4 ms·

In your response I did not see your answer to the significant part of the question in parent comment. Which is: “ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting

In your response I did not see your answer to the significant part of the question in parent comment. Which is: “ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option.” Avoiding hard questions is easier as it doesn’t require responsibility. Are you able to provide your answer please to the hardest part of the parent comment?

bjourne 3y ago
This is the same false dilemma that the American war hawks posed prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "What should we do if we can't invade Iraq??" You were then supposed to argue that the US had options and the hawks would then one by one attempt to disqualify those options. It's an incredibly dishonest way of conducting debate. Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that razing Gaza is the only option Israel has.
- lovelyviking 3y ago
  > Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that razing Gaza is the only option Israel has. Great comment and again no answer. You think question with suggestive answer is dishonest way of conducting debate? Ok. I get that. Let’s remove any suggestiveness from the question. “ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option.” I am not OP an I personally did not suggest anything, I just wanted to see your responsible answer. So, what Israel should do in your opinion? And what outcome you expect after it does it? PS: I’ve read the article. Disappointed by the quality of it. It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda. It twists meaning by playing with words. I notice those tricks and can’t read it with keeping my face ‘straight’( using your word).
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda. The "agenda" is to make people aware of the fact that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, based on sources within the IDF who work on targeting. The "emotional impact" is that any person with normal human emotions would be sickened by the fact that Israel is killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
    - lovelyviking 3y ago
      Unfortunately I notice the same tricks in your comment. I know I asked another person but the main question was : “ What Israel should do in your opinion? What outcome you expect once it does it?” Can you answer that question too? As to the “agenda” I see different “agenda”.
      - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        Israel should either withdraw from the occupied territories or grant citizenship to the people who live there. What it definitely should not do is murder thousands of Palestinian children and destroy the Gaza Strip. However, this is what Israel has chosen to do.
        lovelyviking 3y ago
        Can you elaborate on the second part of the quesion? “ What outcome you expect once it does it?”
        DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        I'd like you to elaborate on what you expect to happen if Israel continues its military campaign. 20k Palestinians have already been killed, and most people in Gaza have been rendered homeless. Everyone there is struggling to obtain the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and shelter. If Israel continues its campaign, how many more Palestinians will be killed, and how much more destruction will be done to Gaza? Will any building in Gaza be left standing? What do you think Israel plans to do to the millions of refugees it has created in Gaza over the last two months? Looking further ahead, what do you think the consequences of continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) will be? Can you justify keeping millions of people under continued military occupation, without any rights and under constant harassment? Can you justify the continuation of the dual legal regime in the occupied territories, under which Jewish settlers have full citizenship rights, while Palestinians have no rights (this is what many now characterize as Apartheid)?
  - bjourne 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - lovelyviking 3y ago
      Using insults and ignoring my rephrasing of the question is not answering the question. Since those are usual tactics to avoid answering hard questions it makes one wandering wether you are deliberately trying to avoid answering it responsibly or you did not understand the question? Can you provide your answer instead of repeating your disagreement with the choice Israel have made? You’ve made it clear already few times. What is still not clear is this: What is your answer to the hard question. You keep avoiding answering it. Let me remind the question if you forgot it: So, what Israel should do in your opinion? And what outcome you expect after it does it? I hope we will see your answer this time. Not criticism of the answer provided by Israel but your own answer. I hope I made it as clear as possible by now. I also hope as someone with such strong opinion on the matter you took time to think about it and you do have your answer.
      - bjourne 3y ago
        Are you a parrot or something? Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)? I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them.
- lovelyviking 3y ago
  answering to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38589929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38589929 Are you a parrot or something? No, I am a person and you are exploring limits of my famous patience which is allowed only to my students as long as they wish to learn. Also I am very persuasive in following logic and being responsible for own words. The only sensible way to discuss hard issues and to keep being in sync in conversation. >Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)? Help me understand what you suggest exactly and what outcome you expect after Israel does it? Make your statement so we would be on the same page to discuss it. Then it actually would be possible to discuss it. Don’t you think you should be responsible with your words and understand consequences of things you suggest before opening your mouth about such sensitive topics? I am getting sick of irresponsible people spreading BS around without ever stating what they say or thinking through the consequences of the things they suggest. >I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them. This is because you didn’t answer one and only question I ever asked you in the first place.

bjourne 3y ago

This is the same false dilemma that the American war hawks posed prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "What should we do if we can't invade Iraq??" You were then supposed to argue that the US had options and the hawks would then one by one attempt to disqualify those options. It's an incredibly dishonest way of conducting debate. Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that razing Gaza is the only option Israel has.

lovelyviking 3y ago
> Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that razing Gaza is the only option Israel has. Great comment and again no answer. You think question with suggestive answer is dishonest way of conducting debate? Ok. I get that. Let’s remove any suggestiveness from the question. “ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option.” I am not OP an I personally did not suggest anything, I just wanted to see your responsible answer. So, what Israel should do in your opinion? And what outcome you expect after it does it? PS: I’ve read the article. Disappointed by the quality of it. It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda. It twists meaning by playing with words. I notice those tricks and can’t read it with keeping my face ‘straight’( using your word).
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda. The "agenda" is to make people aware of the fact that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, based on sources within the IDF who work on targeting. The "emotional impact" is that any person with normal human emotions would be sickened by the fact that Israel is killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
  - lovelyviking 3y ago
    Unfortunately I notice the same tricks in your comment. I know I asked another person but the main question was : “ What Israel should do in your opinion? What outcome you expect once it does it?” Can you answer that question too? As to the “agenda” I see different “agenda”.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      Israel should either withdraw from the occupied territories or grant citizenship to the people who live there. What it definitely should not do is murder thousands of Palestinian children and destroy the Gaza Strip. However, this is what Israel has chosen to do.
      - lovelyviking 3y ago
        Can you elaborate on the second part of the quesion? “ What outcome you expect once it does it?”
        DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        I'd like you to elaborate on what you expect to happen if Israel continues its military campaign. 20k Palestinians have already been killed, and most people in Gaza have been rendered homeless. Everyone there is struggling to obtain the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and shelter. If Israel continues its campaign, how many more Palestinians will be killed, and how much more destruction will be done to Gaza? Will any building in Gaza be left standing? What do you think Israel plans to do to the millions of refugees it has created in Gaza over the last two months? Looking further ahead, what do you think the consequences of continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) will be? Can you justify keeping millions of people under continued military occupation, without any rights and under constant harassment? Can you justify the continuation of the dual legal regime in the occupied territories, under which Jewish settlers have full citizenship rights, while Palestinians have no rights (this is what many now characterize as Apartheid)?
- bjourne 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lovelyviking 3y ago
    Using insults and ignoring my rephrasing of the question is not answering the question. Since those are usual tactics to avoid answering hard questions it makes one wandering wether you are deliberately trying to avoid answering it responsibly or you did not understand the question? Can you provide your answer instead of repeating your disagreement with the choice Israel have made? You’ve made it clear already few times. What is still not clear is this: What is your answer to the hard question. You keep avoiding answering it. Let me remind the question if you forgot it: So, what Israel should do in your opinion? And what outcome you expect after it does it? I hope we will see your answer this time. Not criticism of the answer provided by Israel but your own answer. I hope I made it as clear as possible by now. I also hope as someone with such strong opinion on the matter you took time to think about it and you do have your answer.
    - bjourne 3y ago
      Are you a parrot or something? Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)? I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them.
lovelyviking 3y ago
answering to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38589929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38589929 Are you a parrot or something? No, I am a person and you are exploring limits of my famous patience which is allowed only to my students as long as they wish to learn. Also I am very persuasive in following logic and being responsible for own words. The only sensible way to discuss hard issues and to keep being in sync in conversation. >Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)? Help me understand what you suggest exactly and what outcome you expect after Israel does it? Make your statement so we would be on the same page to discuss it. Then it actually would be possible to discuss it. Don’t you think you should be responsible with your words and understand consequences of things you suggest before opening your mouth about such sensitive topics? I am getting sick of irresponsible people spreading BS around without ever stating what they say or thinking through the consequences of the things they suggest. >I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them. This is because you didn’t answer one and only question I ever asked you in the first place.