Look, as I already noted, your standard for Israel would leave Israel defenseless and unwilling to defend herself.
Second, how is dropping leaflets notifying Gazans to evacuate, using smart weapons, targetting weapons at all equivalent to using suicide bombers and unguided weapons, designed only to inflict maximum civilian casualties?
What is difficult to understand about this?
You're right, you're not saying Israel doesn't have a right to defend herself, only that Israel should not defend herself because doing so would violate your sensibilities.I'm not saying Israel has no right to defend itself, I'm saying that we should hold them to a higher standard than that which we condemn our enemies for.
It could also be a targetted task force that lowers the amount of civilian casualties, but puts added risk on their own soldiers, who are willing combatantss, unlike the 40 civilians killed.Yeah, It could be a dummy rocket that the Arabs and Muslims fire into israel. It could be untargetted artillery fire. It could be dummy bombs just pickeled off aircraft with no concern for their targets.
So you attack me when I do? Very well. Seems amazingly stupid to me, but have at it.Because nothing you had stated previously suggested that you believed Hamas was guilty of anything.
Why? So you can attack me for "stating the obvious".Measured judgment on your part.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Last edited by Goobieman; 01-09-09 at 01:33 PM.
Holding someone to a higher standard is expecting them not to engage in the behavior you find INexcusable from someone else.
If I find it inexcusable for Hamas to kill civilians, I find it EQUALLY inexcusable for Israel to do so.
I do not want the US to ally with Hamas specifically BECAUSE of their inexcusable behavior. Thus, I ALSO want my ally to not engage in the same INexcuxsable behavior.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Originally Posted by Iriemon
So Israel used smart bombs to attack a school when mortar fire came from outside the school.
If you have an issue with that, take it up with the source.
Were you an eye witness?I'd agree if that were the case. It wasn't.
Iriemon: Cite that Israel warned the school to evacuate before shooting at it with smart bombs?Jmak: Who argued they had?
Moderator's Warning: General Thread Warning - I realize that this is a volatile topic. However, every topic can and must be be discussed with civility. So let's plz drop all the personal animosity and concentrate on civil debate. Passion is fine, but personal attacks must cease. Infractions/Thread Bans will ensue if this warning goes unheeded.
אשכנזי היהודי • Белый Россию
Right...so a mortar team sets up and fires their weapon. Then, they're moving because they know IDF can triangulate on their position.It could also be a targetted task force that lowers the amount of civilian casualties, but puts added risk on their own soldiers, who are willing combatantss, unlike the 40 civilians killed.
What you're arguing for is not a limited size force. Your logic here would require a large presence in Gaza to rapidly move and attack suspected positions.
Because I have no confidence in your good faith.So you attack me when I do? Very well. Seems amazingly stupid to me, but have at it.
If you possessed and applied measured judgment you wouldn't be advocating for Israeli behavior that would render her defenseless and concedes the advantage, tactically and morally, to Hamas.Why? So you can attack me for "stating the obvious".
I see, so we can only comment if we're eyewitnesses.Were you an eye witness?
So, you are here discussing this....why?
You agree with what? No one commented either way.But I agree that with the school it doesn't sound like that warned anyone.
Still misrepresenting comments and posts, liar?