I respect you, but you need to understand that you and I are going to disagree as to whether or not Israel's response is appropriate under the circumstances. We could go through this whole tête-à-tête again, and we will reduce our respective positions down to this same disagreement.
Where exactly did you get it from?
Don't be daft. We've both been reading articles based on the same announcements by the hamas-run gazan health ministry. We both know those numbers are overstated, but my point remains the same whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
Why exactly do you think you need to throw big numbers here?
IDK, why did you include 100,000 in your response?
But when hamas fires missiles from some building that, for example, has 100,000 civillians in it, it is hamas who says “it is okay if all these people are killed”, not Israel.
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
You still didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if you want more people to live but it proves a point. You can't trust terrorists.
why did you include 100,000 in your response?
To emphasize that even if that many are going to be killed technically by Israeli bombs, it's really hamas who put those people to danger in the first place. I don't think the defender is obligated to be 100% sure that no civillians would die from their strikes.
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
Who, hamas? Well look at that, they turned out to be the good guys huh? Could it have something to do with iron dome and how Israel is actually trying to protect its citizens, I wonder? Hmm... Nah. Fuck Israel for having more casualties in their reckless bombing, right?
Goodness me. You're really stuck in this goodies vs baddies mentality.
You don't need to pick a side. You can condemn both sides for their shitty behavior.
Hamas are terrorists. They're untrustworthy. They're rapists and murderers.
Israel are causing a humanitarian crisis. The death of non-combatants on this scale is unacceptable.
Neither side are good guys.
Again, our disagreement centres around what level of force is appropriate to the threat.
Israel's citizens have been relatively safe from Hamas in recent years. Iron dome is very effective. All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions. Of course this doesn't "erase Hamas", but it's just not possible to do that. You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
And again, you didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
Neither side are good guys.
One side are terrorists.
All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions.
Is that what you call shitty behavior that you condemn Israel for? That's less than optimal.
You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
Doesn't sound true or right to me. This is like saying you can't rid the world of murderers. Manipulation here is that someone would understand the thought as "better leave them alone", and we know it doesn't work like that.
Sorry chief. I'm just not going to reply to you any more. In every comment you're pushing a false dichotomy whereby criticizing Israel is somehow tantamount to endorsing Hamas. It's great to disagree on things but this is going nowhere.
See above. You said you have the solution but failed to explain it. This is why you look wrong when criticizing Israel.
There is only one dichotomy and it's about being or not being terrorists. Israel is not special in how it reacts to terrorism and therefore doesn't deserve any special criticism about it.
You again.
I respect you, but you need to understand that you and I are going to disagree as to whether or not Israel's response is appropriate under the circumstances. We could go through this whole tête-à-tête again, and we will reduce our respective positions down to this same disagreement.
Don't be daft. We've both been reading articles based on the same announcements by the hamas-run gazan health ministry. We both know those numbers are overstated, but my point remains the same whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
IDK, why did you include 100,000 in your response?
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
You still didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
It doesn't matter if you want more people to live but it proves a point. You can't trust terrorists.
To emphasize that even if that many are going to be killed technically by Israeli bombs, it's really hamas who put those people to danger in the first place. I don't think the defender is obligated to be 100% sure that no civillians would die from their strikes.
Who, hamas? Well look at that, they turned out to be the good guys huh? Could it have something to do with iron dome and how Israel is actually trying to protect its citizens, I wonder? Hmm... Nah. Fuck Israel for having more casualties in their reckless bombing, right?
Goodness me. You're really stuck in this goodies vs baddies mentality.
You don't need to pick a side. You can condemn both sides for their shitty behavior.
Hamas are terrorists. They're untrustworthy. They're rapists and murderers.
Israel are causing a humanitarian crisis. The death of non-combatants on this scale is unacceptable.
Neither side are good guys.
Again, our disagreement centres around what level of force is appropriate to the threat.
Israel's citizens have been relatively safe from Hamas in recent years. Iron dome is very effective. All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions. Of course this doesn't "erase Hamas", but it's just not possible to do that. You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
And again, you didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
One side are terrorists.
Is that what you call shitty behavior that you condemn Israel for? That's less than optimal.
Doesn't sound true or right to me. This is like saying you can't rid the world of murderers. Manipulation here is that someone would understand the thought as "better leave them alone", and we know it doesn't work like that.
Sorry chief. I'm just not going to reply to you any more. In every comment you're pushing a false dichotomy whereby criticizing Israel is somehow tantamount to endorsing Hamas. It's great to disagree on things but this is going nowhere.
See above. You said you have the solution but failed to explain it. This is why you look wrong when criticizing Israel.
There is only one dichotomy and it's about being or not being terrorists. Israel is not special in how it reacts to terrorism and therefore doesn't deserve any special criticism about it.