3 ms·

It's a simply question. What should Israel do when attacked?

by nec4b 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
That question is as "simple" as asking what Palestinian civilians should do when attacked. These are actually simple questions (yes or no format): > We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right? > Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/? If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now: --> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <--- As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.
- nec4b 3y ago
  If Israel stops, Hamas will continue with its terrorist actions. Again what should Israel do?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Maybe that is true, maybe not. Maybe the inverse is true, maybe not. Either way, you're asking about a security consideration, so I guess I must repeat this a third time: ===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <=== For now, please take the time to read the post you just responded to, as it directly addresses that subject, and you seem to have ignored it, based on your lack of answers for the 2 questions contained within, and your 2-sentence reflexive reply to a multi-paragraph post. How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
    - nec4b 3y ago
      ===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <=== You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace. >>How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again. Because you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace. This makes no sense. I am stating the consensus of the world. Ignoring for a moment that israel's terror bombing of palestinian civilians is even less likely to bring peace, the primary goal in the first place is not to "bring peace", it is to stop the ongoing killing of civilians happening as we speak. Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved. But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing. You are free to try to convince the world otherwise, as is israel, but thusfar, you have both failed at the task. You can disagree, but righteousness is defined by the majority here, and the majority of the world says israel needs to stop its terror bombing campaign against palestinian civilians, regardless of any questions you or israel may have for what comes next. Indeed, whatever your answer to your question (what should israel or palestine do when attacked by the other), "continuing to terror-bomb civilians in palestine" isn't an acceptable answer, as judged by the world. You will have to come up with a new one if you wish to no longer be a villain in this story, according to the world. >you are dodging my question by replying with questions. In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.

It's a simply question. What should Israel do when attacked?

by nec4b 3y ago

It's a simply question. What should Israel do when attacked?

That question is as "simple" as asking what Palestinian civilians should do when attacked. These are actually simple questions (yes or no format): > We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right? > Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/? If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now: --> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <--- As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.

nec4b 3y ago
If Israel stops, Hamas will continue with its terrorist actions. Again what should Israel do?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Maybe that is true, maybe not. Maybe the inverse is true, maybe not. Either way, you're asking about a security consideration, so I guess I must repeat this a third time: ===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <=== For now, please take the time to read the post you just responded to, as it directly addresses that subject, and you seem to have ignored it, based on your lack of answers for the 2 questions contained within, and your 2-sentence reflexive reply to a multi-paragraph post. How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    ===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <=== You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace. >>How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again. Because you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace. This makes no sense. I am stating the consensus of the world. Ignoring for a moment that israel's terror bombing of palestinian civilians is even less likely to bring peace, the primary goal in the first place is not to "bring peace", it is to stop the ongoing killing of civilians happening as we speak. Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved. But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing. You are free to try to convince the world otherwise, as is israel, but thusfar, you have both failed at the task. You can disagree, but righteousness is defined by the majority here, and the majority of the world says israel needs to stop its terror bombing campaign against palestinian civilians, regardless of any questions you or israel may have for what comes next. Indeed, whatever your answer to your question (what should israel or palestine do when attacked by the other), "continuing to terror-bomb civilians in palestine" isn't an acceptable answer, as judged by the world. You will have to come up with a new one if you wish to no longer be a villain in this story, according to the world. >you are dodging my question by replying with questions. In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.