Israel Declares War

No, the nature of the event is man-stealing (bad) vs. military response to unprovoked military action (good). It does still debunk it, no matter how badly you don't want it to. I get that you don't get this.

I never said Hiroshima was terrorism. You might be mixing up the argument with that Moses guy. I explicitly stated a common attribute between her view and Hamas' view. I'll repeat: If you think murdering innocent civilians who belong to a people you are in war with is kosher, then you have something in common with Hamas.

Is it your belief that Hamas doesn't attack innocent Israelis or that Japanese civilians weren't attacked? I'm trying to find your objection.

You're saying it debunks without explaining how. I'm reminded of a South Park episode...



Phase 1 is the correlation I showed in sentiments changing over time. Phase 3 is your claim Phase 1 has been debunked. Can you fill in Phase 2 please? I get that you don't get it, but hopefully this helps explain the disconnect.

I explained. I get that you don't get it.

I don't think that anybody is going to win this mess.
I do think that the Palestinian people are going to lose the most.
Israel is going to come down vary hard, the UN will harshly criticize Israel... maybe make declarations against them.
Some Hamas leaders will be killed and captured... but the real leaders of Hamas will lay low and rise to power later on. They probably aren't any near Gaza or Israel but hiding out in Egypt, Iran or Syria.

and life will go on as before.

ThereRoseaLamb said:

You, like Smoke, are conflating two situations. Do you not understand the difference I am talking about?

Click to expand...

To be clear, I don't think what Hamas is doing and what America did to Japan are the same exact thing. I am comparing how if you think it's justified to murder Japanese civilians because we were at war with their country, then you must also think it's justified for Hamas to murder innocent Israelis since they too are in war with Israel.

I'm saying, unless God commands the shedding of innocent blood (which He has done biblically), it's not okay to murder innocent civilians simply because you're at war with that nation.

The only explanation you gave was that you consider the atrocities... I agree that it is to be taken into consideration. That still doesn't debunk the trend. We can consider each atrocity, and because thoughts and sentiments of people change over time, there is a clear trend. The poll illustrates that trend. You may not like that the sentiments have changed from post WWII to 2015, it nevertheless is a trend that would continue with other crimes against humanity (slavery being a separate albeit different atrocity). I get that you don't get this.

I never said "consider the atrocities." This is how I know you don't get it.

Yeah, I think Israel will come out of this war okay - they always have. I agree with you that Palestinians will get the worst of it. Which is why they should remove their support of Hamas and just become Christians (I know, I know - it won't happen).


🍉

This is not true. That is not what happened. I do not know where you are getting your history. The land belonged to the Jews years before the Arabs were there.




No it's not complicated at all. The land Biblically and historically belongs to the Jews.

Ok, you answered my question. This is what I was trying to point out. We agree.

So you didn't say this: "Yes, it does disprove the correlation, because the nature of the event is part of what is being considered, not just the time passing."

All things being considered, the nature of the event, the event itself, time and the change in sentiments, etc... people will continue to disapprove of atrocities/crimes against humanity the more time goes on.

Imagine a husband and a wife getting in a really heated argument one morning before work. They are at work and self-reflect the events that unfolded. They cool off and are able to see things with more clarity which they were unable to do because of the freshness of the heated exchange. Now multiply this by millions, and we see a shift in sentiments about it. Hopefully we can reach SOME middle ground?

Hey, all three of us agree then. I never made that claim. lol I'm not MOses Young.

This post amazes me! It's like the total opposite of the reality of the historical accounts?
Can I ask where you are getting your history from?

Here's a Jewish source:
Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present) (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

that may be a valid comparison, but to simply correlate people who think Hiroshima was a valid response to those who support Hamas is too vague and unnecessary. The word Hamas only adds confusion.

Innocent bystanders are often killed in war regardless to how well you try not to have collateral damage. So the first point is not about killing them but about targeting them.

So instead I would say "If you think it was OK to target civilians in Hiroshima then that is no different from anyone else who thinks targeting civilians will be useful in fighting a war".

Okay, welp... At least you're consistent in sticking with your narrative that murdering innocent civilians is justified if you're in war. At this point, we just have to agree to disagree.

@ZNP I know you confused what Moses said with what I actually said, I'm just curious if you co-sign with this....

Yes, I said that. Nowhere in that did I say "consider the atrocities", because that's not what I was talking about. If I was, I would've said so.

All things being considered, the nature of the event, the event itself, time and the change in sentiments, etc... people will continue to disapprove of atrocities/crimes against humanity the more time goes on.

Imagine carefully planning to murder someone, and successfully carrying out your plan. Now imagine someone has broken into your home and threatened you, and you killed them in self-defense. Now multiply this by millions.

My feeling is that it is foolish to think some law will protect you during war. All you have to do is look at human history to think that laws and codes of conduct are often ignored during war.

Instead I feel everyone needs to realize that "as you have done it will be done unto you".

If you think that Hiroshima was an acceptable action to take then don't complain when nukes fall on your city.

Absolutely not!! It is mind boggling that you don't know the difference. The Nazi's intended to wipe out the Jews. These two things do not correlate. Hiroshima was an answer to a terrorist attack on American soil.

We just have a totally different world view. I can't wrap my head around yours. Sorry.

Continue please... I'm trying to link how the correlation between the sentiments across different generations is debunked. We both agree that the atrocities are different. They also don't need to be equal to show that people view atrocities differently today than they did nearly a century ago.

Let me ask directly, why did you object to my belief that if we compared American sentiments of racial slavery in 1860 to sentiments in 2023, we would find more people opposing it? Do you disagree?