Search results

That was the long version to say "Nevermind, it's not 'always more moral to preserve more, not less life.'" So in essence, it's a silly question to ask which is more moral saving 10,000 lives or 100,000. Got it. As much as we like things to be put in a dichotomy, we can agree it's not always...

It's because I have studied history that I disagree with you.

Some people deny or are unaware of what happened in 1948. The crazy thing is that there are people (Jewish and Palestinian) alive today that will tell you this happened... Unfortunately, even my home boy Ben Shapiro refuses to believe it. I sort of get why he would want to deny/refuse to believe...

If your logic states that fewer people killed is always better no matter what, would you see it as morally sound for all 8 billion non-Jews around the world to kill the 16.1 million Jews on earth IF it meant saving more than 16.1 million lives would be preserved long term (future generations)...

I read this this morning. If this is true, this provides further motive for why Israel has stated they weren't going for precision bombing and instead going for widespread destruction in Gaza. Israel would be stealing Palestinian natural resources, taking the Gaza Strip back, and many Christians...

Yeah agreed. The parents and nearly 50% of the population need to arm themselves with rocks and eradicate Hamas from Gaza all while dodging airstrikes from Israel. What a waste.

I have been scratching my head about it as well. People suddenly using the same news sources that they have been repeating as fake news for years are now telling the truth in their one-sided "journalism" of Israel. That isn't to say a broken clock is right twice a day in fairness. As for your...

This is the key dispute. This is the conversation we need to have. Some people agree, some people disagree. As long as we are on the same page the majority of people aren't "supporting Hamas" for objecting to how Israel is "targeting" Hamas. We are disagreeing on how TO get rid of them. There...

Unless I'm mistaken, I think Japan, today, is more anti-war and more pro-self defense. I would love to know their opinion on blowing up more civilian children than actual Hamas terrorists constitutes "self-defense". I know some here make that case... I adamantly disagree.

I understand what you're saying. I repeat it to continue hammering the point. Some might say it's an "emotional" tactic, but it's really a factual statement (which you admit to). I don't think we should just say "Oh well, collateral damage." I'm not able to dismiss human life as easily as...

Sounds fair to me. Many might be scared leaving it to Japan to make a determination because of what the US did to them during WWII. However, if they feel it was isolated and discriminate in their bombing of Gaza, I would be really shocked.

It's a circular argument at this point. As for the histrionics, do you have any examples of this? Is making the factual statement that Israel blows up more children than Hamas terrorists an example? I like to point out, factually, what is happening so there isn't any confusion as to what I'm...

Agreed, Hamas attempts to create sympathy for themselves knowing Israel will still blow the children up in their pursuit of being targeted. The reality of it is that people aren't sympathizing with Hamas... They want them eradicated from the earth. They feel sick about all the civilians getting...

I will be honest and say I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. I really do try to understand people's points though. I'm not sure who disagrees Palestinian civilians are being used as human shields. It's clear that they are but it doesn't deter or change anything. Israel will still bomb Gaza...

That wasn't the point. It was a hypothetical scenario/question from a page or two ago.

Hamas probably laughs that we call their civilians "human shields" though. They are probably asking themselves, "Do these idiots really think human bodies can shield us from airstrikes?! Hahahaha!" It should be well established that Israel is going to bomb them along with the "human shields"...

Refer to my post above about the indiscriminate attacks. My apologies for distracting you from my question though. Who here has said it's not a war crime to use Palestinian civilians as human-sheilds?

You sort of explained some of it already. The terrorists (Hamas) try to prevent civilians from leaving. If reports are true, Hamas has shot at them... Then the ones who are able to go south have been blown up going down the route they said would be safe. It's damned if you do, damned if you...

You should call those people out by name who have stated using civilians as human-shields is not a war crime. Who believes it's not a war crime to do so? The human-shields are victims of Hamas and indiscriminate Israeli attacks.

That list seems very accurate about Hamas. I will go a step further and say I would rather be under Israeli rule than Hamas rule. Very easy to state this. Perhaps my point isn't coming across as clearly as I am hoping. Pointing out terroristic things Hamas does, DOES NOT MEAN that Israel isn't...