Hammerlock3

2) By the standards you'd hold them to no moral power could win a war against an immoral one. We do hold our allies to higher standards than terrorist groups. Which is obvious. 3) you're flatly wrong in your last paragraph. Everyone supporting Israel laments the civilian casualties, thank god its not israel thats causing them. If you don't support israel or hamas, who do you support in this conflict? Innocent civilians? You're not doing anything for them by validating the use of them as human shields. That game iterates extremely poorly.

you have to address what I said not just say "old lady" twice.

I used to be a "speak softly and carry a big stick" guy, but these days I'm more of a "Loudly grunt with hushed tone and absurd dramatic pause and then don't do shit" guy.

As ugly as the visual is I'm gonna stick up for the officer: 1) Its easy to isolate that image and say the cop is a fascist, but you need to take into account the difficulty of being a police officer in the middle of a riot when you have every reason to assume you and your colleagues are in danger. 2)Every interaction a cop has is potentially lethal because they have a gun which could be taken away from them, they can't allow any physical escalation including a woman who wasn't asking a serious question just harassing a cop by screaming at and then touching him. 3) Once a cop detains you your in idiot if you don't comply. That woman shouldn't have resisted once she was being detained, and if she was innocent there is every reason to think she'd be acquitted. This is a temporary submission of rights but that's what we have to delegate to police if we expect them to put themselves in danger.

2) Point two, its illegal to use human shields in combat, not to protect yourself from those using them. The idea that israel soldiers should do a lot more room to room fighting to be nicer is a standard no other military on earth has been held to. 3 I hope you'll believe that I could think of a bunch of grisly hypotheticals that would completely undermine israel's war effort, but i think generating it and having you sift through it would be a waste of time, unless you just insist. Proportion in warfare is defined by whether a parties actions are in proportion to their goals(assuming the goals are legitimate). I don't see any evidence that Israel has unjustified goals or is doing anything out of proportion with them. And again, 100% of the civilian casualities are caused by Hamas. You don't have to keep saying that you don't support hamas, its a genocidal terrorist organization and I wouldn't accuse you of supporting them directly.

Sure looked like she grabbed the cop to me, couldn't see because her left hand was obscured by her own body. BTW if you abandon every thread of conversation that develops in this topic (particularly when it seems like a good time to refine your opinion or even institute a small change of policy), and then just start over with whatever the latest narrative appropriate video clip you can find, I'm not sure why you're here at all. You complain about the conversation not being nuanced but whenever it might become nuanced you throw a smoke bomb and start over.

keep in mind....he's the only one getting younger.

1) Where did this happen? I thought we were talking about last two guys you dropped videos of, regardless we should drop this discussion cause i'm pretty sure its just an honest mistake on someones part. 2) If you are fighting someone who is going to use their human shield ad infinitum to kill as many people as possible, yes you kill the shield. You could argue about the morality of an adult shooting a child to save themselves if it was just a limited scenario, but if the person using a human shield is going to use that shield to kill as many babies as they can you shoot the shield. 3) If the Israelis instituted rape as an ostensible military tactic, the three you referenced would not support israel anymore. That a good enough example? One hamas can't live up to btw.

1) No the first and second guy aren't the same. They have different names and look nothing alike. 2) The civilian causalities are 100% the fault of hamas, both in the sense that they could surrender anytime, and the sense that they are using human shields. Worth noting they aren't using civilian shields to win a military objective, they are doing it because they are trying to win a propoganda war. Their goal is civilian casualties. If you validate this tactic it will be impossible for a truly evil party to lose a war. Also the civilian causalities aren't even disproportionate when compared to other wars in similar terrrain. the fact that you are dropping the word genocide when you are defending a party whose open policy is genocide makes me think you've never encountered any of the arguments against your own position. 3) I could name ten things that would cause the people you listed to cease supporting Israel, there is nothing you could ever think of that hamas would stop at in order to restore a caliphate. So that comparison is ridiculous.

i notice you say "shifting goalposts" as if it was an argument in itself. In case you haven't noticed, there are protests all over american campuses, peaceful and not so much, over the war in Gaza. They are a partnership between muslim fundamentalists and leftists who think the cause of terrorism is fighting against it. These are both fundamentalist perspectives, just like "give me complete control of the world's economy or else climate change". this is why you see "queers for palestine" signs, people on the left will thoughtlessly virtue signal by promoting anyone with a trendy victim narrative. by the way you are being dishonest again, willie was referring to the first guy and I was referring to the second, whom could easily be fundamentalists in different ways, but sense there is a partnership between these two sides on this issue your comment still made no sense.

that background heavily implies he subscribes to the colonizer/colonizee narrative thats a religion in itself.

its kind of odd that you pretended I tried to crowbar a whole movement into one fringe person so you could make a snarky remark, but you tend to argue by posting video of individuals as if they were reliable summaries of huge groups of people. Almost like you only apply that level of analysis if it doesn't fit your narrative.

na they probably got to Gaza, realized Israel is just a bunch of mean people and decided to stay.

Who is a mystery at this point? Taylor, Burroughs, Starocci (has said he isn't coming back and sense then said he hopes JB comes back so they can wrestle)....who else is sort of lingering on the verge of retirement? Nolf? Retherford basically said he's done after this....Gilman? Richards?

YEAH BUT I DIDN'T DO THAT, hence conversation derailed.

ok this is where you have to argue in good faith. We were discussing people literally saying "Death to israel", and you just responded to me as if I said something about "all of these protesters". Tell me what is wrong about me saying someone chanting "Death to israel" probably means it.

I am pretty sure he understood sense that trope is so lame and shallow that no thoughtful atheist even references it anymore.

I try to remind myself before discussions like that this that there isn't a point unless I figure out something I hadn't known or considered before....uncle keyboard is one of the few times where I left the conversation thinking I really did know everything he did.

why

@uncle bernard was there some point in asking me if I thought people chanting "death to palestine" wanted the death of all israelis and the abolition of israel's political state?

No, sense I think they want to do both, i answered correctly.

I'm around a fair number, I'd guess 20% think its awesome, 40% respond based on the situation and don't think about it, 15% think its dumb but don't vocalize it, 15% think its dumb and say so publicly.

but his had is bowed in a show of solemn humility! Next you'll be saying AJ spamming jesus in his social media captions is cringe!

That say literally "Death to Isael" yes most of them. do you think that's a poor assumption?

@uncle bernard