranged.

What country do you live in?

that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range — BitconnectCarlos

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended.

You’re in good company though — basic tribalism. Your equivalent is out there, only they justify Hamas’ killings. And have better arguments.

rejected — BitconnectCarlos

Nope — laughed at it.

What country do you live in? — RogueAI

It’s right there in my profile.

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended. — Mikie

Ok, so an allied bomber who strikes a weapons factory where the debris ends up hitting a nursery in the area and killing 10 babies is equivalent (if not worse, since you say bombers are worse) to a Nazi who intentionally executes 10 gypsy babies.

Both are the same morally. Ten dead babies. Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. Maybe the pilot did intend to kill those babies. Maybe the Nazi's motives/intentions aren't so clear. Maybe he really wasn't trying to shoot those 10 romani babies he lined up and shot.

Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. — BitconnectCarlos

When we do it it’s always with the best intentions.

You can condemn airpower as inhumane, but without it you jeopardize allied victory and ensure a much more deadly ground war. Now I wonder whether naval bombardment is ok with you or if that's off limits.

EDIT: WIthout air and naval bombardments we surely lose, so our best course of action would just be to surrender.

When Hamas gets an Air Force, let me know. But since they’ll be doing it with evil intentions in their hearts, I don’t see how it would change things.

ISIS doesn't have an air force either.

People like Mikie hate,hate,hate WW2 because it reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of their position. And they're reduced to inanities like "the Allies were committing war crimes!" that the rest of us non-antisemites have to roll our eyes at. The Allies were justified bombing Japan and Germany back to the stone age. Japan and Germany started that war, and they got stomped on until they gave up. Such is war. Israel is up against a foe just as evil and just as stubborn. Let the bombs and missiles fly! The Palestinians, like the Germans, need to get stomped on till they too wouldn't dream of ever voting in someone like Hamas again.

Apologists for a genocidal government ran by a wanted war criminal 'revealing' the intellectual bankruptcy of others... I would laugh if it weren't so pathetic.

ISIS doesn't have an air force either. — BitconnectCarlos

True.

Let the bombs and missiles fly! The Palestinians, like the Germans, need to get stomped on till they too wouldn't dream of ever voting in someone like Hamas again. — RogueAI

Usually something this gross doesn’t get said out loud. But I appreciate the transparency.

1) Is intention morally relevant to you?

2) You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct?

Is intention morally relevant to you? — BitconnectCarlos

Minimally. Why? Because professing benign intentions is the norm for states (and individuals) that commit crimes.

You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct? — BitconnectCarlos

Hence why they’re professed.

You may not care whether a death was intended or not, but civilized nations do.

You may not care whether a death was intended or not, but civilized nations do. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, the same civilized nations that murder with impunity, because their intentions are always humanitarian. If you believe all that, you’re welcome.

Do not worry, Trump is bringing peace in Gaza as in Ukraine. And you support peace right?

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1894613903302176846

Civilizations must win wars/be able to defend themselves to be civilizations. They must sometimes use lethal force against criminal or terrorist elements, but I suppose all that is just "murder" to you.

defend themselves — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah yeah yeah. Like when the US invaded Vietnam because it was “defending” Vietnam.

Everything is defensive when it’s your team. And intellectually bankrupt apologists don’t have the slightest self-reflection to see it. But it’s conventional, and common. You’re in a large company.