Israel Declares War

[Cameron143]

Nor is it surprising when we consider how cavalier the world is about terminating the life of children.

You didn't finish the sentence. It should conclude...in order to make sure this never happens in the future preserving untold numbers of innocent children in the future.

 

[HeIsHere]

Nor is it surprising when we consider how cavalier the world is about terminating the life of children.

It is ridiculous to think that the children dying in Gaza are collateral damage or that they are human shields.

The IDF are not that good, they have no clue what they are doing and have no plan.
Even is one looks at the ratio #of children to #Hamas killed it is obvious the intention is one of terrorizing the inhabitants of Gaza.

They bombed the lines of people fleeing to the north, even as they told them to go north. They have bombed ambulances and have killed reporters.

Time will show them guilty of war crimes. Not only is there indiscriminate bombing they have deliberately rationed food/water to starvation levels before October 7 and have killed innocent civilians trying to bring aid via flotillas.

 

[mailmandan]

JUST IN: Israel President Confirms German-Israeli Citizen Shani Louk, Whose Body Was Seen in Back of a Truck, Was BEHEADED by Hamas terrorists.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...sident-confirms-german-israeli-citizen-shani/

 

[NightTwister]

I'm trying to get a number of how many civilians is too many for people who are in support of bombing Gaza. It's clear people think it's acceptable under the present conditions. So if there isn't a specific number or even a ballpark of how many Palestinian civilians is too many to continue to blow up, then clearly Israel truly is free to kill however many they want.

You first. How many is too many? Is zero the only allowable number?

 

[hornetguy]

A more discriminate way of targeting Hamas. I'm not a general nor do I need to be one to know that killing children should ever be considered. Do you think killing more children than terrorists is an effective strategy?

Please don't ask stupid questions.
No right thinking person wants ANY children to be harmed in war....

What is your solution when the Hamas terrorists deliberately attack from the backyards of Palestinian families? Just let them bang away until they kill a few hundred Jewish children?

Really, I want you to come up with a truly workable way to stop the terrorists without a chance of harming a civilian...... don't offer just complaints.... give us answers...

 

[ZNP]

No country should be allowed to "defend" themselves by blowing up children. What need is there to defend against children? Isn't the target suppose to be Hamas? "Yes, they are targeting Hamas.... even though they are killing exponentially more children in the process."

What about those who kill children without any excuse?

ALERT! ANOTHER MESSAGE SENT OUT - EVACUATION

20 Jewish schools in Paris evacuated because of bomb threats

 

[Smoke]

You first. How many is too many? Is zero the only allowable number?

If they could formulate a strategy to kill 0 civilians, and minimize IDF casualties, that would absolutely be ideal.

Civilian lives expected to occur, but not in exponentially higher numbers than terrorists. So in a special forces ground attack for example, there will still be some civilian casualties. Perhaps a teenaged boy is frighten and runs to a bedroom and is shot by a special forces agent thinking he was going to get a weapon... This is absolutely understandable.

I just don't think a strategy which yields more death of children than terrorist is fruitful or viable unless you have a different agenda than you're stating.

 

[Smoke]

Please don't ask stupid questions.
No right thinking person wants ANY children to be harmed in war....

What is your solution when the Hamas terrorists deliberately attack from the backyards of Palestinian families? Just let them bang away until they kill a few hundred Jewish children?

Really, I want you to come up with a truly workable way to stop the terrorists without a chance of harming a civilian...... don't offer just complaints.... give us answers...

My ability to come up with a viable military plan is of no relevance to the "stupid question" I asked you. So why ask an equally stupid question?

We should both be able to agree that blowing up children is not an effective strategy without having to come up with an alternative military strategy.

 

[ZNP]

My ability to come up with a viable military plan is of no relevance to the "stupid question" I asked you. So why ask an equally stupid question?

We should both be able to agree that blowing up children is not an effective strategy without having to come up with an alternative military strategy.

2Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

 

[Smoke]

2Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Agreed, which is why one shouldn't ask for a military plan when someone else is trying to come to a middle ground that blowing up more children than terrorist is not a good plan.

"Gotcha! You have no plan! So don't say anything when Israel keeps killing more children than terrorists!"

 

[hornetguy]

They bombed the lines of people fleeing to the north, even as they told them to go north. They have bombed ambulances and have killed reporters.

evidence?

 

[Cameron143]

If they could formulate a strategy to kill 0 civilians, and minimize IDF casualties, that would absolutely be ideal.

Civilian lives expected to occur, but not in exponentially higher numbers than terrorists. So in a special forces ground attack for example, there will still be some civilian casualties. Perhaps a teenaged boy is frighten and runs to a bedroom and is shot by a special forces agent thinking he was going to get a weapon... This is absolutely understandable.

I just don't think a strategy which yields more death of children than terrorist is fruitful or viable unless you have a different agenda that you're stating.

Your answer is illogical. Every IDF fighter is someone's child. And it is the sworn duty of all Western nations to protect their own citizens first. Your thinking is like that of BLM. Only certain lives matter. What is the difference in value of a Palestinian child and an IDF soldier? And why aren't you demanding that Hamas stop using civilians as shields?

 

[NightTwister]

If they could formulate a strategy to kill 0 civilians, and minimize IDF casualties, that would absolutely be ideal.

Civilian lives expected to occur, but not in exponentially higher numbers than terrorists. So in a special forces ground attack for example, there will still be some civilian casualties. Perhaps a teenaged boy is frighten and runs to a bedroom and is shot by a special forces agent thinking he was going to get a weapon... This is absolutely understandable.

I just don't think a strategy which yields more death of children than terrorist is fruitful or viable unless you have a different agenda than you're stating.

You wouldn't accept an answer like that from the other side. Zero civilian casualties is never achievable in war. Your examples aren't a number. If you're requesting an number from the other side, you should be ready to provide the same.

 

[hornetguy]

My ability to come up with a viable military plan is of no relevance to the "stupid question" I asked you. So why ask an equally stupid question?

We should both be able to agree that blowing up children is not an effective strategy without having to come up with an alternative military strategy.

No.... there has to be a solution.... unless you are suggesting that Israel just let Hamas rocket and raid/butcher them all to death with no retaliation.....

So, instead of decrying the death of children, you need to tell the world how to take out Hamas with zero collateral damage....
Otherwise, you should probably just zip it.
The world does not need more empty headed loud mouthed complainers.

 

[Smoke]

Your answer is illogical. Every IDF fighter is someone's child. And it is the sworn duty of all Western nations to protect their own citizens first. Your thinking is like that of BLM. Only certain lives matter. What is the difference in value of a Palestinian child and an IDF soldier? And why aren't you demanding that Hamas stop using civilians as shields?

Conflating civilian children under the age of 18 to armed military personnel who are adult children of other adult people is illogical.

 

[hornetguy]

Zero civilian casualties is never achievable in war.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but who has Hamas TARGETED in their attack on Israel? I don't think very many IDF soldiers were killed at all.... nearly 100% CIVILIAN, including women and children.... is that not correct?

 

[Smoke]

You wouldn't accept an answer like that from the other side. Zero civilian casualties is never achievable in war. Your examples aren't a number. If you're requesting an number from the other side, you should be ready to provide the same.

You're right, because Hamas is a terrorist group. We agree on this point.

I am wanting a number or a ballpark of where it becomes unacceptable to continue bombing Gaza. If there isn't one, then just say you don't believe there is a number. In which case, why wouldn't they just use a neutron bomb and claim they are targeting Hamas while they kill all 2 mil of them?

The argument has been made that as long as you "target" Hamas, you have the green light to kill children. Is there a number or ballpark where this statement is no longer true because it's killing far too many children?

 

[Smoke]

No.... there has to be a solution.... unless you are suggesting that Israel just let Hamas rocket and raid/butcher them all to death with no retaliation.....

So, instead of decrying the death of children, you need to tell the world how to take out Hamas with zero collateral damage....
Otherwise, you should probably just zip it.
The world does not need more empty headed loud mouthed complainers.

I don't need to give military strategy to anyone. I can state our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable of God's children in spite of not coming up with a plan.

People have already devised plans which are more discriminate in attacking Hamas. Google them. You're asking someone who doesn't have military experience to come up with a plan before you can agree that blowing up more children than terrorists is a bad strategy.

 

[NightTwister]

You're right, because Hamas is a terrorist group. We agree on this point.

I am wanting a number or a ballpark of where it becomes unacceptable to continue bombing Gaza. If there isn't one, then just say you don't believe there is a number. In which case, why wouldn't they just use a neutron bomb and claim they are targeting Hamas while they kill all 2 mil of them?

The argument has been made that as long as you "target" Hamas, you have the green light to kill children. Is there a number or ballpark where this statement is no longer true because it's killing far too many children?

You asked for a number of acceptable civilian deaths. I'm asking you to answer your own question first. Large, bold, red font doesn't make it any more urgent for me.

 

[Cameron143]

Conflating civilian children under the age of 18 to armed military personnel who are adult children of other adult people is illogical.

Then simply answer the question...morally, what is the difference in value?