At Least 300 Dead In GAZA HOSPITAL BOMBING

Source?

The laughable part about your reply, is that I was not saying you were not "educated"-- though it is you who is being "arrogant" by claiming that by "all measures" you are "probably more" educated than me, on the issue. What "measures" would those be?

Actually, your post here is a good example of your lack of clear thought. You begin by charging that I was "pretending" that you didn't "comprehend," things, and then try to disprove that, with an unsupported claim about your being educated. Comprehension has to do with processing information, as in a conversation, discussion, or debate. Education is about having learned and retained knowledge. These two are not the same thing. So whatever you mean to be saying, is not clear, from your word choices. But apparently you didn't comprehend this disconnect. By that, though, I am not trying to suggest that you do not know the meaning of the words "educated," or "comprehend"-- only that you did not use that knowledge in order to express a cohesive thought. Does this example, clarify the distinction between the two ideas, for you?

What I'd said in the post that you are, here, answering was that it was tiresome that myself and others had told you things, over and over-- so education was not an issue; I assumed, you should then know these things-- yet your replies showed no sign of your understanding them. So yes, this certainly could be taken as a comprehension problem, on your part. But I don't think I ever said that, since I feel it is only a matter of your purposely missing the point, which is different from both one's knowledge, as well as from one's comprehension. It is your making a specious argument: one that may sound reasonable, but which really is not, because, in this case, you were avoiding the actual issue-- whether by focusing on just Israel's safety, or on just Hamas's lawlessness-- of collateral Palestinian deaths.

All that said, I was, finally, able to coax out your perspective: you said that you did not care, at all, about collateral Palestinian casualties:

Turtledude said: ↑
I WILL PUT THIS PLAINLY- I DO NOT CARE. I want Israel to be safe


So I had thought we had reached an end point, in that debate, with no need to revisit the subject. Then you wrote your reply-- for what purpose, is not all that clear, other than to throw a few insults in my direction. I suppose it was to meant to offer a justification for your lack of concern for the lives of Gaza residents, but all that you offered up, was more of the same false choices-- as above, where you say that you "want Israel to be safe," as if that implies that every Palestinian without clean water to drink, right now (for example), is a necessary part of keeping Israel safe. It is not. That is your false argument, that you had been making, as if, you couldn't comprehend when I told you, as I just have, that the thing you were citing, did not justify the thing I was faulting, about Israel's response.

But as long as you'd written up your argument, I will address your points:

You've already made this argument, and I have already told you that this is the difference between terrorists-- who will gratuitously kill babies, and the elderly-- and civilized nations. Whether or not you personally give Israel a green light to wantonly kill civilians, is really not of any consequence, as far as justifying this behavior, in the eyes of international law.

It is obvious that Israel is not limiting itself to what it must do, but is being excessive in the amount of destruction they are causing, for a limited military benefit. If most of Israel's missiles had been hitting military targets, Hamas would be nearly defenseless, at this point. Rather, it has been innocent citizens, who have been suffering from the surfeit of firepower being directed at civilian areas-- while Israel is claiming they wish the citizens to leave. It does not take an arms expert to understand that if you are firing on a house, but want the residents who are not involved in the fight, to exit before your assault moves into that house, you stop shooting, to give them an opportunity to escape-- not expect them to run to safety, through a hail of gunfire. Not only is this self-defeating of your claimed goal, of clearing out civilians but it is also, in the longer run, counter-productive of the objective of reducing terrorist attacks, as this demonstration of a lack of any regard for Palestinian lives, is only going to enflame the anger of Arabs and Muslims, across the region (and around the world).

The things I am saying, by the way, are only common sense; and they are closely in line with the very advice which President Biden and the U.S. State Department are giving to Israel-- with all due respect, to your "education" on the matter.

It seems incredible to me, that this eminently reasonable position-- of yes, Israel has every right to go in and demolish Hamas, but in so doing, should follow the Laws of Armed Combat, and not cause civilian casualties which are disproportionate to the military advantage, gained by Israel, in their attacks-- should have so many who try to discredit it. Who would have thought that trying to minimize civilian casualties, or not unnecessarily killing non combatants, would be such a controversial position?

Again, if you want to turn a blind eye and, in your own mind, give Israel carte blanche to do whatever it wants, without your questioning anything (no matter how questionable, it may appear), that is your business. But that attitude, doesn't endow you with any standing to judge others, who do not bury their heads in the sand; it certainly does not represent the view of the civilized world, or of international law. So your pretending here, that it does, is not making it seem that you are as very well educated, as you claim to be.

Another false argument from you. Yes, some collateral civilian casualties, are inevitable. But that is not an argument against considering, and trying to reduce them. It is NOT a choice between zero unintended deaths, or otherwise, complete disregard for civilian welfare.

As I just said, that is not the real choice: it is the false one, that you continually present. That, is what makes it tiresome, to keep correcting you, yet to see you go on to do the same thing, again and again.

 

Completely false, but unsurprising, from someone who ever maintains such a high percentage of false claims, in his posting history. In this case, though, I am not contending that you are purposely lying: you have proven that you just have a lot of trouble understanding the cumulative meaning of written words, and often have a mistaken impression of what you've read.

For example, Hamas's missile batteries are concentrated in one particular part of Gaza. Hence, it is unnecessary to keep the whole of Gaza under 24 hour bombardment, to not be giving Hamas a free shot "to attack them."

 

Sure-- nobody cares about anything. No organizations rely on volunteers. All finacial supporters, only do it for the ribbons (and those cool refrigerator magnets). Tell yourself that, if it makes you feel better about not caring about any humanitarian, or environmental causes, yourself. But the self-serving origin of your perspective, seems pretty obvious.

 

He has already made it clear, that there is no upper limit. In his subsequent post, to which I've just replied, he refined that to be, whatever number that Israel thinks is appropriate.

Of course, I've already pointed out that Israel takes an outlier position, on the issue of assessing the proportionality of civilian casualties and property damage. The agreed upon method, which nearly all law respecting countries follow, when civilian casualties are unavoidable, in order to hit a military target, is to weigh the degree of military advantage the aggressor gains from the attack, against the amount of collateral damage.

In Israel's case, however, if there is any military target, even a single member of Hamas, in a civilian space, like an apartment building, then it considers that entire building to be a strictly military target. Hence, they do not count any civilians in that building-- when they destroy it in order to get the Hamas member-- to be collateral damage at all. So, no need to compare the death of those civilians & destruction of their homes, to the military advantage gained by the strike.

 

That's completely incorrect. You have no evidence that even if it's only one Hamas member then they kill everyone lmao. Completely and utterly made up anti Semitic nonsense.

 

I appreciate your being able to see this. The earlier part of your post, about numerical proportions, regarding collateral deaths, I'd only brought up, to try to get Turtledude to give any criteria, whatsoever. Obviously, that isn't the way it's done (but I've just recently gone over this, & don't want to be redundant).

I concur with you, 100%. I just am not sure if Israel is taking reasonable precautions. For example, the roof-knocking bombs I've read of, and I think that you, elsewhere mention, which they drop on a building a minute or two before the real thing, I don't quite understand how this alerts everyone in the building, if it doesn't crash through it, potentially causing casualties. They are described as "non explosive" or low-yield bombs. It just makes that big of bang, that everyone in the building cannot help but hear it?

Aside from that, though, if their target is just one apartment-- and Israelis can target that single apartment-- there's still no justification for destroying the entire building (even if they do give people a one-minute warning, to get off the toilet, or put on minimal clothing, or grab their kids, and get out of a building, through a mad rush of others, also trying to escape). Yet it is Israel's official position that if there's any legitimate military target (like a single Hamas fighter) in a building, then that entire building is a strictly military target: collateral damage is not taken into consideration. So there is ample reason, to have doubt that Israel is doing all it can, to "protect innocent life."

Also, their cutting off water, food, medical supplies, power, and fuel-- which is used for power, in all the hospitals, for instance-- is a huge part of Israel's not safeguarding civilian lives.

Another thing that Israel could do, to encourage people to leave their homes, would be to guarantee that afterwards, they will be allowed to return.

Israel could also allow in aid organizations, to help them care for all of the refugees. I don't know that Israel has even provided a place for all these people to stay, after they've abandoned their homes.

First of all, there are fewer Hamas defenders here (and those that are, probably aren't American) than there are those concerned with collateral Palestinian deaths. Among those, I don't think your criticism applies, as the lack of reasonable precautions, is the main complaint.

Further, your idea that normal people, don't care about Hamas using human shields, is ridiculous. But I don't even think those saying that Hamas won't let the citizens leave, know what they're talking about. There are far too many people, and Hamas is not going to risk exposing their members, in order to stand guard.

Again, I don't know who you are referring to, except a few here with extremist views (or who work for foreign nations). The preponderance of those of us with anything other than exhortations for even more Israeli bombing, do not give Hamas "a pass." In fact, we condemn Hamas's attack and, very often, Hamas, itself. So, I don't know what it is, you are looking at.

 

I await your, more official, supporting evidence, to bolster the laughing off of your ass. I have already posted an extensive explanation of the Laws of Armed Combat, including a legal commentary on this being Israel's heterodox interpretation. The wording used, is something like "any military target." I inserted that example, to illustrate what this means. Do you deny that an Hamas fighter, is a "military target?"

 

You made a very specific wild accusation that isn't supported by any facts or by reality. There is no evidence isreal is blowing up entire apartment buildings for 1 person.

 

I think those over here who claim they care are doing it more for themselves than it having any value to say some family who has a Hamas machine gun nest on the roof of their flat

 

I'd do something about it because it affects me. and I could do something. Someone thousands of miles away who is virtue signaling by claiming they care to score moral points in a discussion wouldn't help me a bit

 

I think it is more likely Iran is going to get stomped then your apparently desired predictions about Israel coming true

 

What is this "something" you would do?

 

certainly something other than hoping a bunch of flapping jaws 5 thousand miles away would pretend to care

 

Why won't you say what you would do?

 

because in your hypothetical there are not enough facts.

 

What other facts do you require to give an answer to the question "What would YOU do if some strangers came to your's and your neighbors homes and forced you to leave?"?

 

depends how many, how well armed they were and how many of my neighbors are ready willing and able to prevent this

 

Depends, had they done so because I elected a terrorist organization whose stated aim was their murder and then the murder of anyone in their bloodline relation, and then I lobbed rockets and committed terrorist attacks or my government did and I did nothing to stop them? Even when said government announced no more elections?
I wouldn't just sit there, but I wouldn't have any moral high ground to bitch from.
In fact, I'd be culpable and should focus my bitching on my elected terrorist organization government and coup de tat them. If I refused, it wouldn't be the strangest thing in the world to consider me a person who abets a terrorist org.

 

You are just describing what the PLO were doing after Palestinians were forcibly removed to make way for more and more settlers and settlements. Meanwhile the Palestinians in The West Bank are trying to go down the peace route even while more settlements are being built.

And during the last 14 days, in The West Bank 100 Palestinians have been killed by the IDF and SETTLERS!

 

they should blame the Islamists then. why were Palestinians killed by the IDF?

 

Don't know but I do know that settlers shot dead two Palestinians at a funeral of 4 Palestinians who were shot dead by Settlers the previous day

 

who initiates most of the attacks over there? Jews or Islamists?

 

2 Palestinians killed after settlers said to ambush funeral in West Bank
Father and son reportedly shot dead as they take part in burial of four Palestinians gunned down by settlers on Wednesday

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0qoZrO_IEkq0Z0G2Pt3RzO

 

what happened before that? were the Palestinians Islamists killed by the Jews?

 

they want to tie Israel's hands and they refuse to put the same limits on the Islamist terrorists.