uncle bernard

Well, like everyone on here I have a personality defect that leads me to post on internet forums. I have strong feelings on this topic and the one-sided, often gleeful, commentary on the death of thousands of children really upsets me and I feel compelled to post. I know it's a pointless battle. This entire sub-forum is a pointless battle of people shouting into the void. Why do we all do it? Who knows!

that's a civilian setting. it's a war crime. you literally posted the definition that proved my point lmao.

That's a reasonable counterargument, but I think it's dangerous. The answer could be hundreds. It could be zero. The only thing we do know is that in order to kill him *at that moment* it costs 7. When you open things up to that kind of speculation, people can justify all sorts of bad decisions. What if they see a terrorist in a crowd of 50 civilians? They could justify those 50 deaths by saying he would have killed more in the future, though they don't know that. And again, I stress the *at that moment* part. It's inconvenient for Israel, but they should wait for opportunities to strike that will result in minimal collateral damage. And to take a step back, it's time for this to end. They've destroyed almost all of Gaza. The danger presented by Hamas is far less than the danger Israel creates for itself in the region by continuing this slaughter.

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.

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?

it quite literally is!

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

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

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.

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.

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

Answer the question. Should they strike the house?

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

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?

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?

I want you to actually answer the question, which is at the core of that issue. 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?

Hamas does use civilians as human shields. We all know that. Given that information, does Israel have the right to kill those human shields, which you acknowledge should not be targeted? Yes or no. Is a US police officer allowed to kill a hostage in order to kill the person holding them hostage? Yes or no?

look up the definition of imperialism

apply that to israeli violations of international law and get back to me

no you dodged the question with a mealy mouth equivocation. are civilians who support hamas legit targets? yes or no if no, if israel “targets” a hamas operative knowing that civilians are present and will die in the strike, is that a crime? yes or no

No, I laughed at the idea that it was supposed to be scary and you came back with "well what if they try to kill everyone." Use common sense. Does free speech give them the right to trespass? No. Is this a serious crime we should all be afraid of? Also no.

Because I'm an American and my government isn't supporting Hamas with billions of dollars. If my government was giving Hamas weapons to prolong the violence, I would protest them. That's how protests work Jimbo.

Is that a yes or no? Because Jimmy is saying civilians lose their legal protections if they support Hamas. That is the question. Yes or no. That's also been the implicit argument of many on here. We shouldn't feel bad for civilians because they didn't stand up to Hamas. And you can keep saying they aren't targeting civilians all you want. It's not "verified" and there is tons of evidence to suggest otherwise, but leave that aside for the moment and just answer the question straight up: does israel have the right to kill palestinian civilians if they support hamas?

So what are you actually complaining about? They've been asked to leave. They said no. Now they'll face consequences. The SF police now have the option to handle the situation in the way they feel best promotes public safety. You think we should gun them down just in case? Being annoyed is the cost of freedom bucky. Go live in China if you want to live in an authoritarian country.

that his conviction was overturned on appeal? i'm not sure why you're so hung up on what democrats call him. still waiting on an answer to the other question. i'll pose it here for you too. does israel have the right to kill palestinian civilians if they support hamas?