Geopolitics and Wars of Israel

[yesitsme]

Enough until they aren't able to fire any rockets at all. (Israel will never do that, but they are entitled to)

If they're still trying to kill me, of course!

And theyre stupid for not,

As seen here
https://streamable.com/5nmsod

[Yehuda57]

Fair answer.
Now if I say you should not does that mean I hate you or I just feel what you are doing is wrong?

It's tantamount to wishing me dead, so yeah, I'd say you hate me.

[drosenberg88429]

I agree.
What if they failed in their attempt. Would you go hunt them down?

If they missed their first shot and are in middle of reloading? Hell yes. They haven't given up yet, and are still an active threat. Vengeance is not even in play yet.

I think that a point is being confused, though. Nobody sane is decrying the deaths of militants. It's the civilian casualties which are under moral debate.

[CountValentine]

@CountValentine if you are wearing a bullet proof vest and someone (happans to be a terrorist soppurted by iran) shoots at you time and again would you take advice to show restraint?

Yes I would show restraint. To me that means putting two in his head but leaving the family alone.

[CountValentine]

It's tantamount to wishing me dead, so yeah, I'd say you hate me.

Not only don't I wish you dead but wished you got them right away instead of hunting them down.

[yesitsme]

Yes I would show restraint. To me that means putting two in his head but leaving the family alone.

And if he has his baby in his backpack and entering a stadium with his riffle out to shoot and you're guard what would you do? Should you be critisized for taking them both out (of course its painfull that it had to happan but you have a choice to ignore or shoot)

[drosenberg88429]

Yes I would show restraint. To me that means putting two in his head but leaving the family alone.

I'm glad that everyone is in agreement that there is no ethical question regarding putting 2 in the head of the one actively attempting to kill you, even if his current efforts seem to have a low degree of likelihood of being effective. His life is not the one we are trying to protect.

[CountValentine]

I think that a point is being confused, though. Nobody sane is decrying the deaths of militants. It's the civilian casualties which are under moral debate.

Exactly!!! So how many civilian casualties are acceptable to get the scumbags that are trying to kill you.

[Yehuda57]

Not only don't I wish you dead but wished you got them right away instead of hunting them down.

We didn't get them right away, because they were hiding behind their family and we didn't want to kill them. Now they came back with more powerful guns. And they are still hiding behind kids

[yelped]

We didn't get them right away, because they were hiding behind their family and we didn't want to kill them. Now they came back with more powerful guns. And they are still hiding behind kids

Exactly. The more the world shields Hamas by decrying civilian casualties, the more the world is empowering Hamas to keep on doing it and endangering more civilians.

[drosenberg88429]

Exactly!!! So how many civilian casualties are acceptable to get the scumbags that are trying to kill you.

 

Anyone who is in the process of knowingly and willingly attempting murder has voluntarily given up the right for the morality of their threat elimination to be ascertained.

If one were to draw a moral dilemma, I believe the appropriate example would be a murderer hiding behind 1000 human shields. In such a scenerio, the question can be posed whether there is any moral justification to kill an innocent person to save yourself. On the other side of the equation, it's not just you at risk, but an entire population whom you are charged with protecting.

This is the question which ethical conundrum books were written about. However, there is a number in which most proponents of non interventionism in the trolley problem would switch over to advocating for sacrificing the life of one to save the lives of many. What that number is, I do not know. Neither does the Geneva convention or the ICC. The only thing they do agree is that a country's first responsibility is towards its citizens whom it is charged with protecting, and the elimination of a threat towards its citizens is justified even when it inevitably comes at a civilian cost.

[yesitsme]

Exactly!!! So how many civilian casualties are acceptable to get the scumbags that are trying to kill you.

I have news for you, there is no other country in the world that cares for civilians as isreal, which country drops warning bombs before they drop the bomb?

[CountValentine]

And if he has his baby in his backpack and entering a stadium with his riffle out to shoot and you're guard what would you do? Should you be critisized for taking them both out (of course its painfull that it had to happan but you have a choice to ignore or shoot)

Finally an easy question. I put one in his head with my Steyr SSG from 100 yards away. 

[M3B3LY]

Exactly!!! So how many civilian casualties are acceptable to get the scumbags that are trying to kill you.

0, and that's why every precaution is taken, so that there is none.

But unfortunately, when the terrorists force it to happen, are you supposed to instead sir back and fiddle your thumbs?

[yesitsme]

Finally an easy question. I put one in his head with my Steyr SSG from 100 yards away. 

But the baby is between you and him

[Yehuda57]

Exactly!!! So how many civilian casualties are acceptable to get the scumbags that are trying to kill you.

The civilian casualties are not Israel's fault, they are Hamas'. Calling out Israel when you should be calling out Hamas, stopping their funding, etc, is *exactly* what proves the bias

[CountValentine]

I have news for you, there is know other country in the world that cares for civilians as isreal, which country drops warning bombs before they drop the bomb?

Didn't we drop pamphlets before some of the raids in Iraq?

[CountValentine]

The civilian casualties are not Israel's fault, they are Hamas'.

Not many would agree with this black/white statement.

[drosenberg88429]

Btw, if the world wouldn't decry the deaths of these civilians, because they would understand that country being attacked by terrorist militants had no choice, Hamas wouldn't launch rockets out of preschools, as they would have nothing to gain from doing so in terms of optics. AP is the real murderers here (and the other people falling for this garbage and condemning Israel). They are the catalysts for these innocent lives being lost.

[CountValentine]

Btw, if the world wouldn't decry the deaths of these civilians, because they would understand that country being attacked by terrorist militants had no choice, Hamas wouldn't launch rockets out of preschools, as they would have nothing to gain from doing so in terms of optics. AP is the real murderers here (and the other people falling for this garbage and condemning Israel). They are the catalysts for these innocent lives being lost.

I will say it again. Israel is in a no win situation. There are going to be civilian casualties when going after the terrorist.