(July 28, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: See it simply:

By the Geneva conventions, using infrastructure for military use makes it a legitimate target.

1. Hamas uses schools, residential neighbourhoods and hospitals for military targets, thus endangering civilians inside.

2. Every ceasefire (which means you stop firing at the enemy -- only that) has been met with Hamas using it to position more Qassam rockets.

3. Hamas has no military bargaining power.

If they do not surrender, then they are solely responsible for the death of Gazans.

Frankly, I never liked the Israelis, but Hamas continually picks a fight with a stronger bully and then hides behind/sets up civilians for the slaughter.

To hell with Gaza -- pound them until they unconditionally surrender or kill them all.

There is no middle ground any more -- it has gone on too long.

The only thing that dumb shit liberals seem to see is that there aren't droves of dead Israelis -- they're alive due to Iron Dome.

Without Iron Dome, we wouldn't see this misplaced bleeding heart bullshit that only enriches Hamas leadership and further allows them to devote money towards weapons, not food.

This mess has nothing to do with land, politicians, weaponry, etc...

If religion never existed, neither would this bloody conflict. That is the greatest weapon--religion.

Not many feuds would go on this long over land rights. Israel is the promised land, don'tcha know?

This is about their gods. Israel and its enemies have been at war for centuries. Over who has the "better god." Take religion away and not saying the world becomes war free but this idiocy would cease to exist.

(July 30, 2014 at 12:14 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 29, 2014 at 9:43 pm)Cato Wrote: Would you measure response in civilian body count?

Yes.. of course..WTF. That would weigh immensely in my response ESPECIALLY considering their attack poses no significant threat. Sorry to disappoint though, Arizona is not walled off.

You to know what would stop the slaughter of civilians? If all hamas started wearing uniforms, and stopped shooting from civilian areas like schools

(July 30, 2014 at 5:44 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You to know what would stop the slaughter of civilians? If all hamas started wearing uniforms, and stopped shooting from civilian areas like schools

Oh c'mon. Get real.

Like Al Qaeda or Boko Haram will just suddenly start caring about civilians. They're terrorists.

Also, your suggestion that they stop shooting from civilian areas is fucking hilarious. You do know what Gaza is right? A fucking city. And a city is filled with, nay, entirely comprised of what? ... CIVILIAN AREAS.

Here's the thing you guys seem to keep missing, it's Israel who are the ones who have more responsibility in all of this. They control the borders. They are the ones who have been systematically oppressing the Gaza strip for years. They are the ones who have blockaded the city and are holding it at siege, committing humanitarian crimes in the process. They have a vastly more advanced military. They are being funded by the richest country in the world. They choose when to bomb. They choose where. They are the ones who are effectively supposed to be in control of this city.

Do you honestly not think here, with all this in mind, that Israel doesn't have a bit more responsibility when it comes to bombing one of the most densely populated places on Earth? This isn't a case of Israel fighting back against an equivalent power that genuinely threatens its survival. This is a case of one of the most advanced militaries in the world attacking a single city, a city occupied by terrorists all the same, but still just a city.


Don't get me wrong I'm not sympathising for Hamas. They're absolute scum and just as much accountable for innocent deaths as Israel. They're using Palestinian people as human shields, and in many ways the Palestinians only have themselves to blame because they unanimously 'elected' them. However, it's Israel who can decide whether or not to fire back, and they're the ones in control of the kind of force they use. So far, it's undeniable that the force they've used in response has been massively disproportionate. How anyone can sit there and say they're simply defending themselves is beyond me. No, the only people I am sympathising for are the innocent kids who are being blown to pieces.


Ultimately both sides are in the wrong. But it comes down to: who is in the actual position to de-escalate conflict and prevent civilian casualties? Hamas could put down their weapons and stop firing rockets sure, we'd all love to see that, but terrorists aren't exactly known for great moral decisions, so anyone suggesting this is being unrealistic. Israel however are in a position to stop firing rockets and stop killing people. At the very least they can control how hard they fight, and reduce the death toll. They can stop blockading the Gaza strip and stop creating a humanitarian crisis there. These aren't unrealistic propositions, and if anything Israel are the ones who have more of a moral responsibility as they are the vastly larger power and in control of more factors than Hamas.

The thing that really pisses me off in this though, are people who sympathise with Israel when it is they who have been compounding this problem year after year. They systematically oppress and blockade and force Gaza into a humanitarian crisis then play the victim when an extremist organisation pops up and wants to shoot rockets at them. What is it here that I'm missing? Why don't you people get it? Israel has compounded these problems, arguably created them. They are still the only ones who can realistically change the way things are playing out. But everyone just jumps to blame Hamas and forgets about all the Israeli responsibility.

*edited grammar

Now that Israel has basically cut electricity off in Gaza, it's going to be much harder for survivors to tweet (and hence) report their war crimes.

(July 30, 2014 at 12:14 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 29, 2014 at 9:43 pm)Cato Wrote: Would you measure response in civilian body count?

Yes.. of course..WTF. That would weigh immensely in my response ESPECIALLY considering their attack poses no significant threat. Sorry to disappoint though, Arizona is not walled off.

I can't agree. Morality is not determined by numbers.

I agree with what Brian37 wrote upthread: both sides here have bloody hands, and as Rhythm and Cato point out, the only real reason Israel's are bloodier is that they have a more effective killing machine. Neither side appears to have any compunctions about killing innocent civilians, clearly; and that speaks more to their morality than any body count.

Otherwise, the question must be asked: how many innocent deaths should be tolerated before striking back?

Morality is an abstraction, body counts are concrete, and I think basing the first off the second is a form of category error.

(July 30, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 12:14 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Yes.. of course..WTF. That would weigh immensely in my response ESPECIALLY considering their attack poses no significant threat. Sorry to disappoint though, Arizona is not walled off.

I can't agree. Morality is not determined by numbers.

I agree with what Brian37 wrote upthread: both sides here have bloody hands, and as Rhythm and Cato point out, the only real reason Israel's are bloodier is that they have a more effective killing machine. Neither side appears to have any compunctions about killing innocent civilians, clearly; and that speaks more to their morality than any body count.

Otherwise, the question must be asked: how many innocent deaths should be tolerated before striking back?

Morality is an abstraction, body counts are concrete, and I think basing the first off the second is a form of category error.

So, are you denying any moral difference between murdering a single innocent person versus massacring a 1,000 of them? I'd say the latter is 1000x worse.

(July 30, 2014 at 4:40 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: So, are you denying any moral difference between murdering a single innocent person versus massacring a 1,000 of them? I'd say the latter is 1000x worse.

I'd say it is worse especially when you have more control over the amount of people you're killing.

The morality of the current war in Gaza seems to hinge around this point. I would argue that according to international law, Hamas is more wrong since using civilians to shield military targets is not condoned at all, and not only that but Hamas tells civilians to ignore Israeli warning pamphlets. That having been said, Israel is idiotically playing right into Hamas's recruitment campaign by bombing those targets anyway and not coming up with a different way to seize the weapons.

(July 30, 2014 at 4:46 pm)StealthySkeptic Wrote:

The morality of the current war in Gaza seems to hinge around this point. I would argue that according to international law, Hamas is more wrong since using civilians to shield military targets is not condoned at all, and not only that but Hamas tells civilians to ignore Israeli warning pamphlets. That having been said, Israel is idiotically playing right into Hamas's recruitment campaign by bombing those targets anyway and not coming up with a different way to seize the weapons.

I doubt that is the case every single time. You are talking about millions of civilians in a very tightly cramped space. War is hell and I do not see either side as having a "clean" response to the other.

I think both need to give up on the stupid idea of religious nationalism. We are not a separate species.

Just because Hamas encourages people to stand in the line of fire doesn't make them directly responsible for those peoples' actions, done of their own volition. It's peaceful protest and I'd say mightily courageous, given that those sacrifices have shed a lot of light on what's at stake for them. Honestly, why do Americans think "Give me liberty or give me death" is a sentiment only our patriots believe in?