Are all the Pro-Palestine, anti Israel protests helping or hurting the Democrats?

[Hammerlock3]

25 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

no, as i've said over and over, hamas is a legit target. the civilians they're hiding behind are not. that is inconvenient, but convenience doesn't excuse war crimes.

 

the current method of the Israeli government is dangerous and misguided, motivated more by a desire to control more land than to secure long term peace.

Ok so what would be your retort if I said your opinion leads to a trend where the use of human shields becomes obligatory? If you are going to blame Israel for the civilian casualties I don't see how you're not implying its a legitimate tactic.

Edited May 10 by Hammerlock3

[Scouts Honor]

51 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

"not including more than 10,000 reported missing or under the rubble"

even these numbers have the majority of deaths as women/children. extrapolate that percentage out to account for the estimated dead, the number holds.

charts are hard for some people apparently.

the UN must think so too

[Scouts Honor]

he will never NOT defend hamas

[Scouts Honor]

the soft racism of low expectations

[Scouts Honor]

i do think isreal should stop warning.

it just lets hamas know the plan..

almost like when we were in vietnam

[uncle bernard]

27 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Ok so what would be your retort if I said your opinion leads to a trend where the use of human shields becomes obligatory? If you are going to blame Israel for the civilian casualties I don't see how you're not implying its a legitimate tactic.

It being an illegitimate tactic has no deterrence. It's already happening. The only effect of killing the human shields is killing the shields. It doesn't deter Hamas from continuing to use them.

All the more reason to invest seriously in a political solution. defeating Hamas militarily is impossible. the British didn't defeat the IRA by levelling Belfast. In the end, it was the admittance of the IRA into the political system ultimately led to the peace deal and the disarmament. Without Sinn Fein's emergence as a serious political party, bombs might still be going off today.

The best way to undermine a terror group is to undermine their reason for being in the first place.

[Scouts Honor]

which is what hamas wants.

kill as many as you can... then hide and sue for peace.

I was told my cartoons were stupid... but they were very accurate

[Hammerlock3]

14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

It being an illegitimate tactic has no deterrence. It's already happening. The only effect of killing the human shields is killing the shields. It doesn't deter Hamas from continuing to use them.

All the more reason to invest seriously in a political solution. defeating Hamas militarily is impossible. the British didn't defeat the IRA by levelling Belfast. In the end, it was the admittance of the IRA into the political system ultimately led to the peace deal and the disarmament. Without Sinn Fein's emergence as a serious political party, bombs might still be going off today.

The best way to undermine a terror group is to undermine their reason for being in the first place.

In what way are you not saying that Israel has to surrender to any party using human shields?

Hamas can absolutely defeated militarily.

By your closing statement, I take it you think that terrorism is a response to the palestinian people being victimized initially? As opposed to it being the outgrowth of a repulsive ideology?

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

In what way are you not saying that Israel has to surrender to any party using human shields?

Hamas can absolutely defeated militarily.

By your closing statement, I take it you think that terrorism is a response to the palestinian people being victimized initially? As opposed to it being the outgrowth of a repulsive ideology?

1) they don't have to surrender at all. they just can't blow up a building with civilians in it. that is not the most precise option available. your argument basically comes down to "they should get to kill civilians because it's easier."  

2) good luck with that. maybe if they did it the right way, but they're not doing that.

3) repulsive ideologies don't emerge out of vaccuums. the islamist revolution has direct ties back to western intervention, specifically in Iran and yes, the oppression Palestinians have endured is a major factor in turning to terrorism. You can't seriously believe otherwise?

[Hammerlock3]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

1) they don't have to surrender at all. they just can't blow up a building with civilians in it. that is not the most precise option available. your argument basically comes down to "they should get to kill civilians because it's easier."  

2) good luck with that. maybe if they did it the right way, but they're not doing that.

3) repulsive ideologies don't emerge out of vaccuums. the islamist revolution has direct ties back to western intervention, specifically in Iran and yes, the oppression Palestinians have endured is a major factor in turning to terrorism. You can't seriously believe otherwise?

#3 might be core issue that separates our thinking. You don't have to accept this characterization obviously but if i were to summarize your opinion with a small amount of cynicism i would say you think the cause of terrorism is fighting against it. 

In response to #1, I don't think any application of realities of urban warfare support that implication....but I don't think it's possible to address both points at once coherently, so if you would like to choose one that might be more productive....or slightly productive at all.

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

i've explicitly said there isn't a moral equivalence. hamas being evil doesn't mean israel gets to be evil too, even if it's "less" evil.

two wrongs don't make a right. you know, the lesson we teach toddlers.

Yet every time someone brings up Oct 7 you come back with but but but Israel killed thousands over the last few decades.   Speaking of being a toddler.  

[mspart]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

It being an illegitimate tactic has no deterrence. It's already happening. The only effect of killing the human shields is killing the shields. It doesn't deter Hamas from continuing to use them.

All the more reason to invest seriously in a political solution. defeating Hamas militarily is impossible. the British didn't defeat the IRA by levelling Belfast. In the end, it was the admittance of the IRA into the political system ultimately led to the peace deal and the disarmament. Without Sinn Fein's emergence as a serious political party, bombs might still be going off today.

The best way to undermine a terror group is to undermine their reason for being in the first place.

Sinn Fein was not interested in annihilation of Great Britain and all of Northern Ireland except them.   Hamas is interested in the total annihilation of Israel, it is in their charter.   They will not become part of the political system because they want to destroy that political system and set up their own after all Israelis are gone or killed.  Your example is less than useless in that the aim of the terrorists were completely different.   Your apologetics for Hamas keep getting weaker and weaker.

mspart

[Bigbrog]

So it's okay that Hamas and other terrorist groups exist and bomb away as a response to a country doing something bad...but it's not okay for a country to bomb away as a response to a terrorist group doing something bad.   It's bad if a country bombs away and kills innocent civilians being used as shields, but it's ok for the people using those innocent civilians as shields to in fact use innocent civilians as shields. 

And because of all that I am going to join a bunch of young ignorant idiots and camp out on college campuses, damage property, shout anti-Israel and American chants, keep people from going to class, take over buildings, get graduation ceremonies shut down, etc...hey...look at me, I am doing something to better the world...dertader

@uncle bernard line of thinking

[uncle bernard]

28 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So it's okay that Hamas and other terrorist groups exist and bomb away as a response to a country doing something bad...but it's not okay for a country to bomb away as a response to a terrorist group doing something bad.   It's bad if a country bombs away and kills innocent civilians being used as shields, but it's ok for the people using those innocent civilians as shields to in fact use innocent civilians as shields. 

And because of all that I am going to join a bunch of young ignorant idiots and camp out on college campuses, damage property, shout anti-Israel and American chants, keep people from going to class, take over buildings, get graduation ceremonies shut down, etc...hey...look at me, I am doing something to better the world...dertader

@uncle bernard line of thinking

you are truly one of the stupidest people alive. how many times do I have to say that it's *not* okay for Hamas to bomb civilians, nor is it okay for them to use human shields?

you guys are literally children who can't understand basic moral principles. i take that back. children have a much easier time understanding this than you do.

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

#3 might be core issue that separates our thinking. You don't have to accept this characterization obviously but if i were to summarize your opinion with a small amount of cynicism i would say you think the cause of terrorism is fighting against it. 

In response to #1, I don't think any application of realities of urban warfare support that implication....but I don't think it's possible to address both points at once coherently, so if you would like to choose one that might be more productive....or slightly productive at all.

no the cause of terrorism is a mix of extreme ideological/religious ideas and circumstance. the circumstance fans the flames of the extreme ideologies. the middle east didn't use to be a hot bed of terrorism. what we now know as (islamic) terrorism emerges with the rise of dangerous islamist ideologies out of the chaos and repression of the region during mid to late 20th century.

(the most consequential event probably being the overthrow of Iran's democratic government on behalf of British oil interests in 1953. We put a brutal dictator back in power. During the next 25 years, under his repressive regime a coalition of marxist freedom fighters and islamic fundamentalists grew and eventually overthrew the shah. following the coup, the fundamentalists won the power struggle and expelled the marxists. from there, radical islamism spread like wildfire.)

fighting against terrorism doesn't cause it. it can exacerbate it *when the fighting kills a high amount of innocent civilians.* the families and friends of those civilians become much more likely to join the terrorist cause. we know this. this is a fact of the world.

that's why the solution to terrorism is extremely precise counter-insurgency combined with political investment and development. not indiscriminate bombing. you're just recruiting for them at that point.

you can keep being dishonest and act like i defend hamas or you can acknowledge that i believe in a different method for fighting hamas that has been effective elsewhere in the world, and which also has the benefit of being morally just towards Palestine.

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

1) they don't have to surrender at all. they just can't blow up a building with civilians in it. that is not the most precise option available. your argument basically comes down to "they should get to kill civilians because it's easier."  

2) good luck with that. maybe if they did it the right way, but they're not doing that.

3) repulsive ideologies don't emerge out of vaccuums. the islamist revolution has direct ties back to western intervention, specifically in Iran and yes, the oppression Palestinians have endured is a major factor in turning to terrorism. You can't seriously believe otherwise?

iran happened well after 1948

 

[Scouts Honor]

muslims fear backlash from tomorrows train station bombing

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

 i would say you think the cause of terrorism is fighting against it. 

 

no cynicism needed... that is  the correct way to view it

[Scouts Honor]

16 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

you are truly one of the stupidest people alive. how many times do I have to say that it's *not* okay for Hamas to bomb civilians, nor is it okay for them to use human shields?

you guys are literally children who can't understand basic moral principles. i take that back. children have a much easier time understanding this than you do.

yet you keep defending them

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Sinn Fein was not interested in annihilation of Great Britain and all of Northern Ireland except them.   Hamas is interested in the total annihilation of Israel, it is in their charter.   They will not become part of the political system because they want to destroy that political system and set up their own after all Israelis are gone or killed.  Your example is less than useless in that the aim of the terrorists were completely different.   Your apologetics for Hamas keep getting weaker and weaker.

mspart

There is no realistic scenario where Hamas would be able to destroy Israel. Israel will always have the backing of the West and a nuclear weapon. You guys can stop throwing that out as a hypothetical. It's not in the range of possible outcomes.

Sinn Fein is a perfect example because it was the political face of a paramilitary terror group who killed. The reason the IRA ended is because Sinn Fein was able to participate in the political system and that participation is reliant on them stopping the terrorism. It would be the same for Hamas. Their allowed participation within the system is contingent on their not doing terrorism. If that didn't happen, they wouldn't be allowed to participate.

You guys have to pretend I'm advocating for us to just leave totally and let Israel fend for themselves. It's nonsense. Be honest for once.

[Scouts Honor]

7 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

fighting against terrorism doesn't cause it. it can exacerbate it *when the fighting kills a high amount of innocent civilians.* the families and friends of those civilians become much more likely to join the terrorist cause. we know this. this is a fact of the world.

 

so you are saying that terrorism comes from those who retaliate.

 

why are there no isreali suicide bombers? 

[Scouts Honor]

8 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

 

that's why the solution to terrorism is extremely precise counter-insurgency combined with political investment and development. not indiscriminate bombing. you're just recruiting for them at that point.

 

so you mean like the isreali strike against the Iranian 'consulate' in damascus...which you said was bad... 

 

[uncle bernard]

If I wanted to act like you guys I'd say you support the genocide of Muslims worldwide.

Did you say it? No, but you keep defending anybody who kills Muslims so you *must* believe it.

You believe that killing civilians is morally righteous. 

Did you say it? No, but you defend every civilian death, so you *must* believe it.

 

Why is it so hard for you to be honest while talking about this?

 

[Scouts Honor]

joe biden supports it

[Scouts Honor]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

If I wanted to act like you guys I'd say you support the genocide of Muslims worldwide.

Did you say it? No, but you keep defending anybody who kills Muslims so you *must* believe it.

You believe that killing civilians is morally righteous. 

Did you say it? No, but you defend every civilian death, so you *must* believe it.

 

Why is it so hard for you to be honest while talking about this?

 

so a precise counter strike is bad... but then its good? 

based on what you are arguing?