Israel Declares War

Hold them to their own standard:

Can you quote me where I asked what the "acceptable civilian deaths" is?

So the big bold red is just reasking what I asked before you tried to spin this around on me. I did answer your question though. Will you please answer mine now?

In other words, you have no solutions. So, since Israel cannot root out and kill Hamas without possibly/probably injuring or killing some civilians, then nothing should be done.... that about cover it?

When IDF forces start going door to door to root them out, what should they do when the terrorist is hiding behind an innocent family? Just lower their weapons and say.... "ok, you get a free pass, because we cannot risk any danger to civilians".....

Pollyanna, much? War is hell. Soldiers die. Civilians die. War is hell....... and should be avoided, if possible. If a bully is hiding behind a girl, punching you repeatedly in the nose, when is it ok to punch back?

pssst.... the answer is NOW, and try to not hit the girl in the process.

When two groups are at war, one enemy combatant killing another enemy combatant isn't held to the same moral standard than an enemy combatant killing a civilian.

You're essentially arguing that Hamas killing Israeli civilians is not any more morally wrong than if they targeted the IDF on Oct 7th. That is a huge hot take that I don't even think people on your side would agree with you on. They aren't the same thing.

In other words, STOP conflating civilians with military personnel.

here...
"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."

oh, and here...

"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?"

Post #2,567 which is the one I first replied to. You did not answer my question. I don't expect that you will.

Can you bold the quote where I supposedly said that? I sincerely can't see where I said anything about an acceptable number... I did bold where I said anything with the word "acceptable" in it for you though....

hornetguy quoted that post. I didn't say anything about an "acceptable" number of deaths. Please reread?

The big bold red text from the other post that you refused to answer is the same thing I initially asked. You just misunderstood what I was asking.

Go play semantics with someone else... you know you said it, or implied it... I gave you two of your own quotes....
now you want to pull a slick willie on everyone.... tell me what the definition of "is" is.... childish

That's not what I'm doing. The question I asked was between Palestinian children and Israeli fighters. And you refuse to answer because the answer unravels your entire argument.
The answer is...all lives have the same intrinsic value because all bear the image of God. You want to introduce emotional considerations to bolster your argument. God is no respecter of persons.

You're still refusing to highlight or bold where I asked for "an acceptable number of deaths". I never used "acceptable" together with "number of deaths" in a post. I even said civilian deaths were to be expected even in a discriminate attack and provided a scenario where it would be understandable.

The argument was made over and over again in this thread that if Israel "targets" Hamas, then they have the green light to continue bombing Gaza and killing more children than Terrorists. My question is, is there a number of civilian deaths where this argument is no longer true? It's really a "yes" or "no" question. I've simplified it so you don't even have to give an "acceptable number of deaths" as that wasn't what I was asking in the first place.

I didn't say it nor implied it. You're quoting me and then when you realize I didn't say what you think I said, you're accusing me of playing semantics.

I EXPLICITLY stated that civilian casualties should be expected even in discriminate attacks. I even gave a scenario of such a scenario. Why would I then take the stance of only 0 casualties? I just don't believe there should be more children casualties than terrorist casualties. I would think a change in strategy would be appropriate when more children are blow to bits than terrorists. You seem to disagree.

You aren't unravelling any argument when you conflate a military combatant killing another military combatant to a military combatant killing a civilian. Thankyfully, very few will agree with you. We can agree to disagree.

You don't understand military strategy, you don't understand the responsibility of leaders to their citizenry, you don't understand the intrinsic value of every life, you have no solution. You merely make an emotional appeal and believe there is a solution that will produce it. That's the same philosophy that BLM employed that led to defunding police in major cities and led to further loss of innocent life.
However well intentioned and sincere you may be, what you desire leads to an acceleration of the problem; not its solution.

Conflating civilians to military combatants and now comparing being in favor of a more discriminate strategy to BLM philosophy. Got it.

They shot the child to "save lives". She is just "collateral damage". "But Hamas started it."

That's all you're going to hear from some people about this story. If you want someone to sympathize with a child, share a story of Hamas murdering an Israeli child. People actually care about them.

Needevidence said:

The Zionist Israeli state has committed numerous atrocities for decades - the war didnt just start

Click to expand...

The truth will set you free
Needevidence, thank you for that post
-