- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Hamas has many members - at all levels of the organization - who aren't particularly interested in destroying Israel.
Who are they?
Hamas has many members - at all levels of the organization - who aren't particularly interested in destroying Israel.
Irrelevant to the issue.Has there ever been a missle silo in a school to your knowledge?
Irrelevant to the issue.
You're arguing that there's --never-- a legitmate reason to level a school.
He simply wants to see if you're --sure-- that you mean that.
Its a hypothetical designed to test your position -- IF someone were to place a missile silo...I've explained that my initial premise that led to the statement is based on that which is possible. If I can be shown that a situation would ever exist that shows that the situation described is indeed plausible, instead of implausible (which my assertion assumes) then the statement would be changed accordingly.
On what do you base that?In my opinion, if it is possible that the enemy can create a truly legitimate threat, they would NOT hide this legitimate threat at a school.
Its a hypothetical designed to test your position -- IF someone were to place a missile silo...
Arguing against the given is generally considered a concession of the point.
On what do you base that?
You've stated that the Hypothetical is plausible, my contention is that it will never happen. I am willing to change my view if you show me that it is probable by showing a legitimate threat coming from a school.
As far as the hypothetical goes, I honestly don't see it as plausible, so I can't answer it with honesty without defeating my own logic which I based on what I think is plausible.
I truly do not think it is plausible for a legitimate threat to come form a school that cannot be defeated with ground forces instead of blowing up the school.
If such a threat were to exist, I would need to change my logic as then it would have been based on a faulty premise (i.e. that it isn't plausible for a legitimate threat to come from a school).
Perhaps, I overstated things by not clarifying that this is my initial premise. this is an over-heated discussion, and I apologize for any disrespect I may have given.
Let me simply answer the hypothetical that you've described, but please the fact that I don't think that is a plausible scenario in mind:
If a legitimate threat existed, that had a high probability of efficacy, such as a missile silo would, at a school, that school would cease to be a school in my opinion. It would become a legitimate military target specifically because it would become a legitimate military threat.
That being said (conceded, if you will), the hypothetical does NOT apply to this particular situation for a multitude of reasons nor does it have any basis in reality in that it has never been seen to date.
If I am wrong, and such a legitimate threat has ever existed within a school, I will retract my comments that there is never a justification to bomb a school. But as I have not been faced with that, only a hypothetical scenario I find implausible, I cannot in good conscious retract, since the scenario is not based on reality but only what I deem to be an implausible hypothetical that has never been reached to date.
The veracity of a position is often tested by hyoptheticals.My comment did not relate to hypotheticals, just reality.
That it hasnt yet happened means that it will never happen?The lack of any legitimate threats coming from schools, as displayed by the lack of evidence.
Not at all true. Weapons are hidden all the time. Concealment from observation is a standard practice.Legitimate threats do not rely on hiding their weapons, because of the fact that they are indeed legitimate threats.
So you agree, that if a 'legitimate threat' were emplaced within a school, leveling the school would be justified.But all that being said, I actually have directly answered teh hypothetical, admitting that it would defeat my logic if it were a reality instead of a hypothetical (Parts in bold are relevant, the underlined bold parts being the most relevant):
The veracity of a position is often tested by hyoptheticals.
For instance:
Statement:
"I would never kill anyone"
Response:
"If the only way to stop your daughter from being raped was to kill someone, would you kill that someone?"
The "if" in the hypothetcial creates a given, that the situation described has occoured -- that you don't actually have a daughter is irrelevant.
As such, your requirement for an actual example is meaningless.
That it hasnt yet happened means that it will never happen?
So... we'll never be visited by aliens. Right?
Not at all true. Weapons are hidden all the time. Concealment from observation is a standard practice.
So you agree, that if a 'legitimate threat' were emplaced within a school, leveling the school would be justified.
So, you SHOULD have said "there has never been".Would is a future tense. I did not say "There could never be....", I said "there is never...".
Good enough.I would say that "If a legitimate, effective and imminent threat were housed in a school AND a ground strike was an impossible response to prevent the attack, then leveling the school MAY be justified."
If a legitimate, efficient and imminent threat were shown to actually exist at a school where a ground force were an impossiblity to prevent the attack, I would say that the lesser of two evils would likely fall on destroying the school.
So, you SHOULD have said "there has never been".
If so... big deal. All you're stating is hat you believe to have already occoured.
Good enough.
I cannot tell you how many times I have asked that question, without then receiving an answer.How do you negotiate with people whose platform is your death?
How do you negotiate with people whos platform is your death?
Tell us your obtusitivity here is just for fun. Please.Is Hamas' platform the death of the Obama camp?
Tell us your obtusitivity here is just for fun. Please.
If I were Israel, I think I would be very skeptcal of this.A bit, but not totally.
The thread is specifically about the Obama camp negotiating with Hamas, not Israel.
Without any such renunciation, negotiations, on anyones' part, are useless.Like I said earlier in this thread, first and foremost, Hamas must renounce any desire to destroy Israel at the very beginning of any negotiations.
If I were Israel, I think I would be very skeptcal of this.
Without any such renunciation, negotiations, on anyones' part, are useless.