The reports about babies being killed has not been confirmed
And you're now saying that what you meant is that it wasn't confirmed that there were 40 of them that were killed as opposed to some other number?
Because that's what that article says - that they don't have specific numbers.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
To the parents of those children or to their community? Probably not.
Let’s say Canada attacks the US for no reason, the US responds by bombing the #### out of us. One of those targets happens to be close to you, and your family and friends are seriously affected. Are you going to say “yeah, it was justified, and they got who they were after, so I have no good argument against it.” It might not be your fault, but you were on the wrong side of it whether you like it or not, so you have to deal.
It gets harder the closer you put yourself to the situation. Pretty easy from far away.
It’s more akin to Canada electing a government that is anti US and then launching a concerted attack that specifically targets civilians versus US military installations with weapons that are hidden in the saddledome and chinook mall and then being surprised when the US claps back and bombs the saddledome and chinook. Obviously I’d be sad if my family that lives in Kingsland was collateral damage, anyone who says otherwise is lying but there are different rules of engagement that entities operate on and Hamas operates on one that is one of the most morally repugnant. They made the decision to launch an attack on civilian populations that they knew would be met with the response Israel has provided.
“There are no innocent civilians “ Napoleon Bonaparte
Civilians, and babies, are killed in every war and still the war never stops until one side is defeated. Best practice is to focus on extreme prejudice and kill everyone in hopes of winning sooner thus resulting in fewer babies killed.
Trying to get humanitarian aid in before the killing is done just drags out the conflict and prolongs the suffering.
When things get bad enough in that area the big guy will step in, anyone else remember the flood?
2013? Of course. I'm not sure how that's relevant here, though.
And you're now saying that what you meant is that it wasn't confirmed that there were 40 of them that were killed as opposed to some other number?
Because that's what that article says - that they don't have specific numbers.
The comments previous to mine were speaking about beheading babies and a mass murder of them , which stems for a report that was made- the article states that there is unanimous confirmation of that, that's what I was referring to.
The comments previous to mine were speaking about beheading babies and a mass murder of them , which stems for a report that was made- the article states that there is unanimous confirmation of that, that's what I was referring to.
Good God you are dancing around the subject to avoid admitting what happened.
Cecil, this is the 'killing babies doesn't make me change my perspective' person. Page after page, after page.
Again, in case you've completely confused yourself with all the spinning that you've attempted, if Hamas had gone after Israeli military targets, they have all the justification they need. But they instead made the choice to kill babies. Instead of you saying they made the wrong choice, you are trying to blame Israel instead.
One is collateral damage, the other is barbaric savagery.
They're not even remotely close to the same thing.
People suggesting so are really stretching to fit these events into their pre existing narratives of who is the victim and aggressor of this conflict.
It's sad, and it's nonsensical.
If Israeli troops had gone into Gaza and beheaded children, we all know the equivalency of that vs dropping bombs would never have been brought up by these same people.
Neutral people need to stop treating these things like they have a side to protect and call it like it is; even if they think Israel has been the main aggressor in the past.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
Hundreds of millions of dollars transferred to Hamas recently. Clearly some hidden machinations are partly behind this current attack - obviously Hamas are sworn enemies of Israel but I’m sure Iran and the Russians have been stirring this up to take advantage of the chance to further destabilize and/or divert attention and resources from Ukraine.
Do babies' heads stay on when a building falls on top of them?
If Hamas hadn’t been firing rockets at Israel from residential areas of Gaza for the last 15 years, bombs wouldn’t be dropping on civilians in Gaza.
And when Hamas planned the Oct 7 attack, they new that it would provoke massive retaliation on Gaza that would kill loads of civilians. And they were okay with that, because dead Palestinian kids are part of their political strategy.
So the Israeli kids killed on Oct 7 and Palestinian kids who will be killed in the coming weeks are all victims of deliberate choices made by Hamas.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 10-11-2023 at 04:35 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Israel's initial stance was, indeed, that Palestinians should flee to Egypt. They backed off after Egypt gave a hard no.
Israel also didn't directly bomb the crossing, they've been bombing smuggling tunnels around the crossing, as that's how Hamas gets all of their weapons. So strikes on the area are likely to continue indefinitely. A moot point, as the border is fully shut, as per Egyptian orders.
As Hamas positions itself within civilian centers, what other solution does Israel have to stop them? As for whether Israel targets civilians, if that were the case the death tole in Gaza would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds.
Yes, yes, there's always a justification when Israel is committing atrocities , it wasn't bombing the crossing it was tunnels, every building hit has Hamas in them, starving the population is ok because how else could Hamas be defeated , the settlements are ok because it's religious land etc etc
The Following User Says Thank You to WCW Nitro For This Useful Post:
Yes, yes, there's always a justification when Israel is committing atrocities , it wasn't bombing the crossing it was tunnels, every building hit has Hamas in them, starving the population is ok because how else could Hamas be defeated , the settlements are ok because it's religious land etc etc
It's not just an issue of morality, it's also an issue of responsibility.
Hamas has committed a series of war crimes via their actions after crossing into Israel. They've committed another series of war crimes upon crossing back into Gaza and hiding amongst civilians. No marked military installations. No uniforms. Those rules exist for a reason.
I might only be a poor small town bird lawyer. But I don't think you can class what Hamas does as war crimes. That gives Hamas credibility as a legitimate military organization commanded by a nation state.
If you do that definition then you give Hamas legitimacy as the government of a nation state and then Israel's declaration of war is a legitimate one against Gaza.
Because Hamas isn't really a military, it wears no uniform, it doesn't clearly have a code of military justice, it has a lose command structure that reports to non governing authorities, and they specifically attack civillians. Then Hamas is as its defined a terrorist organization, which means they should have no protection under the international courts, have no rights as captured members of an opposing member and can be eligible for summary punishment.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Good God you are dancing around the subject to avoid admitting what happened.
Cecil, this is the 'killing babies doesn't make me change my perspective' person. Page after page, after page.
This isn't the issue, for me. I don't really care what his position is or whether he changes it in response to any given event. But there are a bunch of CPers who have explicitly said that they are using this thread to better understand the history of the conflict and what is happening now, and are relying on others to accurately portray these events and accurately summarize the reporting that's out there. And his post, at face value, said that there was no confirmation of babies being killed. That's not even close to true, and posting something that misleading about something that terrible is... well, I'm really, really trying to avoid a Godwin's Law thing here.
While Nage Waza posted what I thought (and said) were some very over the top accusations aimed at other posters' motivations and character, it's hard to say his concerns about misinformation being proferred from certain individuals were overblown. Instances of that happening should be pointed out.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
They're not even remotely close to the same thing.
People suggesting so are really stretching to fit these events into their pre existing narratives of who is the victim and aggressor of this conflict.
It's sad, and it's nonsensical.
If Israeli troops had gone into Gaza and beheaded children, we all know the equivalency of that vs dropping bombs would never have been brought up by these same people.
Neutral people need to stop treating these things like they have a side to protect and call it like it is; even if they think Israel has been the main aggressor in the past.
To the first bolded point, no. Not really. Certainly not all people suggesting so, maybe one or two of them.
To the second, the benefit of being neutral and having distance is that you can evaluate things from that position. Pretending as though neutral people have to come down not on one side, but on another, and shouldn’t instead remain neutral and be able to use their immense privilege of neutrality to think critically about the issue, makes essentially zero sense.
