A hill to die on

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: network dude

I'm actually pro-elimination of Hamas but I'm not pro-genocide of civilians.

How do you tell the difference?

Everyone is separating palestinians and hamas like they are two different ethnic groups from two different continents.

hamas is the name palestinians gave their jihad against Jews and Christians.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Mawdano

Of course killing civilians is an act of terror that Hamas should be held accountable for doing.

How?

Let me spin a guess:

By the same means HAMAS used on Israel X 100?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

How many have truly died, how many were not Hamas[?],

That's exactly what I'm asking.

How many innocent civilians in Gaza were killed as a result of IDF bombardment?

seems like a lot of gunfire and other weaponry are being used on both sides, and for some reason, everyone is an innocent civilian killed.

You are posting on page 22 of this thread, and you say this?

I will give anyone 1 billion dollarroonies if they can find the post in this thread previous to this one that says this.

How many civilians has Hamas killed, they are bloodthirsty, so killing Jews or Muslims doesn't really matter to them if they accomplish their objective, or do you disagree on that point?

I never disagreed to that point.

My previous bet extends to this as well.

I'll be screen-shooting this post and upload to ATS, just in case you bring it up again, so then I won't have to type up an original response completely picking apart your post in that instance, too. Although I'll only post the screen-shot as long as this post remains viewable as contingent upon T&C.

Do you know how many HAMAS killed within Gaza, civilian-wise? I don't, but I believe, based on your post, that you believe there may not be anyone innocent in this bombardment.

IDF isn't stalling they are fighting inch by inch, so who are the ones fighting back? If the major hospital wasn't full of Hamas then why doesn't IDF just walk on in and say the hospital is now secured? If it was indiscriminate bombing then why are so few killed per attack?

Okay, so here you seem to be ignoring this fact, that there could be people who are not holding weapons and being destroyed, is even a thing to consider in the first place. Where's the compassion in that?

After the indiscriminate bombardment I image most people who survived would want to get revenge for the atrocity, as a matter of fact, not as commendation.

Where is the strategic value in making sure the terrorist get stronger, and that the battle is fought inch-by-inch, WW2-Vietnam-War on Terror style with indiscriminate killings of civilians?

You all keep repeating talking points without looking at things logically, and boy do you all use your trigger words in every post...

Can you give some examples of my talking points, with some dissection? My talking points seem to be largely ignored by logical rebuttal.

Can't you see ATS is desperate for the UNDENIABLE TRUTH AND LOGIC of the situation?

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: network dude

I'm actually pro-elimination of Hamas but I'm not pro-genocide of civilians.

would it suprise you to know none of us are either? We just understand the ugly, nasty dynamics of this thing.

Trust me when I say, if you came up with a plan to make everyone be alright without anyone else dying, we would be all ears and young women would scream for you to father their children. It's just a lot more nasty in real life.

It would be a great time for Jesus to come back and spread a message of peace and love. But he'd likely be shot.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Hamas are not the 1-2 years old children that die everyday.

Hamas are military age men whom are fighting Israeli military on the ground.

a reply to: network dude

I find your opinion balanced. Whenever possible civilians shouldn't be subjected to dangers including starvation.

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hamas are not the 1-2 years old children that die everyday.

Their parents are.

Hamas are military age men whom are fighting Israeli military on the ground.

Really? You read their brochure? No kids with grenades, no women with AK's?

Just military-aged fighting men.

Stop eating paint chips.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Really? You read their brochure? No kids with grenades, no women with AK's? Just military-aged fighting men. Stop eating paint chips.

I wonder how the 1-3 year old babies I see dead everyday can carry an AK?!

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: network dude

I find your opinion balanced. Whenever possible civilians shouldn't be subjected to dangers including starvation.

totally agree. I'd wager most soldiers are also fathers, and understand the horrors they have to inflict. And they are all part of a machine that has to do a dirty job. I couldn't do it, but I'm am thankful there are people who are willing to do these things to keep the rest of us safe. And I wish there was never a need for them to have to do these things. But until we have a better answer, this seems to be the way it's going to go.

a reply to: Mawdano

Im over 65 and I get hit on by MUCH younger men. Happened just last week.

I'll find you a shovel if you want to keep digging.

a reply to: Mawdano

And using civilians as shields.

There, finished your sentence for you.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: network dude

I'm actually pro-elimination of Hamas but I'm not pro-genocide of civilians.

Trust me when I say, if you came up with a plan to make everyone be alright without anyone else dying, we would be all ears and young women would scream for you to father their children. It's just a lot more nasty in real life.

It's a very fatalistic perspective to have on the world, that atrocities are occurring, and everyone is just doing their best, and there's no conflicts of interest anywhere to arouse suspicions and intrigues.

Or is it less fatalistic and more like this: "The people conducting the current form of warfare to combat terrorism couldn't be doing anything wrong to promote more violence, because they would do it differently if they were wrong, and even though NO ATS member is qualified to officially hold a position of diplomatic involvement in this crisis, Israel should just go ahead, stay the course, double down, refuse ceasefire, keep pushing until there's no one left to fight."

a reply to: Mawdano
You still don't get it do you. I'll explain again. Hamas is a guerrilla force the very nature of a guerrilla force is they wear no uniforms, (there fore the army that is fighting them, the IDF who do wear uniforms), so at a moments notice they can drop their weapons and blend into the civilian population. That is their power knowing the IDF cannot 100% see if they are a civilian or an Hamas fighter As I've put before the ONLY way to defeat a guerrilla force (I hope you see I say force and not army) is to eliminate all of them and that means killing civilians unfortunately because Hamas has chosen that type of warfare. Additionally the problem the Israelis have is just how many Hamas fighters have, 100, 300, 50????? They can kill 1000 and think they have eliminated them but there could be a couple of hundred mixed in with the fleeing civilians because their "uniform" is the normal civilian wear.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Mawdano
You still don't get it do you. I'll explain again. Hamas is a guerrilla force the very nature of a guerrilla force is they wear no uniforms, (there fore the army that is fighting them, the IDF who do wear uniforms), so at a moments notice they can drop their weapons and blend into the civilian population. That is their power knowing the IDF cannot 100% see if they are a civilian or an Hamas fighter As I've put before the ONLY way to defeat a guerrilla force (I hope you see I say force and not army) is to eliminate all of them and that means killing civilians unfortunately because Hamas has chosen that type of warfare. Additionally the problem the Israelis have is just how many Hamas fighters have, 100, 300, 50????? They can kill 1000 and think they have eliminated them but there could be a couple of hundred mixed in with the fleeing civilians because their "uniform" is the normal civilian wear.

Can you imagine being just one of those civilians fleeing, because you can only be one fleeing civilian.

Would you die happy knowing the IDF is doing their duty to fight the War on Terror like it really should be fought?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hamas are not the 1-2 years old children that die everyday.

Their parents are.

Hamas are military age men whom are fighting Israeli military on the ground.

Really? You read their brochure? No kids with grenades, no women with AK's?

Just military-aged fighting men.

Stop eating paint chips.

And why would any women and children want to pick up arms against the incoming troops?

Not for the indiscriminate bombing campaign, right?

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hamas are not the 1-2 years old children that die everyday.

Their parents are.

Hamas are military age men whom are fighting Israeli military on the ground.

Really? You read their brochure? No kids with grenades, no women with AK's?

Just military-aged fighting men.

Stop eating paint chips.

And why would any women and children want to pick up arms against the incoming troops?

I take it you've never been to Afghanistan.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hamas are not the 1-2 years old children that die everyday.

Their parents are.

Hamas are military age men whom are fighting Israeli military on the ground.

Really? You read their brochure? No kids with grenades, no women with AK's?

Just military-aged fighting men.

Stop eating paint chips.

And why would any women and children want to pick up arms against the incoming troops?

I take it you've never been to Afghanistan.

Oh my goodness, I thought we were talking about the current HAMAS/Israeli conflict.

No I've never been to Afghanistan.

So, to the remaining question you omitted from my quote?

"Not for the indiscriminate bombing campaign, right?"

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: network dude

I'm actually pro-elimination of Hamas but I'm not pro-genocide of civilians.

Trust me when I say, if you came up with a plan to make everyone be alright without anyone else dying, we would be all ears and young women would scream for you to father their children. It's just a lot more nasty in real life.

It's a very fatalistic perspective to have on the world, that atrocities are occurring, and everyone is just doing their best, and there's no conflicts of interest anywhere to arouse suspicions and intrigues.

Or is it less fatalistic and more like this: "The people conducting the current form of warfare to combat terrorism couldn't be doing anything wrong to promote more violence, because they would do it differently if they were wrong, and even though NO ATS member is qualified to officially hold a position of diplomatic involvement in this crisis, Israel should just go ahead, stay the course, double down, refuse ceasefire, keep pushing until there's no one left to fight."

can you liknk me to your threads on the Russian/Ukraine conflict, just so I can see how that stacks up on the dead body concern meeter.

Just think of that conflict. Folks who look like, talk like, smell like, and dress like each other are killing each other over lines in the sand by some lunatic. War is stupid no matter who is being killed, but don't let yourself be used as a pawn in the big game.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Mawdano
a reply to: network dude

I'm actually pro-elimination of Hamas but I'm not pro-genocide of civilians.

Trust me when I say, if you came up with a plan to make everyone be alright without anyone else dying, we would be all ears and young women would scream for you to father their children. It's just a lot more nasty in real life.

It's a very fatalistic perspective to have on the world, that atrocities are occurring, and everyone is just doing their best, and there's no conflicts of interest anywhere to arouse suspicions and intrigues.

Or is it less fatalistic and more like this: "The people conducting the current form of warfare to combat terrorism couldn't be doing anything wrong to promote more violence, because they would do it differently if they were wrong, and even though NO ATS member is qualified to officially hold a position of diplomatic involvement in this crisis, Israel should just go ahead, stay the course, double down, refuse ceasefire, keep pushing until there's no one left to fight."

can you liknk me to your threads on the Russian/Ukraine conflict, just so I can see how that stacks up on the dead body concern meeter.

Just think of that conflict. Folks who look like, talk like, smell like, and dress like each other are killing each other over lines in the sand by some lunatic. War is stupid no matter who is being killed, but don't let yourself be used as a pawn in the big game.

Post the quote here, and I will speak to it, dear clown creature.

Won't you?

Edit2Add:™

This is the appropriate place to speak to ideology of a political nature, and was it just one post?

I remember it. I'd like for you to dig it up, though.

My time is not for you.

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor


No I've never been to Afghanistan.

SO you have no clue and are just posting feces.

Got it.