Ok, didn't notice, but I don't think racist white southern Jesus freaks need protecting.

The religious are not an ethnic group. And if you think their ideas should be protected then the same principle applies to the ideas of those who reject religion. If you have any other complaints, you can start a feedback thread or send a PM but your comparison is invalid.

:up: This is the thing that was understood from the start by the British. Even by right-wingers like Thatcher. They talked tough but were always keeping lines of communication open and looking for compromises. Eventually they found one. Israel's strategy is baffling except as an attempt to maintain the conflict for as long as possible as cover for expansions of settlements, expulsions, and further encroachments.

So, you would be happy for ANTIFA to burn down your house as long as you're given a warning. Off-topic. But, ok, check.

Yes, see, before making families homeless and destroying all their worldly posessions, Israeli terrorists let them know that that's what's about to happen before hand. So it's all good. — StreetlightX

Same modus operandus as the IRA, in fact. Though the IRA were much more consistent in giving warnings and killed far less civilians than Israel has.

Crikey.

Tim, you are babbling. The argument is not whether Israel "had to" kill civilians or target civilian buildings in the way that they did. They chose to. For example, they did not "have to" bomb the media building housing the Associated Press. It was part of a strategic response. If you're going to argue that they are not justified in doing that because they didn't have to, you cannot justify any strategic response. So, you move up a level and discuss what of their choices (none of which they "have to" take by definition) are jusified and what are not and why. My approach has been to try to short circuit the intuitive support for Israel's actions based on an analogy that tends to evoke a different intuitive response but, in substance, is similar. If we take away the words "Israel", "the IRA", "Hamas", "the Irish", "The Palestinians" etc, we maybe meet in the middle and at least agree that you need more than "party A once used a building for some unspecified military purpose" to justify party B bombing and killing innocent civilians in party A's community who happen to be in that building. Can we get that much common ground?

Biased sources are not acceptable in any serious debate. I wouldn't present a Palestinian website as evidence of Palestinian casualties, for example, and I doubt you'd accept it. Having said that, the extra numbers wouldn't make any significant difference in terms of our discussion anyway.

If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians.

This a defense of no one's actions. Will you in turn claim that if given to the Palestinians everything within reason that they want, that there will then be peace? If you will suppose it, then I would think it reasonable for the Israelis to give them that. And then we'll see. — tim wood

That argument isn't part of the topic of the thread and I'm not interested in having it. I've got a specific on-topic point to pursue here. Start a new thread if you want.

Yes if you have to. — tim wood

Obviously Israel doesn't have to send warplanes in to bomb civilian tower blocks or media centres or the families of Hamas operatives. Only a complete moron would think those responses were absolutely necessary. So, I think we agree their response has been unjustified

I pretty much agree with this.

Your vague glib statements give me the impression you really don't give a fuck and are just killing time again.

Again, you realize how low that bar is? For example, a group of Hamas operatives go into a coffee shop and do some research. Days later, Israel blows it up killing a bunch of innocent civilians. They could (at least theoretically) use that excuse word for word. +There is usually no evidence provided to back up their claims.

I'm sure it would be told in Arab households — BitconnectCarlos

Obviously, many Arab households would be anti-Zionist although if you look at the lack of support among Arab countries for Palestine, you might question the blanket presumption. Secondly, I'm Irish, which is one reason I brought up the IRA as an example.

Yes, I did respond.



I don't know where you are getting these ideas. You seem to be responding to a cartoon version of me now. Slow down a bit.

Are you an Arab? What are you? — BitconnectCarlos

:lol:

Your voice is valid, your arguments are not. And I don't believe I've made any judgements one way or the other on Zionism in this thread other than to state the obvious just now that it puts you on one side of the divide.

Providing a Zionist voice equals not engaging in the ethical debate. You can't, by definition, when your priority is not what is ethically correct, but giving voice to one side of the argument. It's disengenuous to pretend otherwise. I'm not providing a Palestininan voice here, for example, I'm trying to make an ethical argument. Period.

Shawn, Israel has bombed civilian infrastructure, including media outlets, simply because they claim Hamas at some point, used that building. The bar is so low a dwarf wouldn't be able to limbo dance under it. They don't feel they even need the excuse of actively being attacked from there.

That's not how it works. Yes, we all have our conscious and unconscious biases, goes without saying, but If you're just here to rah rah for the Israelis because you relate to them more then you're openly admitting to not even attempting to engage in an ethical (philosophical) conversation.

they're both in the wrong — Judaka

I wouldn't dispute that but again, there are inconsistencies with how people view what's a justified response in contexts differing in little other of relevance apart from the ethnicities of those involved. Martin McGuinness was known to be the commander of the IRA by the British for years, for example, but in the end they couldn't even arrest him due to lack of evidence (i.e. respect for the rule of law). The idea that they would have sent planes in to bomb his house and kill him, his entire family and maybe his neighbours too is just ludicrous yet when Israel does exactly that, all of a sudden, it's not only not ludicrous, but justified. My thesis that racism, bigotry, Islamaphobia etc. is involved may be wrong. But there is a huge disparity in response compared to relatively small differences in context.

Obviously. It's your one-sided description which I objected to. If you want to justify Israel's response then you have to accurately describe who and what it is responding to. Not every member or supporter of Hamas is a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatic completely lacking in empathy (though some obviously are). And this was central to your attempt to forge a distinction between Hamas and the IRA and so a relevant point of contention.

Define "using" as a human shield? If it extends to someone from Hamas entered your house therefore Israel has a right to kill you just to get at him then you may want to do a thought experiment of how you;d view the situation if a guerilla operative decided to use your home as shelter. I have a feeling though you are not trying. Try harder.

First read this. Your chance to retract is now.

Palestinian suicide bombers are not martyrs in my eyes, they're murderers, as are all those who target or disregard the lives of innocent civilians, and those who carry out and support such crimes are the only ones who bear responsibility for them. — Baden

This is classic projection. From my time on this site, and unlike you, I have the posts to prove it, what triggers me most is attacks on innocents, particularly children. It doesn't matter a hoot to me what color, religion, or ethnicity they are and for you to suggest it does is very distasteful to say the least. It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread.

I'll keep my failings rather than suffer yours, but that's neither here nor there. Your depiction of the Palestinian resistance was entirely one-sided, stereotyped, shallow and, yes, cartoonish. This is a sample of the side you'd rather not talk about. Both extremes are involved in fighting Israel and both are given similar treatment for it.

"Yes I went on the protest, it was the right thing to do: we are fighting the occupation,” said Khaled Hussein, 20, who like his friend Samir, is unemployed. “Of course people were angry but we did not attack the police. They started shooting and we had to run to save ourselves.”

“I knew Muhammed [Ishaq Hamid], he was a good man. He was shot and we hoped that he would recover, but he died in hospital. We were protesting not just about the killings taking place in Gaza but also what the Israelis are doing in Jerusalem, taking peoples’ homes. They will continue to try to take our land, and we will continue to resist back. There is no one helping us, so we need to stand up for ourselves.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-gaza-abbas-ramallah-israel-b1853025.html

These, btw, are some of Bitconnect's cartoon terrorists who are so much worse than the IRA, Israel are justified in killing as many Palestinian civilians as necessary to take them out.

Again, dehumanization, racism, and bigotry, just the things he accuses the other side of, are what he himself appears to be steeped in. Same goes for the rest of the apologists. Please wake up to yourselves.

We can cut through all the distractions. Is it ok to bomb civilian populations in which so-called terrorist operatives are embedded when these operatives present a threat (though a relatively low-level one compared to said bombings) to civilian lives on the opposing side? If it is, it should be OK in the case of both the IRA and HAMAS and their respective communites of origin. If it's not, it shouldn't, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48521788.
Alabama mayor suggested 'killing out' gay people
"The only way to change it would be to kill the problem out. I know it's bad to say but with out [sic] killing them out there's no way to fix it."

I guess we're justified in bombing Alabama then.

yes there are some differences but none so significant as the difference between the army sending planes in that kill hundreds of civilians in a matter of days vs. the army never using nor even contemplating using heavy artillery on civilians. — Baden

The stuff you raised is largely irrelevant. The stated justification for the strikes is Israel defending itself against attacks on its soldiers and civilians, not punishing Hamas for being religious nutters who say crazy outrageous things. Otherwise, we should send planes into the deep south and bomb the Christian fundamentalist nuts.

Over 1300 Israeli civilians have died from Palestinian terror attacks in the past 20 years. Thousands more injured. — BitconnectCarlos

Source? According to this (quoting the Israeli ministry for foreign affairs) it's roughly 1,000 since 2021. The IRA killed a similarly large number in their 20-year campaign (now ended), approximately 600.

I don't know — BitconnectCarlos

Correct. And the fact that you don't know but appear intent on gerrymandering your definition just so it fits Hamas but not the IRA again suggests I am right in my thesis. That is, yes there are some differences but none so significant as the difference between the army sending planes in that kill hundreds of civilians in a matter of days vs. the army never using nor even contemplating using heavy artillery on civilians.

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.

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?

From page 1.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?