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

[uncle bernard]

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

Give it up UB.   You have gotten answers and you just keep on saying I actually want you to answer the question. 

Here's a question for you.   And I actually want you to answer the question.

Did Israel deserve to be attacked by Hamas on Oct 7?

I'll give you a hint of how to answer.   If you answer NO, then Hamas is getting what they deserve and their use of civilians as human shields is their responsibility.  It is not Israel's responsibility to save the civilians.   Even though they make Herculean efforts to do so.   If you answer YES, then you are the Israel hating Hamas supporting scumbag we have been saying you are for quite some time.  

Remember, I just actually want you to answer the question.  

mspart

 

No, and yes Hamas is getting what they deserve. And no, Israel *does* have a responsibility to save civilians. Collective punishment is a war crime. If you don't like that, take it up with the Geneva Convention.

See how directly I answered your question? Now do mine.

Israel locates a terrorist. He is in a house with civilians. Israel knows the civilians are present. Should Israel strike the house? Would you? Yes or no?

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Wow...you are dense....I just ducking did...AGAIN!!  Your stupid f'ing question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.  If you think it can, then go ahead and do so, everyone one else on here doesn't think so, sooo...who is the dumb dumb on this topic?  I'll give you a hint...it rhymes with YOU!

It literally can be answered yes or no. I'll make it even easier for you.

You are in control of the military. You locate a terrorist in a house. You know for certain that civilians are in the house too. Would you still strike the house?

[uncle bernard]

If this is investigated an confirmed, will you condemn it?

 

 

[JimmyBT]

Israel could easily have killed many more than it has.  Ridding the world of 10,000 + terrorists is a win for all of us. 

[Scouts Honor]

28 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

No, and yes Hamas is getting what they deserve. And no, Israel *does* have a responsibility to save civilians. Collective punishment is a war crime. If you don't like that, take it up with the Geneva Convention.

See how directly I answered your question? Now do mine.

Israel locates a terrorist. He is in a house with civilians. Israel knows the civilians are present. Should Israel strike the house? Would you? Yes or no?

and they take that responsibility very seriously

 

[Scouts Honor]

22 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

If this is investigated an confirmed, will you condemn it?

 

 

wondering who is in that building

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

and they take that responsibility very seriously

 

Answer the question. Should they strike the house?

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Scouts Honor said:

wondering who is in that building

No matter who is in the building, the use of white phosphorous is a war crime.

[Scouts Honor]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Answer the question. Should they strike the house?

if there are terrorists in there yes

[Scouts Honor]

not always

The use of white phosphorus may violate Protocol III (on the use of incendiary weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW) in one specific instance: if it is used, on purpose, as an incendiary weapon directly against humans in a civilian setting.

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

not always

The use of white phosphorus may violate Protocol III (on the use of incendiary weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW) in one specific instance: if it is used, on purpose, as an incendiary weapon directly against humans in a civilian setting.

So unless, there were no humans in the house, it was a war crime.

And if there weren't, it's still a war crime because the indiscriminate destruction of civilian property is also a war crime.

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

if there are terrorists in there yes

Thank you for being honest and actually answering the question. We disagree profoundly on the answer, but I appreciate the guts to answer.

Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but those casualties should be *accidental.* They should occur when you make a mistake and are not aware of civilian presence. If you know they are present and still kill them, that's murder, even if they aren't the primary target.

[Scouts Honor]

no civilians

but get this..since you ignored the  point of my post about isreal taking civilian casaulties seriously

think how many palestinians would have died if Isreal had not spent all the money on missile defense.

if every time hamas/palestianians launched rockets at isreal they went in and took out the place that launched them

 

most times they just shoot down the missiles and let it slide.

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Scouts Honor said:

no civilians

but get this..since you ignored the  point of my post about isreal taking civilian casaulties seriously

think how many palestinians would have died if Isreal had not spent all the money on missile defense.

if every time hamas/palestianians launched rockets at isreal they went in and took out the place that launched them

 

most times they just shoot down the missiles and let it slide.

it says humans, not civilians. i appreciate you providing the specific language that proves my point.

[Scouts Honor]

2 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Thank you for being honest and actually answering the question. We disagree profoundly on the answer, but I appreciate the guts to answer.

Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but those casualties should be *accidental.* They should occur when you make a mistake and are not aware of civilian presence. If you know they are present and still kill them, that's murder, even if they aren't the primary target.

perhaps. how many are harboring terrorists.

some are forced.

some are not.

but at some point, if i know im going to get vaporized if I allow  them in , forced or not, then i start to fight back against the people forcing me to harbor them...

see...

[Scouts Honor]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

it says humans, not civilians. i appreciate you providing the specific language that proves my point.

it says civilian setting

[Scouts Honor]

terrorists using a house as a base or safe harbor is NOT

a civilian setting

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Scouts Honor said:

it says civilian setting

yes, those buildings are a civilian setting. do you not understand what those words mean?

[uncle bernard]

Just now, Scouts Honor said:

terrorists using a house as a base or safe harbor is NOT

a civilian setting

it quite literally is!

[mspart]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

No, and yes Hamas is getting what they deserve. And no, Israel *does* have a responsibility to save civilians. Collective punishment is a war crime. If you don't like that, take it up with the Geneva Convention.

See how directly I answered your question? Now do mine.

Israel locates a terrorist. He is in a house with civilians. Israel knows the civilians are present. Should Israel strike the house? Would you? Yes or no?

No, I actually want an answer to my question .  Not a no and  yes.   That  is not an answer.   All I actually want is for you to answer the question.   Is that too difficult?

mspart

[uncle bernard]

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

No, I actually want an answer to my question .  Not a no and  yes.   That  is not an answer.   All I actually want is for you to answer the question.   Is that too difficult?

mspart

Which part of your question didn't I answer? I gave explanations for my no's and yes's.

And answer mine. I'll make it straight forward.

You are in control of the military. You locate a terrorist in a house. You know for certain that civilians are in the house too. Would you still strike the house?

 

[Bigbrog]

59 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Which part of your question didn't I answer? I gave explanations for my no's and yes's.

And answer mine. I'll make it straight forward.

You are in control of the military. You locate a terrorist in a house. You know for certain that civilians are in the house too. Would you still strike the house?

 

Nice way to try and change the question slightly to belittle a stupid point you have.  The answer for me is, I am not sure if I bomb the house.  A lot of questions need to be answered and intel is needed.  How big up the food chain is the person?  Who are the civilians in the house?  How many?  Why are the civilians there?  Are they kidnapped or are the enabling the terrorist in some way.  Can a sniper take the terrorists out?  Etc. Etc.  Again, a simple yes or no doesn't work in your line of thinking.

[uncle bernard]

51 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Nice way to try and change the question slightly to belittle a stupid point you have.  The answer for me is, I am not sure if I bomb the house.  A lot of questions need to be answered and intel is needed.  How big up the food chain is the person?  Who are the civilians in the house?  How many?  Why are the civilians there?  Are they kidnapped or are the enabling the terrorist in some way.  Can a sniper take the terrorists out?  Etc. Etc.  Again, a simple yes or no doesn't work in your line of thinking.

In this hypothetical, you don't have this intel. A suspect you identified as a likely terrorist enters a house. You are not sure of his full identity. You know civilians are present. That's all you know. What's your decision?

This is the crux of the issue and the scenario the IDF deals with everyday. Their answer is to prioritize eliminating terrorists over protecting civilians when those two things are in direct odds with one another. I think that is a criminal decision. What do you think?

For a high profile example, look at the food workers truck bombing. Those trucks were identified and cleared for passage by the IDF. They were clearly marked to prevent misidentification. The IDF knew exactly who was in those trucks. During surveillance, the IDF believes they saw a suspected terrorist join the caravan. They, by their own report, were not 100% confident he was there. They chose to sacrifice the lives of those 7 civilians on the off chance that he was there. You can argue that they weren't the primary "target" of the strike, but the IDF decided to kill those people if it meant they *might* kill one terrorist in the process. That is fundamentally evil imo.

[WrestlingRasta]

To play devils advocate….if we let that one terrorist live, how many innocent lives are lost later?  Probably more than 7. 

[Lipdrag]

6 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

To play devils advocate….if we let that one terrorist live, how many innocent lives are lost later?  Probably more than 7. 

You are not advocating for the devil here.  It comes down to a horrible calculation:  people harboring the terrorist die today (assuming they are not hostages which is a valid assumption) or people I am supposed to protect die tomorrow.  Shoot today and take your chances justifying it to St. Peter when that time comes.