Pro-Palestinian crowds try to storm air base housing U.S. troops in Turkey

the capital was attacked

 

Was it attacked by pro-terrorist protestors? Was it attacked by foreign nationals?

US naval vessels are being blockaded by people waving terrorist flags. I know you're outraged. Right?...lol

 

protestors, just like these, and some of those protestors stormed the air base, very similar

I know you were outraged by both events too, right?

it's more than just a protest when they stormed the air base, glad you get it

wave their signs and protest all they want, cross the line, do the time

 

J6 was civil disobedience.

I notice how you have nothing to say about pro-terrorist protestors, flying terrorist flags, attacking a United States naval vessel...lol

 

I said they crossed the line, just like the j6ers, do the crime, do the time

I did not support either group of terrorists domestic or foreign - but I do support the protestors in both groups that protested peacefully outsides right to protest

 

Attacking United States troops is "crossing the line"? It looks like an act of war, to me...lol

 

same with the j6ers, both groups of people crossed a line, it's no longer protesting when you do that

 

It's a shame how you people try to defend these terrorists...lol

 

It's a shame how you people try to defend domestic terrorists...lol

I on the other hand call both groups out and condemn their actions.... can you?

I hope Turkey catches every last one of those that stormed the Air Base and they do long prison sentences

 

Why are you defending terrorist sympathizers in our own country?

 

seems it's you defending them...

 

I don't know what has actually changed about "the rules of war." Israel isn't deliberately trying to kill civilians, that's a byproduct of being collocated with military targets. So your argument, such as it is, doesn't hold water. In the post WWII era, no doubt every major military engagement has resulted in civilian deaths. So suddenly now, with this military engagement, we're all concerned about civilian deaths in a way that we weren't when we were bombing Baghdad, Serbia, Syria, Libya,...well you get the idea. It just doesn't strike me as a honest argument.

 

Again, that is only because your understanding lacks depth. It is not the killing of some civilians, which had aroused all the concern, but rather the magnitude of the killing. The numbers of non combatants being killed is grossly higher than the norm-- even when the enemy blends in with the citizenry. Had American troops in Vietnam torched every village they'd crossed, because they couldn't tell who was Viet Cong, and who was a civilian, then there would have been world outrage, as well.

I'd also given you the example of the civilian losses in the hard fought battle of Mosul, against ISIS, with the city's residents being held prisoner, being lower for the entire, 9 month campaign, than in the first month of this war, by Israel. All armies have a responsibility to consider and to attempt to minimize civilian casualties, so they are not disproportionate to the military benefit gained, in the operations which incur this "collateral damage." To all appearances, that does not appear to be much of a consideration to Israel, thus far.

So your model is wrong: what is going on is not typical, with the only real difference being that it is Israel doing the killing. What makes this operation stand out, is the scale of civilian death, and the potential for so much more, not only from the bombing, but from the restrictions of vital supplies like water, food, and medicine. This can be a war crime, as well.

<Google Snip #1>
Unanimously adopting resolution 2573 (2021) — “Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population” — the Council also strongly condemned the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which may constitute a war crime.Apr 27, 2021
https://press.un.org › 2021 › sc145...
Security Council Strongly Condemns Attacks against Critical Civilian ...
<End Snip #1>

All this is laying the groundwork for disease to set in. It is because of the dense concentration of people in Gaza, that the potential for a humanitarian disaster, is so real & present, and attracting so much attention from around the world.

Lastly, there have been other instances, when the world issued condemnations, as towards the government of Myanmar; they just didn't get as much play in the U.S. news, as have these highly publicized recent events, in Israel and Gaza.

<Google Snip #2>
The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.Oct 24, 2022
https://lieber.westpoint.edu › propor...
Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law: A Principle and a Rule
<End Snip>

 

so you agree with how the Palestinians have been treated over the decades? Basically as 2nd class citizens in an open air concentration camp?

 

those places always had places for the population to go, and means to get there. Palestine simply does not. The civilian death rate has been absurd.

 

Nope.

Israel is deliberately trying to kill children.

I was concerned. Still am.

Libya was a catastrophe but that hundreds of deaths . . . by bombing.

Serbia - hundreds.

Syria - pretty bad at 4,000? including all coalition and Turkish forces. Hard to tell

Iraq was a real shitstorm nobody thinks was a good idea. Claiming people weren't concerned about that . . . .

I'm thinking tens of thousands in Gaza because the people under the rubble haven't even been gotten to yet. Those IDed have hit 10,000.

But more important than that weren't you always complaining about the costs and how it wasn't our business?

 

You're free to charge the state of Israel with the "crime" of "proportionality" if you want, but you are going to have to prove your figures of civilian deaths, since our main source seems to be the terrorist group that started this war. Also I'm not sure what is the legally approved tactic against an enemy that uses human shields. If Hamas has an armory stored under a hospital, does that mean the armory can't be touched?

Your argument is, ultimately silly since you assume there is some formula in international law in which you can plug in the variables of civilian casualties, military objectives, and goal of the operation, and it will spit out the max number of civilian deaths allowed. It allows the side that is most willing to use civilians as human shields the moral high ground.

Ridiculous.

 

We have agreed on figures on civilian deaths that don't come from Hamas?

 

It actually isn't our business. But maybe that's why I'm not as emotionally connected to this conflict like so many, including you, are. Based on my experience with previous war reporting, it's all self serving and the truth won't come out until later, so until then, I'm not going to accept casualty figures from a terrorist group. Feel free to do so for yourself however.

 

So to be clear, you support completely defunding Israel? And, of course abstaining in the UN votes . . .

or are you emotionally involved?

 

Could you point out in my statement where I said I support completely defunding Israel? And I answered the emotionally involved issue in my previous post, so I'm not sure why you are confused about that.

Must be emotionally involved!

 

What is ridiculous, is your apparent thinking that, if there is not an exact "formula"-- which is only your mispresumption, that I believe that there is one-- then any amount of civilian casualties, are fine. It is a judgement call, certainly. Every nation has lawyers in their military, who help make these decisions. The fact that so many nations of the world have expressed concern, including in Europe, and including our own government, should indicate to you, that there is reason for concern, because those other nations-- notably the U.S., from recent experience, in the Mid East-- understand full well what might fall within the reasonable range, and what is in no way a tolerable number of civilian deaths-- far better than you do, by your own admission. What is "silly," is your argument that it is a decision with no sort of standards whatsoever, and so utterly at the discretion of the nation killing the civilians. What any reasonable person should be able to realize, is that your conception of collateral losses, would make any international laws, prescribing a limiting of civilian casualties, completely moot.

 

A judgement call? Well that's it then. You make your judgement call and I'll make mine.

 

Oh man.....
So you are saying the Palestinians are Hamas, as a whole, and you see the Jihad way legit and acceptable approach for freedom ?
Basicly it doesn't matter what the enemy is or what he wants, there is always something you/we did wrong to upset him, right ? you sound like my Dad...

Genius....this is the ME, not Arizona, if you hug your enemy here he will kill you, only way to "co-exist" even between deferent Muslims is with an iron hand, if you fight and apologize for it they will eat you up, we'll see after this war.

 

No, we never went full way, we always bought them off somehow, that's done with