If you look at the # of retaliation deaths from pearl harbor & 9-11,

the IDF is still WAY behind per those standards.
I think they should be able to do MUCH MORE DAMAGE without being harassed.
It seems only JEWS are not allowed to defend themselves.

DISCUSS

 

Yes, IDF has done well in its efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Don't believe any of the numbers from Hamas. If anything Hamas will kill civilians if they get in their way, or if they can use their deaths for propaganda purposes.

 

Heck, they just announced to Rafa to evacuate. I even think they left fliers. I don't know of any other military establishments with this much politeness

 

Yes there were more deaths in WW II and in response to 9-11 in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait than there have been in Gaza.
Yes Israel has a right to defend themselves, no one his saying otherwise.

However, all things are proportional. We do not have to accept that Israel can kill as many as they want until they kill the same amount of people as in WW II before their actions can be criticized. That is illogical.
Is killing more civilians who have been herded into a single city going to mean that Hamas is going to be even more defeated. I am not sure.
Remember the US reached out to Japan and Germany after the war ended and they are now our allies.

 

and where are they going to evacuate to?

 

Looks like idf is doing to palestinians exactly what the Nazis were doing to Ashkenazi.

Before the Holocaust, Hitler tried to remove all Ashkenazi from Germany. He managed to remove half but most Europeans shut down immigration routes in order to stop Ashkenazi flooding Europe.

The remaining Ashkenazi were put in concentration camps, since they refused to be herded around like cattle by Hitler.

It's an exact parallel to Gaza today. Any Gazan that refuse to move are not put into concentration camps, that's too expensive, instead they are obliterated by missiles.

The ultimate goal must definitely be the removal of the Jews altogether. Hitler, 1919.

 

Go say that at the pro-Hamas college demonstrations and see what happens to you.

 

That is not their problem. Where are the Ukrainians evacuating to? Why does only ONE type of casualty matter when the rest don't seem to matter to anyone? Why didn't your little blue buddies protest for the release of Hamas' American hostages they still have?

 

Ostensibly the objective of Israeli military action is to destroy Hamas so that they will not be able to attack Israelis in the future. In other words, it is justified as a measure which will prevent future violence and conflict.

But you are right. Lots of people, including a significant percentage of Israelis, view the military action as a means of retribution, reprisal, retaliation and revenge. Furthermore, many consider Jews to have a unique value such that the death of one Jew can only be redressed by the death of a number of Palestinians.

Most of the global population would not agree that retaliation is a motive that justifies killing large numbers of non-combatants based on their ethnicity.

 

I am really amused that a country like the US..... who themselves has been the only country in our history... to have mass murdered a population by dropping two bombs on civilian cities....... I just am not seeing where we are able to criticize anyone anywhere...

And let me say it one more time......... HOSTAGES.....

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploa...7.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=450&h=348&crop=1

 

The "War on Terror" wasn't really just direct retaliation in response to 9-11, and faced significant criticism on both principle and implementation.
The War in the Pacific certainly wasn't direct retaliation for the Pearl Habor attack, that was just the trigger for the (pretty much inevitable) conventional front in the World War.

Israel's actions in Gaza aren't meant to be retaliation at all (especially not against the Gazan civilians) but about targeting Hamas and the oft forgotten aim of recovering the remaining hostages. I think it is highly questionable that the scale of destruction and civilian deaths that have resulted (regardless of the specific numbers) supports those aims.

 

Um, America was NOT moral in how it reacted to Japan. I'm not saying no response would have been better, but even the "good guys" did many morally dubious things in WW2. We thought we could bomb Japan into submission by incinerating their civilians... no, not nagasaki and hiroshima, the other 30 or 40 cities we incinerated with regular bombs. None of it was necessary or even helpful. All for the prideful goal of having an unconditional surrender instead of a conditional one - though it didn't make the difference for that distinction anyway. It's a bit anachronistic to criticize though - it was common practice - but in retrospect strategic bombing was a failure.

There were many deaths prior to that. They were military combatants and it was not in big cities, so it's hard to compare.

One point is that if you're going to take lives, it should be for a worthy purpose and considering costs for the specific approach. We needed to reduce the capabilities of terrorists. We needed to check Japan's imperialism. Hamas isn't going to be weakened in the long-run by Israel's current actions. Many more terrorists have been created than killed. World opinion has shifted away from Israel. If Israel manages to get rid of all of the Palestinians by exile or death, they'll seem all the more villainous to the entire muslim world, and beyond. Hamas should have been treated more like a cartel than a foreign nation. And Palestinian civilian lives should have been treated with more regard.

 

Pro Hamas people are hard to find. Pro Palistinian are easier. How do you know what they would do?

They widely have been criticized by Democrats including Blinkin and President Biden. As a matter of fact they are working toward getting all hostages freed
I don't even know any smirfs. They are not my buddies and I am not sure how they fit into this discussion.

I think both of you are not concerned with the problem,. You ask for discussion and then attack the people who try to discuss. I think you really want confrontation which is one of the signs of an uninformed debater.