So if you’re not implying it, then Israel can continue to violate intl law or stop the war immediately. There doesn’t appear to be a third option in your world. Not the answer I expected, but okay.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
That’s not an answer. I didn’t ask about everything this man has ever said. I asked about a single thing he has said, aoar ificslly, and it was a simple yes or no question. It’s okay; I’ll repeat the question: Is threatening to rape the sisters and mothers of people who commit suicide bombings acceptable? Yes or no. It’s not an accusation of supporting everything he has said; it is a question about that specific quotation. Yes or no?
Not my intent. If there’s a way for the Idf to meet its military objectives and kill less civilians and do less damage to the infrastructure, I’d love to hear it.
As I have told you at least twice before, beginning a response with some variation of “So if you’re implying (or saying, suggesting, etc) xyz, then…” it’s a major red flag that you’re about to manipulate and deliberately misconstrue what I actually said.
I reject the duality of options you suggest.
Weren’t you just complaining about gotcha questions?
It’s complicated. The families of suicide bombers are paid by Hamas and the PA exorbitant sums. So if this threat would disincentivize the family’s support of one of their members committing a terrorist act?
If the threat of rape saves twenty civilians or school children from a bus bombing, then the complexity of this can’t be reduced to a simple yes or no
I reject the duality of options that you suggest
Then demand that they pursue such a strategy. It is not up to you or me to come up with that plan ourselves.
I find your apparent unwillingness to condemn the threat of rape as a military strategy morally abhorrent, but I do not fault your logic.
This is an example of you not operating in good faith. I played along with your gotcha question against my better judgement and was rewarded with the above comment. Meanwhile in response to my gotcha ? you basically deflected with “ That’s Israel’s problem”. That’s not an answer; it’s a cop out. Another version of “it’s complicated” that identifies the problem yet is completely void of any solution.
I have, many times, acknowledged that you are better with words than I am and that I don't articulate my points as well as you do. But you still feel the need to point it out as if you were a 14 year old boy bragging about being better at video games than his buddies. Just another narcissistic trait you are showing us.
I don’t think it has anything to do with @Dattier appearing to brag. It’s his clever way to get off topic. He is a master at this. He did this after knowing he made a ridiculous post. I know he makes many, but he made one that got him ripped, as it should have.
We go from Israel to spelling of words in no time. Only he can do that. He’s a very cunning rascal.
We go from Israel to spelling of words in no time. Only he can do that. He’s a very cunning rascal.
As the parent of a 15-year-old boy who plays video games, I am indignant at being thought to behave like anything less than 16 years of age.
It's fun. I point it out because it's fun. It ain't that serious.
Thinking average basketball fans on a message board have the solution to extremely complicated geopolitical issues is just dumb. It's a sign of how truly and extremely humble I am that I will not put forth a proposed solution.
Just say rape is bad, m'kay?
Concurrent conversations. My amaze-balls vocabulating came up separate of any discussion of Israel & Palestine. KD brought up spelling bees. I answered him and moved on.
You really need to stop claiming what I know. You've shown repeatedly you are inaccurate. I have told you this repeatedly and will continue to do so.
Nice try. One of your clever moves is pulling the Ol correct the poster for their spelling or grammar. Your other endearing quality is to lay low for a while. This usually happens after you’ve gotten your ass handed to you. You’ll then pounce on a sentence someone uses in their post. This is your other go to.
Both are attempts to get others sidetracked. You’ve done this for years.
Last edited:
I thought it was obvious that “rape is bad”, which causes the moral conundrum involved in your scenario.
If rape weren’t morally repugnant, then there’d be no complexity. You would threaten it without reservation if there were even the possibility that it might save lives from a suicide bombing. As gotcha questions go, this one was more or less toothless.
Gonna be a long 45 months We best buckle up. The media’s learned nothing from Nov 5 and they’re gonna double down on their TDS before they ride off into the sunset of irrelevance They chose the wrong things to hyperventilate about ( Russia hoax, Jan6, Ukraine impeachment) and no one takes them seriously anymore Even Stewart and Maddow can’t be bothered to work more than one day a week these days. Just going through the old motions
Folks, read the following closely. You have to be sure a location is used exclusively for combat before targeting it. Second paragraph.
This is essentially saying that Israel has no right to defend itself against an enemy who uses the tactics of Hamas. The anti Israel brigade state that she has the right to defend herself if the enemy uses conventional methods of warfare. Unfortunately, this doesn’t apply to the enemy facing Israel so it’s irrelevant to this conflict.
Since Hamas embeds mainly in schools, hospitals, apt buildings, etc.
Hamas can always ensure that there are a few patients or medical supplies in a hospital, some books or a chalkboard still hanging in an abandoned school. Apt buildings obviously still serve some non military purpose, rendering them inviolate accg to said law.
If Israel followed intl law to the letter, Hamas would be undamaged after Oct 7th. Of course this is the quiet part not often said out loud. This is precisely the aim of most of the anti- Israel protesters, for Hamas to remain potent and capable of more Oct 7. Not accusing anyone on this board of such sinister intent.
As Mac referenced earlier, the Idf would basically be reduced to Elmer Fudd walking aimlessly around Gaza: “ Come out, come out wherever you are”. No country should be expected to fight a war this way.
That’s what I’m getting at with ol @Dattier. He says some off the wall stuff, then goes to his playbook, and we all know what he does there.
Which is intentional and childish comebacks of obvious misspelled words. Or something totally irrelevant to the issue.
So he wasn't alone in disrespecting the Vatican's wishes. Awesome.
A month after whining that President Zelenskyy didn't wear a suit to the White House.
I thought the cropped photo was so they could show that he fell asleep.
Remember when conservatives were scandalized that President Obama wore a tan suit?
The thread contains my receipts. I responded to @GhostOf301 about vocab. I responded to you about Israel.
You quoted someone who has been quoted saying that rape is a legitimate weapon of war. I did so to demonstrate why he should not be considered as credible a source as you wanted him to be when you cited him. This is a very basic tactic lawyers use all the time to cast doubt about an expert's trustworthiness. You have refused to denounce what he said. I gave you credit for being logical in your explanation not denouncing it.
International law exists for, among other things, to regulate tactics that are acceptable to use in war. It includes war. The world disagrees that anything goes.
And many protesters have claimed that Hamas’s actions on Oct 7th (rape, sssh don’t tell anyone) were justified. Of course, you haven’t mentioned that but dig up a quote from who knows when only tangentially related to my link.
I wasn’t aware that the author had ever said that, but again that wasn’t mentioned in my link, which leads me to wonder if you researched the author in some sort of attempt to discredit my post, yet another ad hominem attack, this one on someone none of us had heard of until 24 hours ago.
The world has the luxury to preach about international law. Israel doesnt.
Its responsibility is to protect the citizens of Israel. The US has always had the luxury of protection from the A & P Oceans. Israel is surrounded by existential threats. Israel gives evacuation orders before bombing. If people refuse to leave an area or Hamas prohibits their evacuation, then Israel is not responsible.
No one here has said anything remotely close to “anything goes”. In fact I’ve asked repeatedly for ways Israel could pursue its objectives of dismantling Hamas without violating intl law. You’ve answered it a couple of times, once with “it’s complicated” and once with “ that’s Israel’s problem”. So your criticism of Israel is taken with less than a grain of salt.
What about, what about, what about. I would rather the Vatican hold their child rapists accountable than people who chose to wear a blue suit to the funeral of a man who paraded as a profit while covering up the perversions of the Catholic church.
None of which addresses that international law exists for exactly those occasions when it is inconvenient. It applies anyway.
Pope Francis has a better record on sexual abuse than any Pope in living memory.
But talk about whataboutisms lol! Both of the examples I gave had to do with rightwing hypocrisy about appropriate dress. If I pulled the line you just pulled, @Mac9192 would claim I was cleverly trying to change the subject. Fat chance he even mentions it when you do it.
Okay. No one here said "anything goes."
I've given you a very clear reason why I am not offering the online equivalent of a bar napkin with an Israeli military strategy scribbled on the back. I'm not a military strategist. I've told you multiple times now. Perhaps other countries who have complied with international law could be a guide.
The strategy you are defending, abandoning civilian protections, flattening cities, and treating entire populations as expendable, will ultimately do more damage to Israel than anything Hamas could achieve militarily. Systematic disregard for civilian life does not strengthen Israel’s long term security or legitimacy. It isolates allies, fuels radicalization, and strips away the moral foundation that any democracy needs to survive under pressure.
Civilian protections were not created for perfect wars. They exist precisely because real conflicts are messy, and enemies often hide among civilians. Following those standards under difficult conditions is not a weakness. It is what separates a nation that defends itself from one that loses itself. The moment you accept collective punishment as a strategy, you are not protecting a country. You are dismantling the very values it claims to stand for.
The irony is that Hamas counts on exactly the response you are advocating. They use civilian areas because they know that killing civilians in large numbers inflames outrage, delegitimizes Israel internationally, and recruits more fighters to their cause. Meeting brutality with indiscriminate force is not a victory. It is walking directly into the enemy’s strategy.
You are justifying civilian harm on the basis of “necessity.” That is the same type of logic Hamas uses.
If they’ve tried to dismantle Hamas within the constraints of intl law they could be a guide. Absolutely right. Which country might that be?
Even if doing nothing were an actual military strategy, even if that would only allow Hamas to continue to strengthen unchecked, it would be more no viable politically in Israel than for the US to sit back and just hope it doesn’t happen again after 9/11. Not really an option.
Hamas was planning more Oct 7ths and stated as much. Israel is responsible for its citizens not the citizens of Gaza. That’s the reality of war.
Oh, they have to have dealt with Hamas specifically in order to qualify? So why are you asking me? Why are you weighing in? Again, you're asking a rhetorical question in hopes of ending discussion.
Yes, that was the phrasing I used once, and you objected to it twice. I have conceded your objection. It was casual, non-literal language. I wasn’t trying to quote you directly. If you want to take me to task on my word choices, I concede. It's not that important to me. Let's see if @Mac9192 calls you out for it.
Last edited:
You are describing a strategy built on endless escalation and no exit. Bombing civilians may feel like action, but it does not eliminate the threat. It hardens it. Israel’s responsibility to its citizens includes avoiding strategies that guarantee permanent insurgency, international isolation, and eventual strategic collapse. Turning Gaza into rubble with no political or diplomatic plan is not self defense.
It’s not rhetorical. I thought you might have a solution, or at least make an attempt to further the conversation. You’ve chosen to end it, because you are here to wag fingers at Israel. You’re just regurgitating Thor’s points, which can be found in the comments section of any pro Pally FB feed. His are better written than most, but the core arguments are the same. They actually make sense, if you’re only able to see the perspective of one side.
Hamas is the elected govt of Gaza. Why are they never called out for creating the harm to civilians in the first place. Isn’t a military’s first aim to protect its civilian population? Israel’s expected to protect its own population as well as civilians who by and large celebrated after Oct 7th?
Granted, they haven’t had elections in twenty years, but who couldn’t see that coming?
Wrong. When Hamas surrenders or releases the hostages, or both, that’s the exit.
They’ve wiped out much of Hamas leadership, as well as up to 20 k rank and file members. The threat has not been nor will ever be completely eradicated, but is significantly downgraded.
“Guarantee permanent insurgency”. This is sad. Israel has been fighting for its existence since its inception. There have been hawks in power, doves in. The violence never changes. This is starting to sound a little trope-y, blaming future violence on Israel. They’ve got it coming right?
The violence has never stopped. Diplomacy has been repeatedly rejected by the Arabs. Until they recognize Israel’s right to exist, it’s pointless. What’s left is Israel’s need to protect its citizens. So in the next few months Iran’s nukes will be destroyed and then you and the other one can cry about that for awhile.
I can’t get you to acknowledge Israel should do anything to deescalate at all, or do anything but defend, defend, defend everything they’ve done. That’s a nonstarter for me.
And now you’re giving Th0r backhanded compliments for civility and quality writing while claiming all of his arguments are from every run-of-the-mill “pro Pally” site. Like anything you’re saying is your unique, independent thought.
