uncle bernard

Yes, thank you for confirming what I've been telling you.

of course they didn't stop. nothing changed in palestine. they are fighting for their homeland. the point is that to actually address the disease, you have to attack the cause, not the symptoms. attempting to integrate palestine into a fair political process is an attempt to treat the cause. currently, palestinians have no reason to believe anything other than violent struggle can accomplish their goals. that's why the violence will continue.

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.

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

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.

when have i said hamas shouldn’t be eliminated? i’ve outlined, over and over how i think the current strategy doesn’t accomplish that a political one can. this is what breaks your brains. you think i want hamas to survive and win because i don’t support the bombing. the reality is i want them to *lose* which is why i *dont* support the bombing.

none of your questions were honest or in good faith. every time you either imply i support hamas or present a nonsensical interpretation of what i said, like saying “fighting terrorism causes terrorism” you ignore the impact of material reality. the world shapes people. imagine you woke up tomorrow and were under a military occupation, lost your home, and your children were incinerated. do you think you’d be thinking clearly at that point? or do you think you’d be thirsty for revenge? you can still hold people morally responsible while understanding how they ended up that way and working to remove those conditions so it doesn’t keep happening. if you support the continued slaughter of civilians, you support terrorism because that’s their number 1 recruiting tool.

“half measures are a coward’s form of insanity” must be why you’re so anxious for a final solution to the Palestinian problem. why don’t you want to have an honest conversation?

“why do you want more children to die? you said you support the bombing and that’s the inevitable result. you must want it to happen!” arguing like that is dishonest and a waste of time.

yes a ceasefire for the current offensive is step 1. the killing right now will only strengthen hamas/other terror groups in the long run. the next step should be having a large political process with the involvement of the UN and countries in the region to work towards a sustainable peace. and that likely involves disarmament of the palestinians with longer term peace keepers to maintain the peace.

why can’t you realize you’re arguing with a person and not a series of cliches? i don’t have the dumb watered down lines about the conflict and that seems to break everyone’s brain on here because they haven’t taken any time to learn anything about this that they didn’t read in a tweet or a headline.

idk you’d have to find someone who supports that to find out

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

why can’t you have an honest discussion? why do you have to pretend to yourself i support hamas? what happens if you admit you can be critical of israel without being pro-hamas? would your whole world crumble or something?

says the guy who keeps saying i support a radical terror group because i don’t think israel should kill 15k children

no children are the ones who *dont* understand that. that’s why their parents are teaching them. can’t even follow simple logic lol

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

unbelievably dishonest (and stupid). whatever. the troubles in northern ireland. britain didn’t respond by firebombing large apartment buildings which they knew contained IRA members. i’m sure you’ll find a way to hand wave that example away. hamas desired outcome is a theocratic dictatorship and the expulsion of all israelis. i’m explicitly against that no matter how many times you pretend otherwise. why do you feel like you have to lie? why are you so insecure with your own position?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.