That isn't a new vacuum, that is you choosing to ignore terrorism and deny a people a right to self-defense. It makes no difference who is more relatively wealthy or militarily capabale. If you can't ethically fight another country, don't fight them. Israel doesn't have to allow their people to be killed by terrorists because the "Palestinians" are not as wealthy or militarily capable. I don't have to let a 5'1" 110 lb. guy punch me without reprisal. I can beat him senseless if he tries to hit me. It is on him to recognize that he doesn't have the real capability to win a fight and, as a result, not start a fight in the first place. Hamas chose to start a fight they could not win. Israel is well within their rights to continue the fight until Hamas surrenders or is destroyed. Don't poke the bear. Don't tug on Superman's cape. Whatever cliche you want to apply. Hamas bit off more than they could chew, and because they are feckless cowards, the people in Gaza are paying the price. I wish they would all operate out of designated military bases and fight their enemies according to the customary laws of war. They do not. As such, they are fair game wherever they are to be found, and if there are innocent people in the vicinity, then that is the choices that were made by Hamas and those innocent people. Recently, Israel offered to let all non-hosties to go into a safe zone, subject to search for weapons. It seems that no one chose to do so. What does that tell you about the "innocent Palestinians"?
It can be boiled down to this point, if a child is hitting me I would have the green light in your eyes to strangle that child. Okie dokie. If hamas has the capability to paraglide and kill 1500, Israel has the green light to kill a million of them. Okie dokie Gonna disagree
Clearly, yes. If someone attacks you, you are allowed to defend yourself, even if they are weaker than you.
No. Clearly no dude, I don't have the right to strangle a child hitting me. Self defense is extremely different from going into an offensive rage out of anger and revenge. If a child is hitting me I have the right to restrain that child, not to snap its neck. Legally this is called excessive force, and socially it's called being a monster. Dear lord help me, why do I have to type this out.
I think it's horrific for anyone to kill innocent children, and consider it a crime against humanity. It's the perpetrators of those crimes I condemn, regardless of who they are.
It's pretty scary that he is a prosecutor, lawyer, or whatever the hell he claims to be, and saying he gives a green light to strangle a child hitting someone.
If the child actively promoted killing you and your family, and then went ahead and did it as you watched, are you supposed to let him come for you because it's someone who promotes themselves as a child? Their actions are adult. The results are adult. Your response... has to be as an adult. You're in the wrong here.
It depends on how dangerous the child is. If the child is 6'2" and 220 lbs. and knows how to fight, then yes, if he attacks you, you can respond with deadly force. Hamas isn't a toddler that is ineffectually hitting people in the shins with baby taps, they killed a thousand people. Of course you can respond to deadly force with deadly force. What are you even talking about?
I don't think the hamas military capability matches a 6'2 220 man child in comparison to Israel, who has an annual military budget that's double (jumped close to triple in 2024) of Palestines entire GDP... while casually having the complete backing of the USA. It's very much, in my mind, akin to a young child attacking a grown man. I don't say that to disregard or to disrespect the people who died in that act of terrorism, but the response does not look like an act of self defense given the context, it looks much more like an act of offensive rage and revenge, or other ulterior motives. It seems like it should have been plausible for them to protect their country without killing around a 100k people, majority being civilians and tens of thousands being kids, and counting. But who are we to judge? I think we killed around a million (in also relatively very poor countries) in response to 9/11, so I guess it uh, makes sense.
[QUOTE="Buck Turgidson, post: 15815409, member: 3493"It's been a while...[/QUOTE] Yall should talk to your MAGA buddy Roxran
Nick, with respect, I think this is a particularly bad analogy . . . if you want to improve it so that it's not simply an apples and oranges straw man, make the child an underage active school shooter. Then I think the self-defense response justification would be a bit more on par with what stupidmoniker is arguing
Interesting. I don’t quite see where that’s on par, in fact he laid out his own argument already He’s the one who created the analogy of self defense to thrash a much weaker person.. Which is relatively fine because I’m comparing the difference in military capability here. Only one country can clearly easily annihilate the other here, do you see the analogy of a small child fighting an adult in this context? This wasn’t an analogy of an acute scale of deadliness on an individual basis. It’s a nation scale comparison.
Oh okay disagree after my clarification but don’t explain why. You know how to push my buttons Mr. Curiosity of why you think it’s a failed analogy aside, it’s fine, I don’t really care to discuss this topic much further either. Sad stuff that I’ve mostly avoided arguing about.
again, I don't think a toddler kicking the shins of an adult constitutes much of a legitimate threat against that adult. Hamas doesn't just kick the shins of a larger adversary--Hamas kills people. The larger adversary responds and kills people also. If you're trying to make a "nation" argument perhaps a better analogy would be Germany in 1940 having roughly 3% of the world's population (80 million people or so) declaring war against the allies and the rest of world. The British empire had some 500 million people, the Soviet Union had some 170 million people, France had 110 million people, the U.S. had nearly 140 million people, etc etc. Your analogy would seem to suggest that it would be unfair of the Allies to "gang up" on the smaller German entity--I reject the form of that argument. Stupidmoniker's example of a 110 pound antagonist getting the shitte kicked out of him after provoking an argument is a better analogy to Hamas-Israel than is your toddler kicking the shins of an adult analogy. related:
