Israel declares war on Hamas

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

What level of Civilian death is acceptable

lol

That's easy. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than the number killed on October 7th. Israel reacting to October 7 is additional proof that the number is waaaaaaaay less because if 1139 deaths* was 'acceptable', they wouldn't have responded.

And note, I do NOT take any solace from the fact that there were some members of the security forces sprinkled in there... I don't think Hamas gets a pass that some civilians were casualties as they were targeting the on-duty and off-duty security forces that were amongst them. I don't give Israel a pass for such explanations either.

So yeah, waaaay less than 1139. You good with that? Does it make you feel any better about anything? Does it make you feel any worse?




* Wiki quote just for reference: In total, 1,139 people were killed: 695 Israeli civilians (including 38 children), 71 foreign nationals, and 373 members of the security forces.

[Fuzz]

We'll never know the answer, but an interesting question is how does Israel decide? When they are picking out targets, how many potential innocent deaths make them consider alternate actions? Is their a number? Their must be a number. So what's the calculation they use, and is that calculation defensible? How do other militaries decide that? Is it a similar number?

[indes]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We'll never know the answer, but an interesting question is how does Israel decide? When they are picking out targets, how many potential innocent deaths make them consider alternate actions? Is their a number? Their must be a number. So what's the calculation they use, and is that calculation defensible? How do other militaries decide that? Is it a similar number?

The problem with most of the perpetrators is that they don't believe anyone is innocent

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

edit: deleted

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

lol

That's easy. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than the number killed on October 7th. Israel reacting to October 7 is additional proof that the number is waaaaaaaay less because if 1139 deaths* was 'acceptable', they wouldn't have responded.

And note, I do NOT take any solace from the fact that there were some members of the security forces sprinkled in there... I don't think Hamas gets a pass that some civilians were casualties as they were targeting the on-duty and off-duty security forces that were amongst them. I don't give Israel a pass for such explanations either.

So yeah, waaaay less than 1139. You good with that? Does it make you feel any better about anything? Does it make you feel any worse?

* Wiki quote just for reference: In total, 1,139 people were killed: 695 Israeli civilians (including 38 children), 71 foreign nationals, and 373 members of the security forces.

I think you are naive if you believe less than 695 civilians could have been killed in this conflict and that holding the position you hold amounts to saying Israel should not have responded to Oct 7th. I do still notice that you didn’t set the number at 0. You acknowledge that civilians will be killed by Israel in defense and some non-zero amount is acceptable. So really the difference between you an snuffy is one of scale. I think that’s important to acknowledge.

I’m not sure how any discussion will make anyone feel better here. People are being killed mercilessly. Does calling someone a terrorist supporter make you feel better? Does saying Israel is a terrorist state make you feel better? None of any of this does or means anything. I hope by actually discussing what people think is an appropriate response people will reflect on why they think the way they do as opposed to just knee jerk reactions based on tribe. It probably won’t happen.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

What's your number GGG?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

holding the position you hold amounts to saying Israel should not have responded to Oct 7th.

???

I said my number is waaaaay below the number of casualties suffered on October 7, which means that I think the actual number suffered on October 7 makes sense in triggering an Israeli response. That's how the math works.

It's absolutely the opposite of what you just wrote. I don't even know how you came up with that jumbled reasoning.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

???

I said my number is waaaaay below the number of casualties suffered on October 7, which means that I think the actual number suffered on October 7 makes sense in triggering an Israeli response. That's how the math works.

It's absolutely the opposite of what you just wrote. I don't even know how you came up with that jumbled reasoning.

I asked what is the number of acceptable Civilian casualties to be killed in defense of Israel and you said way less than 693. So I took that as you saying that less than 693 casualties would be acceptable. How did you mean it?

My number is that it’s what ever number Israel thinks is acceptable if they were attacking a country that could actually harm them. Essentially when they attack Iran their attacks are designed to significantly reduce civilian casualties and target high ranking officials. So in Gaza I would like Israel to consider the civilian consequence to the attacks as if they were attacking Iran. It comes down to Fuzz’s question of what is Israel’s decision making process in regards to attacks.

My other thought is that Israel should value its Soliders in a similar fashion to Gaza civilians. Right now they kill Civilians to reduce military casualties. If you valued their lives equally the war would be different.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

What's your number GGG?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

What's your number GGG?

I think I gave it to you. What part would you like clarification on?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think I gave it to you. What part would you like clarification on?

Your number is 'whatever number Israel thinks is acceptable if they were attacking a country that could actually harm them'?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Your number is 'whatever number Israel thinks is acceptable if they were attacking a country that could actually harm them'?

That would be one criteria. Essentially there would be far fewer casualties if they held the same criteria form missle attacks to kill Hamas members in Gaza as they do for Hamas members hiding in Iran.

So not quite whatever number Israel considers appropriate but apply whatever the current threshold for Iran is to Gaza right now.

And the other criteria would be value Gazan civilians with the same value as Israeli soldiers. This would increase Israeli military casualties to reduce civilian casualties.

I notice you never clarified your thoughts on acceptable amounts of civilian deaths in Gaza.

[Leondros]

This is pretty disappointing. Israel is awful with PR. They just can't help themselves.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel...down-1.7330685

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

That would be one criteria. Essentially there would be far fewer casualties if they held the same criteria form missle attacks to kill Hamas members in Gaza as they do for Hamas members hiding in Iran.

So not quite whatever number Israel considers appropriate but apply whatever the current threshold for Iran is to Gaza right now.

And the other criteria would be value Gazan civilians with the same value as Israeli soldiers. This would increase Israeli military casualties to reduce civilian casualties.

I notice you never clarified your thoughts on acceptable amounts of civilian deaths in Gaza.

You really have no number? I told you mine was below 1139 or whatever. Is it also below 1139 for you?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

I notice you never clarified your thoughts on acceptable amounts of civilian deaths in Gaza.

My number for Gaza is the same as it was for Israel.

Israelis are worth equally as much as Gazans in my book. And Americans. And Canadians. Etc... you name the country, I'll give you the same value.

Is your number for Gaza the same as for Israel?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

My number for Gaza is the same as it was for Israel.

Israelis are worth equally as much as Gazans in my book. And Americans. And Canadians. Etc... you name the country, I'll give you the same value.

Is your number for Gaza the same as for Israel?

What was your philosophy for the amount of civilian deaths that was acceptable for Israel to inflict in fighting Hamas? I don’t think you clarified after I misunderstood your first attempt.

I’m not sure I understand your question. Is it how may Israeli civilians is Hamas allowed to kill in defence of Gaza?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

What was your philosophy for the amount of civilian deaths that was acceptable for Israel to inflict. I don’t think you clarified after I misunderstood your first attempt.

I’m not sure I understand your question. Is it how may Israeli civilians is Hamas allowed to kill in defence of Gaza?

[CalgaryKid12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It seems really weird to complain about “yes and/but” as some sort of justification for Hamas and then turn around and purposely use the deaths of Palestinians as some punch line for your argumentative attempt at a gotchya.

What's your issue with me?

I made the argument, then Bagor goes and says "no not true, both are bad, regardless of the order/magnitude of criticism". So apparently that's the standard and I followed suit. There's no gotcha game here, that's exactly how I feel.

You act as though you're a pretty reasonable person, who has no feelings/bias towards either side of this conflict, then you disproportionately go after people that are more Pro-Israel. You didn't call Bagor out when they tried to play the "gotchya" game with me about the Holocaust. So why come after me now?

To GGG's point (and I'm sorry if I'm unfairly putting you on the spot here), I tried to bring a different perspective to this discussion and was met with nothing but hate and discredit to my beliefs. I would have loved nothing more than to bridge this great divide and find some commonalities among different viewpoints. However, my views didn't jive with the mob mentality on here, so I was attacked. Some posters here have this holier than thou aura, but are nothing more than toxic people who want to belittle others that don't agree with them.

[CalgaryKid12]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I am just curious as to what your views are regarding Israel's behaviour in Gaza hence the question that for whatever reason you keep refusing to answer.

Again. I ask.

Check the first line of post #9170, I thought I was pretty clear

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CalgaryKid12

What's your issue with me?

I made the argument, then Bagor goes and says "no not true, both are bad, regardless of the order/magnitude of criticism". So apparently that's the standard and I followed suit. There's no gotcha game here, that's exactly how I feel.

You act as though you're a pretty reasonable person, who has no feelings/bias towards either side of this conflict, then you disproportionately go after people that are more Pro-Israel. You didn't call Bagor out when they tried to play the "gotchya" game with me about the Holocaust. So why come after me now?

To GGG's point (and I'm sorry if I'm unfairly putting you on the spot here), I tried to bring a different perspective to this discussion and was met with nothing but hate and discredit to my beliefs. I would have loved nothing more than to bridge this great divide and find some commonalities among different viewpoints. However, my views didn't jive with the mob mentality on here, so I was attacked. Some posters here have this holier than thou aura, but are nothing more than toxic people who want to belittle others that don't agree with them.

Haven’t you accused people of being insane, that they belong in an asylum, and suggested people were Holocaust deniers because they disagreed with you?

Multiple times you’ve talked about compassion, understanding, being reasonable, all that but… it doesn’t seem like you’ve taken any issue with anyone saying terrible things about Palestinians or even Israeli hostages so long as they are, at least generally, against pro-Israeli government.

So, I guess I should ask why I should call out Bagor when you don’t call out people like Skooten? You’re trying to bridge the gap, right? Commonalities? But apparently that just means going after people you disagree with and playing victim because people dared to disagree with you or question your views?