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

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Hammerlock3 said:

you're just a liar, or so insecure that you ignore half of what i've written.

this is progress. at least you didn’t accuse me of supporting hamas again. 

did you ever answer to the IRA example btw? example of urban warfare without the civilian casualties because the brit’s didn’t bomb belfast. and eventually solved by politics like im arguing for in this scenario. 

[uncle bernard]

and answer this: are relatives/friends of innocent civilian casualties more or less likely to join a terror group?

[Scouts Honor]

the 'long' political process will move things back to where hamas has the advantage...

 

[Scouts Honor]

im more convinced he is the same person

[Scouts Honor]

 

[JimmyBT]

9 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

two wrongs don’t make a right. didn’t your parents teach you that?

Yep. Exactly why Oct 7th didn’t need to happen.  BUT IT DID 

[JimmyBT]

9 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

you can start by reading mine and pointing out where i’ve said anything supportive of hamas 

You prefer anti American rhetoric instead 

[Bigbrog]

Anyone else find it ironic that UB calls anyone a child?  Or that they lack the ability to critically think?

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Anyone else find it ironic that UB calls anyone a child?  Or that they lack the ability to critically think?

He’s right you’re wrong. Just ask him. 

[uncle bernard]

 

[Offthemat]

Speaking of assessments, I assess that the report constitutes another friendly Biden stab in Israel’s back by the Biden administration. I would juxtapose the report with the judgment of John Spencer, the West Point modern urban warfare expert:

In their criticism, Israel’s opponents are erasing a remarkable, historic new standard Israel has set. In my long career studying and advising on urban warfare for the U.S. military, I’ve never known an army to take such measures [as the IDF has] to attend to the enemy’s civilian population, especially while simultaneously combating the enemy in the very same buildings. In fact, by my analysis, Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The international community, and increasingly the United States, barely acknowledges these measures while repeatedly excoriating the IDF for not doing enough to protect civilians—even as it confronts a ruthless terror organization holding its citizens hostage. Instead, the U.S. and its allies should be studying how they can apply the IDF’s tactics for protecting civilians, despite the fact that these militaries would almost certainly be extremely reluctant to employ these techniques because of how it would disadvantage them in any fight with an urban terrorist army like Hamas.
 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/another-stab-in-the-back.php

[Hammerlock3]

14 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

this is progress. at least you didn’t accuse me of supporting hamas again. 

did you ever answer to the IRA example btw? example of urban warfare without the civilian casualties because the brit’s didn’t bomb belfast. and eventually solved by politics like im arguing for in this scenario. 

You don't support hamas you just have the bizarre idea that we should leave then in power and give them things till they become nice.

The IRA comparison doesn't hold water because the combatants in this conflict are openly genocidal according to you (one is according to me). And what was the ratio of combatant to civilian causalities in that conflict? Was the IRA using its own children as shields? 

[Scouts Honor]

Quote

 

 

[uncle bernard]

3 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

You don't support hamas you just have the bizarre idea that we should leave then in power and give them things till they become nice.

The IRA comparison doesn't hold water because the combatants in this conflict are openly genocidal according to you (one is according to me). And what was the ratio of combatant to civilian causalities in that conflict? Was the IRA using its own children as shields? 

to the extent hamas is now, yes. it was a paramilitary group embedded in the civilian population. the difference between israel and britain is that britain didn’t bomb civilian housing because that’s where the IRA lived. the brits killed under 200 civilians across 30 years. if they had used the human shields argument they could have killed far more IRA members but thousands of civilians in the process. that’s the point. this isn’t the only way. 

and yes giving them things so they become nice isn’t as emotionally satisfying as revenge, but it has the benefit of actually working. giving people a reason to believe they can accomplish freedom through nonviolent means is essential to long term peace. 

[Hammerlock3]

5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

to the extent hamas is now, yes. it was a paramilitary group embedded in the civilian population. the difference between israel and britain is that britain didn’t bomb civilian housing because that’s where the IRA lived. the brits killed under 200 civilians across 30 years. if they had used the human shields argument they could have killed far more IRA members but thousands of civilians in the process. that’s the point. this isn’t the only way. 

and yes giving them things so they become nice isn’t as emotionally satisfying as revenge, but it has the benefit of actually working. giving people a reason to believe they can accomplish freedom through nonviolent means is essential to long term peace. 

That strategy won't work on an ideologically possessed population which is bent on using its whole economy to orchestrate a genocide.

[Ohio Elite]

 

[PortaJohn]

3 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

to the extent hamas is now, yes. it was a paramilitary group embedded in the civilian population. the difference between israel and britain is that britain didn’t bomb civilian housing because that’s where the IRA lived. the brits killed under 200 civilians across 30 years. if they had used the human shields argument they could have killed far more IRA members but thousands of civilians in the process. that’s the point. this isn’t the only way. 

and yes giving them things so they become nice isn’t as emotionally satisfying as revenge, but it has the benefit of actually working. giving people a reason to believe they can accomplish freedom through nonviolent means is essential to long term peace. 

Will not work.  This is isn't like the IRA.  Iran isn't NORAID.  Iran is a geopolitical foe to Israel that will continue to fill the pockets of Hamas leaders to do their bidding.  And we haven't even scratched the surface on the Qatar issue

Edited May 12 by PortaJohn

[Scouts Honor]

sounds like WE should be going after hamas

 

[scourge165]

18 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

You don't support hamas you just have the bizarre idea that we should leave then in power and give them things till they become nice.

The IRA comparison doesn't hold water because the combatants in this conflict are openly genocidal according to you (one is according to me). And what was the ratio of combatant to civilian causalities in that conflict? Was the IRA using its own children as shields? 

According to everything they're openly genocidal. That's kinda their thing. 

 

Yes, they're hurting Democrats. Obnoxious, entitled brats chanting death to America and blaming Biden.

No historical understanding, just mindless catchphrases like "imperialism." "Open Air Prison." Go take a look at the pictures of Gaza before this started. They had resorts. They were among the world leaders in Hospitals per capita(though...I guess that'd also mean military installations per capita). They had a nearly 30% obesity rate. They received more aid per capita. 

While Israel and ALL its might have been engaging in this genocidal campaign, their population has grown at a rate that far exceeds Israel, doubling in a relatively short period of time. There is "indiscriminate" bombing of civilians. You often warn the people you're "indiscriminately" bombing.

How can all these things be in this open-air prison that's 100% the fault of the Israelis? 

 

The poor Palestinians just want a state of their own...despite rejecting and sabotaging EVERY possible treaty that would give them just that. Why? Because the "state" they want is from the river to the sea. 

 

 

[JimmyBT]

15 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

to the extent hamas is now, yes. it was a paramilitary group embedded in the civilian population. the difference between israel and britain is that britain didn’t bomb civilian housing because that’s where the IRA lived. the brits killed under 200 civilians across 30 years. if they had used the human shields argument they could have killed far more IRA members but thousands of civilians in the process. that’s the point. this isn’t the only way. 

and yes giving them things so they become nice isn’t as emotionally satisfying as revenge, but it has the benefit of actually working. giving people a reason to believe they can accomplish freedom through nonviolent means is essential to long term peace. 

Both part of the United Kingdom  

[Hammerlock3]

41 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Both part of the United Kingdom  

I don't know a lot about that conflict, but I assume it wasn't a pitched war.

If I'm correct, I'd answer @uncle bernard by saying there are profound differences between a conflict involving two warring nations, with antithetical values and histories, one of whom is bent on exacerbating civilian causalities on both sides, and the opposite.  

[Scouts Honor]

 

[Scouts Honor]

mostly peaceful

 

[Scouts Honor]

 

[JimmyBT]

3 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

mostly peaceful

 

That’s a pretty compassionate message.