Israel Declares War

[Locoponydirtman]

Matt 24
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

This generation speaks of the generation which sees "all these things" take place

No generation has seen them take place yet. It appears that some of the birth pangs have started.. if this be the case.. That generation may be today. But I think we are not yet there.

That makes no sense. " Will by no means pass away till all these things take place" is part of that sentence. Normal context would be that the generation he is speaking to will by no means pass away until this happens.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Were there military facilities in the bombed areas? Were there production facilities producing armaments of war in the cities that were bombed?

I didnt see any in any of the pictures or videos that i have seen.

 

[ZNP]

That makes no sense. " Will by no means pass away till all these things take place" is part of that sentence. Normal context would be that the generation he is speaking to will by no means pass away until this happens.

when He says "this generation" He is clearly referring to the generation that sees the fig tree put forth tender leaves.

 

[Smoke]

No, I asked if Hamas would have listened.

You mentioned the leaders of Iraq. The us did not warn the people of Iraq, it warned the leaders.

Of course Hamas wouldn't have listened. You're missing the point, and by a lot. The point of Israel warning Palestinians (not Hamas) to "evacuate" was so they could bomb and/or go in and be more discriminate. They knew Hamas wouldn't go... in fact, Hamas told them to stay (those cowards).

You also asked if any other country warns before using offensive weapons, I just gave you an example. The difference is Bush gave Saddam and his sons the warning (along with whatever militants that choose to resist the invasion). This is all irrelevant though. I'm just answering your random questions.

1. Civilians are always a casualty of war.
2. Hamas uses civilians as human shields
3. Can you name 1 war in which civilians did nto die? Even when japan attacked pearl harbor. many civilians died..Just like when the US bombed Japanese cities in retaliation. Many civilians died.

1.) Yes, often times civilians are casualties of war. But we can't pretend "casualties of war" are always indiscriminate either. The attack by Hamas on civilians at the music festival was targeted and indiscriminate. Israel knowing that their bombs are going to kill more Palestinian civilian children than ACTUAL Hamas terrorist is also indiscriminate. Surely you know what "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" is?

 

[Smoke]

Its called war.

If the US invaded Japan. Millions would have died.. Instead they dropped two bombs and thousands died.

You do what you need to do to stop your enemy from trying to kill you

"It's called war..." said you and the Hamas terrorist who murdered innocent Israeli civilians. Sorry, war doesn't permit the indiscriminate killing of civilians no matter how badly you want it to.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

The people that are seeing this will by no means pass away until they've seen this

 

[Smoke]

And yet it can. But only your use of the words "indiscriminate" and "innocent."
This is the "begging the question" fallacy.
The bomb hit a legitimate military target.
They were civilians, but they were not "innocent." They were killed, but they were not murdered.

I really want to reach some type of middle ground with you. Can we start by you telling me what you believe "discriminate bombing" and "indiscriminate bombing" means/is to you?

 

[Cameron143]

"It's called war..." said you and the Hamas terrorist who murdered innocent Israeli civilians. Sorry, war doesn't permit the indiscriminate killing of civilians no matter how badly you want it to.

Past wars have. What's different now?

 

[NightTwister]

I really want to reach some type of middle ground with you. Can we start by you telling me what you believe "discriminate bombing" and "indiscriminate bombing" means/is to you?

A good example of "indiscriminate" would be what Russia is doing now in Ukraine by intentionally targeting civilian locations with no military value.

 

[Smoke]

Then why are you wasting my time, I have already agreed with this. I agree we can condemn sin, but I don't judge the sinners unless it is my job according to the Noah covenant. I also have no problem referring to decisions made in trials.

Wait, you asked the silly hypothetical question. I just answered it. lol

 

[Smoke]

A good example of "indiscriminate" would be what Russia is doing now in Ukraine by intentionally targeting civilian locations with no military value.

I agree, but that is more an example rather than a definition. Can you try to define them? I'll give you my definition as well and tell me where you object.

Discriminate bombing - Using precision bombing in areas of high military infrastructure and/or militant targets. Consideration for civilian life is given but may still yield some unintended casualties.

Precision bombing - Using bombs which are tailored for isolated areas of destruction as to avoid and limit unintended targets.

Indiscriminate bombing - Using bombs, especially nuclear, which blankets more than the area required for the destruction of military infrastructure and/or militant targets. Civilian life is not a deciding factor and has a higher likelihood to yield civilian casualties than discriminate bombing.

 

[ZNP]

Wait, you asked the silly hypothetical question. I just answered it. lol

No, this discussion began with Post 1153

If God says murder is a sin, it's not judgment from a person who tells the murderer they are in fact a murderer or even they are guilty of sin.

You need to shake the progressive liberalism ideology off that if you say something is a sin/immoral, you are a bigot or you are judging someone. As Christians, our morals are derived from Heavenly Father and are given to us through the inspired word of God. We can call out sin to a sinner, but that isn't a judgment. God has told us the consequence(s) of sin and we aren't to pretend that sin isn't wrong so we can make the sinner more comfortable.

The question is about referring to people as "murderers". I had already said I would condemn murder and would refer to a person convicted of murder as a murderer.

So your saying "you need to shake the progressive liberalism ideology off that if you say something is sin/immoral, you are a bigot or judging someone". Apart from the inferred grammatical errors it seemed you were saying I needed to refer to a person as a murderer who had not been convicted of murder.

You never defended that assertion. And if that assertion was not made your assertion that I need to "shake the progressive liberalism ideology" was baseless. On the contrary I have responded to your "non rhetorical question" and the conclusion is the same. I am not going to call a person a murderer based on allegations and rumours. I will wait until they have had a fair trial and been convicted of murder.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

That is misleading. The civilians who died were on a military base working for the US military. They may not have been enlisted but not fair to call them "civilians" without noting that for the most part they were working for the military (true a few kids were killed but again family members of people who were either in the military or working with the military on the base and chose to do so out of free will.

I am not sure how civilians who volunteer to live on a naval base, and civilians who volunteer to live in a building that houses Hamas military stuff is different. But if you say so

 

[ZNP]

What Israel is About to Do Will Shock the World!

I have listened to this once and will go through it again slowly a second time. This may be the best reference I can find on what the Bible says about what we are seeing and what we are about to see.

 

[Smoke]

Past wars have. What's different now?

Morally speaking, it doesn't.

 

[ZNP]

I am not sure how civilians who volunteer to live on a naval base, and civilians who volunteer to live in a building that houses Hamas military stuff is different. But if you say so

I don't make that distinction unless they are held there against their will. We are seeing Palestinians protesting their government now, imagine what it will be like when they realize it was Hamas that hit the hospital. They are finally seeing that Hamas is using them as human shields and wants atrocities that they can use for propaganda.

 

[Cameron143]

Morally speaking, it doesn't.

Then likely, neither will the results.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

That makes no sense. " Will by no means pass away till all these things take place" is part of that sentence. Normal context would be that the generation he is speaking to will by no means pass away until this happens.

It is a fact

the people WHO SEE (WINTESS) these things.. THAT GENERATION will not pass away

When you (this is the people he is talking to) see these things.. Know that this generation (your generation) who not pass away

No one has seen these things happen up until today..

 

[Smoke]

I answered your question. There is sufficient evidence for an indictment. He was never indicted because he never would have been found guilty. Since when do you get to have a jury of your peers of 12 Americans but can deny that right to someone else?

We aren't talking about an indictment. We are talking about an act which has already been pre-established as murder. I'm trying to show that we do not need to have a trial by jury to know that Truman ordered the nuclear attack. We all know this, but you're objecting to saying he is guilty because he wasn't given a trial? That is insane. lol

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Of course Hamas wouldn't have listened. You're missing the point, and by a lot. The point of Israel warning Palestinians (not Hamas) to "evacuate" was so they could bomb and/or go in and be more discriminate. They knew Hamas wouldn't go... in fact, Hamas told them to stay (those cowards).

You also asked if any other country warns before using offensive weapons, I just gave you an example. The difference is Bush gave Saddam and his sons the warning (along with whatever militants that choose to resist the invasion). This is all irrelevant though. I'm just answering your random questions.

Bush warned saddam. Not Iraq.

It would be like israel warning Hamas, not Palestinians.

1.) Yes, often times civilians are casualties of war. But we can't pretend "casualties of war" are always indiscriminate either. The attack by Hamas on civilians at the music festival was targeted and indiscriminate. Israel knowing that their bombs are going to kill more Palestinian civilian children than ACTUAL Hamas terrorist is also indiscriminate. Surely you know what "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" is?

Sorry But you can;t compair the 2.

Every civilian in Gaza should have known the moment rockets started firing. How long has this been going on now?

I am sorry man, I can not agree with you at all.. don;t compair what Isreal is doing wiht what Hamas did.. Israel is making sure this does not happen again. Civilians will die… Hams will not let them go. Put the blame on where it belongs. Hamas..