Lurker > willythemailboy

Forty_Niners posted...

So any post that criticizes Israel for committing admitted war crimes is celebrating Hamas?

When the post is from a user who says everything Israel does is a war crime, yes.

Torgo posted...

the large companies who are already insured against this take the loss...

You know it doesn't work like that, right? The deductible on commercial insurance is usually between $2500 and $5000 per claim. The business is just going to have to eat that cost.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

I've said multiple times on this board that Israel has a complete right to exist provided they can prove that their existence isn't conditional on being a colonial apartheid state.

For some reason I suspect there's no possible way that conditional could ever be met to your standard. Oh yeah, it's because you posted it. Still, even with an impossible proviso that must have physically pained you to write.

Shadow_Don posted...

Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself.

I already stated this in my conversation with you.

Why are you lying?

You're shilling awfully hard in favor of ICOS, who is someone who can't force themselves to say Israel has a right to exist.

Is that more clear?

Shadow_Don posted...

step 1) accuse your opponent of something they did not do
step 2) demand they denounce the action you claimed they did
step 3) confirm the accusation when opponent refuses to engage with your dishonesty

Fascist playbook 101.

You're shilling awfully hard for someone who can't force themselves to say Israel has a right to exist.

And your fascist playbook would seem to apply to far more people in this topic than me.

Edit: See post #213 for example.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Claiming to have mind-reading powers that appearantly allow you to know my thoughts better than myself is certainly a statement of all time.

A denial would have served you better.

Gamespoht posted...

or the Olsen Twins

Amy Jo Johnson

Anteaterking posted...

So it's foolhardy to even suggest that you could stop Hamas from carrying out *any* further attacks because at some level any person can elect to be part of Hamas and cause whatever small scale terror they wish.

Agreed.

Anteaterking posted...

At that point, we really need to be discussing degree. So let's do it this way. Last year according to Israel MFA, 29 Israelis were killed in terror attacks by terrorist groups from Palestine. How many Palestinian civilians is an acceptable amount of collateral damage to bring things back to let's say half that level?

I don't have an answer to that, other than "as few as possible". It would likely have to be evaluated on a target-by-target basis, on the basis of potential casualties and potential damage to Hamas as well as damage to infrastructure. The problem with setting hard and fast rules is that you're telling Hamas exactly how many human shields they need to protect a given target.

Shadow_Don posted...

That isn't the objection.

I've seen no evidence to support your assertion here.

hockeybub89 posted...

Dude really doesn't want to hear any option besides "Rain hell on Gaza until there's nothing left". Anything else to him is "Throw down arms and apologize to Hamas for upsetting them"

I don't want to hear options that don't substantially reduce Hamas's capability to carry out further attacks. Not their motivation but their capability.

That means hitting the militants themselves, their leadership, their arms stockpiles, rocket production and storage sites, and the tunnels concealing all of the above. When people such as yourself object to those targets being hit, the logical conclusion is that you do not actually want to reduce the terrorist threat.

Shadow_Don posted...

So are you like just not capable of reading or is there another explanation?

willythemailboy posted...

basically do nothing

Are you incapable of reading? Token action is basically nothing.

Shadow_Don posted...

Which is likely to happen if they do a ground invasion and generate what will be a very significant refugee crisis.

by not doing it????

More iron dome. Better intelligence and response protocol. More border security. Special force operations as you said. Anything other than what they are about to do.

They were already warned about the attack through intelligence channels and did nothing. The country should have been on high alert regardless simply because of the significance of the date.

And you're immediately back to "basically do nothing and hope their defenses are better next time." This time with a side of "it's really Israel's fault for letting it happen".

Shadow_Don posted...

If you don't understand how this situation is different and already spiraling out of control then you don't know anything about what is going on and you should probably stop talking about it.

The only thing that could make it spiral out of control is if outside powers (Iran, mostly) steps in themselves rather than their usual pattern of supporting Hamas as a form of proxy war against Israel.

Yes, a ground invasion is going to be bad. I just don't see how it can be avoided.

Shadow_Don posted...

And if the options are do nothing vs. ground invasion that could leave 100k+ dead and kick off ww3 then I prefer the do nothing approach.

There have been multiple ground invasions, bombing campaigns, etc. over the last 70 years that haven't had half that many dead combined, and that's including conflicts where the IDF wasn't even involved. This seems like a hyperbolic justification for your support of doing nothing.

Murphiroth posted...

So typical of you spineless chuds.

"I could say a mean thing but I won't because I'm too attached to my account, but I would! I totally would! Also I'm right! Totally right!"

The two things would be "morons" and "trolls". Fair enough?

Now have yourself a good fap while hitting the report button.

Murphiroth posted...

Wonder why that is, willy.

I have two possible explanations for that, but both will be deleted for flaming. Accurate, but still flaming.

Shadow_Don posted...

I merely said Israel is causing too much collateral damage and killing too many innocent people and you respond saying that I support Israel just letting terrorist attacks happen on them?

Your posts come across as "Israel needs to do *something* (insert handwaving) but anything with collateral damage is too much." As with most of the other users here, you seem insistent on doing nothing at all.

Chicken posted...

I dunno what youre even talking about anymore

Everything you post comes across as condoning, not understanding. Literally everything.

Murphiroth posted...

Gonna need a citation on that one, wilbur.

What part of "he won't say it" didn't you understand? The fact remains that ICOS opposes the existence of Israel.

Murphiroth posted...

Otherwise I'll just say that you want to genocide all Palestinians and all Muslims as well. After all, your intent is obvious.

You won't be the first or last. Not even in this topic.

Shadow_Don posted...

Wait wait wait. He said end the occupation in West Bank (Hamas isn't in West Bank) and stop doing war crimes.

Maybe I'm not following you here but the implication there is that you think Israel should be allowed to do war crimes? anything less would be a slap on the wrist in your eyes?

Sounds pretty insane.

The user in question has posted that every action Israel does is a war crime. While he won't say it, he includes existing in that list.

Forty_Niners posted...

Cite a single post of someone defending Hamas. A single one. Just one.

Post #103 is a good place to start. No one is dumb enough to come out and say it but the intent is obvious.

FlyEaglesFly24 posted...

Dont be that guy. You know that October 7th was an act of terrorism.

Oh he knows it was an act of terrorism. He just has an alternate view of who committed it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Electric cars actually predate the gasoline engine. They just weren't competitive in terms of speed or range.

Shadow_Don posted...

How am I supposed to respond to this?

Generalities will suffice.

Shadow_Don posted...

the collateral damage is clearly too high.

Well at least we agree on that. I'm just realistic enough to know that it's never going to be zero.

Shadow_Don posted...

Explain how what I said implied that

Explain what you think Israel can do to address terrorism, without any bullshit handwavium about doing it with zero collateral damage.

Until you can do that, my post is a fair representation of your opinion.

Shadow_Don posted...

It's so straight forward my guy.

When innocent people get slaughtered and your response is "yea but there were terrorists behind them" then you are the one who just justified innocent people getting slaughtered.

The answer cannot be kill all the hostages.

The answer also cannot be "just let the terrorism happen" but that seems to be what you're backing.

Ronaldo posted...

They purposefully use sites protected by the Geneva Conventions like schools, hospitals, places of worship as well as prevent evacuations by civilians and there is no excuse for that. If you are trying to justify actions by terrorist organizations take a step back.

Do you know what the Geneva Conventions say is the proper response for such violations? Giving warning to cease such illegal use, then if the violator does not comply after a reasonable time to destroy the no-longer-protected sites with as few civilian casualties as possible.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-answers-october- 2023-hostilities-between-israel-and-palestinian-armed#Seven

Healthcare facilities include hospitals, laboratories, clinics, first aid posts, blood transfusion centers, and the medical and pharmaceutical stores of these facilities, whether military or civilian. While other presumptively civilian structures become military objectives if they are being used for a military purpose, hospitals lose their protection from attack only if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. Several types of acts do not constitute acts harmful to the enemy, such as the presence of armed guards, or when small arms from the wounded are found in the hospital. Even if military forces misuse a hospital to store weapons or shelter able-bodied combatants, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded.

Chicken posted...

ok so we can confirm at least one poster here is being paid to spread propaganda

You? Yeah, we all knew that already.

Sandalorn posted...

He already implied that he sees ALL Palestinians as terrorists so pure fucking evil is the answer.

No, Hamas shills think that but as usual can't back it up.

Most Palestinians are not militants.

Chicken posted...

How many children have Hamas killed?
How many children has Israel killed?

Are you evil or ignorant?

Neither. Defenders of Hamas are both.

Chicken posted...

If you actually took the time to understand and actually empathize with what those people have gone through for generations and put yourself in their shoes, would you grin and bear it or would you fight back?

If another country took over yours and expelled you from your home and made you, your friends and family, live in a literal shithole with no running water with no rights, you'd just bend over and take it? Their methods are extreme, but what they've endured and continue to endure are infinitely more extreme.

Literally justifying terrorism.

cjsdowg posted...

Also so I guess that means they did hit the Hosptial ?

How does that follow? "Oh, we know there's a Hamas base under this hospital so we'll bomb it in a way that can't possibly destroy the base."

I doubt the people in the tunnels under the hospital even heard the explosion, let alone being endangered by it.

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

I think they should send soldiers after HAMAS instead of treating collateral damage as acceptable.

How much collateral damage do you think that would cause?

BlueTigerLion posted...

It makes less sense they bombed that hospital a couple days ago if they have bases at a hospital.

No one is claiming Hamas or whoever dropped a rocket on the hospital on purpose.

Nintendo_Porn posted...

I heard a true crime story about some mad man who managed to hide in the woods for multiple years camping/scourging/squatting.

That's my guess at this point. He's holed up in a Unabomber style shack in the middle of nowhere.

ZaruenKosai posted...

Man you really are aggressive with twisting peoples words

I'm just reading through your bullshit. You can't seem to name one single thing Israel should be allowed to do to prevent another attack from occurring. Your goal is obvious.

ZaruenKosai posted...

firstly, do you have proof that October 7th is hapepning on a daily or weekly occurence?

You sure seem willing to bet thousands of Israeli lives that it wouldn't if Hamas had the capability. Wait, you're willing to GIVE Hamas that capability in order to find out, aren't you?

ZaruenKosai posted...

Treating Palestinians like rotting animals that need to be exterminated for the greater good.

If Israel were trying to exterminate the Palestinians they're shockingly inept at it. Oh wait, only people of a certain anti-Israel persuasion are delusional enough to think that.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

That's pretty much Willy's gimmick

That's rich coming from a guy who thinks

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Obviously, given every action Israel has taken is a war crime.

No doubt you think their mere existence is a war crime as well.

videospirit posted...

Now say, Canada did not have a history of launching rockets into the US, they just ruffled the US feathers with some statements without action and the US invaded and occupied Canada and started settling Canadian land with american citizens and pushing Canadians farther and farther north . Would Canadians be justified launching rockets into the US to try and drive them out of Canada for their unprovoked invasion?

Because that's the situation you've got in Israel/Palestine

You have a very interesting take on history. It's not at all reflective of reality but it's definitely an interesting head canon.

In reality, Arab and Jewish Palestinians have been fighting since before Israel was officially a country.

Dubman017 posted...

pull out of gaza strip,

That happened in 2005.

Dubman017 posted...

build a wall

Started in 1994 and constantly upgraded since.

Neither of those has led to peace.

ZaruenKosai posted...

they are most definitely not, here you go again, g iving israel free reign to commit war crimes and any other countless number of atrocities.. they are not justified, not one bit...

Translation: Israel should not be able to prevent October 7th from happening every other weekend.

videospirit posted...

And what is your point? If Canada suddenly put out a statement that they believe the United States should be made part of Canada, would the United States be justified in occupying and annexing Canada?

If Canada had a history of launching rockets into the US with the intent of killing American citizens, the US would absolutely be justified in destroying the ability to manufacture and launch those rockets, including blockading any imports to Canada to prevent rocket components from getting in.

Intro2Logic posted...

Here is some polling data
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas

That doesn't match the data I've seen, but if true it is indeed a cause for hope.

videospirit posted...

A distinction without a difference. What does it matter what Chile thinks about who is allowed to be part of America? What does it matter what Palestinians think about who is allowed to be part of Israel? The only thing that matters to this conflict is that those Palestinians themselves are not willing to be part of Israel. What they feel about other people is irrelevant to finding a solution beyond "A joint government with both of them being in charge of holy sites is impossible"

The stated goal of Hamas - supported by a majority of the populace as per polling data - is that they want to expel the occupiers of Palestine and turn it into an Islamist state. They conveniently give their proposed borders for their version of Palestine which just so happens to be Israel-shaped. Go figure.

videospirit posted...

Except it would be a completely different kind of conflict. If, once they've been given a state of their own, they want to go to war with Israel, Israel would be completely justified in returning fire. The current conflict is a resistance movement against an apartheid state. The end goal desired by that resistance movement is hard to empathize with, but a resistance movement is completely justified.

Distinction without a difference. Israel is already justified in returning fire.

AnsestralRecall posted...

You sure seem to know a lot about the thoughts of Palestinians

Hmm

Wonder how you became such a talented mind-reader

I bothered reading the polling data that various organizations have collected over the years. Perhaps if you read more and stanned for terrorists less you'd come to the same conclusions.

CyrusV posted...

Most of them would be willing to coexist. There are Palestinians living in Israel now.

You'd have (roughly) three million people who want six million either dead or gone, six million who would object to that, and three million who would be willing to get along with everyone if people would just stop shooting at each other. While not quite as bad as the 12 million person Thunderdome I called it, that's not a recipe for peaceful coexistence.

videospirit posted...

The Palestinians who refuse to be part of Israel need to be given their own state, and Israel is not qualified to determine what their borders will be unilaterally.

It's not that there are Palestinians who refuse to be part of Israel, it's that there are a majority of Palestinians (in Gaza, anyway) who refuse to accept that anyone be allowed to be "part of Israel". They have made it quite clear - the general populace, not Hamas - that the only acceptable borders are "all of it" and that it is to be an officially Islamic state.

videospirit posted...

So the only solution is to have the international community force arbitration on them and have the international community decide what the borders are unilaterally.

Nothing would change in that "solution" other than who is enforcing the border. The terror attacks would remain because now the entire international community would be part of "the Zionist conspiracy".

The_Korey posted...

More like Halloween Month made the real name redundant.

Don't you mean mid-Christmas shopping season month?

videospirit posted...

Both sides only need to accept it if you want them to work together peacefully. If you give the two states their own distinct borders that aren't shared governance it frames the conflict in a manner that can eventually lead to peace and the international community knows how to deal with making it no different from any other territorial dispute.

Honestly neither side particularly needs to accept it either, you can ram it down both their throats.

The only reason this conflict is so complicated is because neither Palestine nor Israel have borders and are forced to exist in the same territory.

Israel is about 20% Palestinian and they exist peacefully enough in the same territory. Some even serve in the IDF.

The terror threat isn't coming from the Palestinians living in Israel. The threat is coming from the Palestinian population that never accepted Israel's right to exist.

CyrusV posted...

Two states based on 1967 borders, or just merge it into one country and force them to live with each other where they're all equal citizens.

Palestinians will never accept two states, and I don't think anyone wants to see a 12 million person version of Thunderdome.

ZaruenKosai posted...

Firstly, we are not politcal or military experts, it is not really our job to come up with a proper solution.

You just think you're better at it than the experts because you don't like the solutions the experts come up with.

Though there have ben some suggestions

As pointed out, every suggestion you come up with is intended to result in arming Hamas. Sure, you say Hamas "needs to be dealt with" but you're intentionally setting up a situation where they're replaced with the same thing under a different name.

ZaruenKosai posted...

The best solution I have, is a 2 state solution with a 3rd party acting as an intermediary to assist in building trust relations between Israel and Palestine and preventing or squashing any clashes between the two, and it would have to be a neutral party, not one with cater towards either Israel or Palestine.

I am sure the world leaders can come up with something better though, considering it is their area of expertise.

Your best solution is something you know one side will never accept? Or are you so ignorant that you think they will accept it if rammed down their throats hard enough?

Thankfully the experts know better.

If the results of this conflict ends with over 100k + Palestinians Dead and 200k+ Wounded

The preceding 80 years of Palestinian conflicts haven't had half that many casualties, and that includes conflicts Israel wasn't even involved in. You're just highlighting how woefully unqualified you are to have an opinion on this topic.

ZaruenKosai posted...

I will re-iterate of course Hamas must be dealt with

You keep saying this but then rule out taking any action to actually do it. I can't possibly imagine why you'd be against any action taken against terrorists.

hockeybub89 posted...

What the fuck is with you people and implying the two options are: A) Do nothing and apologize to Hamas, or B) Blow up 10 times the innocent people and continue to do so until every terrorist or Palestinian is dead, whichever comes first.

And if someone doesn't pick B, you call them a terrorist that wants Islam to take over the world. Like what?

This is like when people say "Abolish the death penalty" and someone goes "Oh so you think serial killers shouldn't go to prison? We should tell them they are just different and we should help them find more vicitms to kill? Why are you a serial killer fan that hates innocent people?"

Hamas are terrorists AND the Israeli government is run by genocidal fascists. Fucking deal with it.

Because every time someone posts this crap their "solution" to the conflict always includes policies they know full well will result in giving Hamas more weapons. Every Fucking Time. You're not fooling anyone with this shit.

FlyEaglesFly24 posted...

If Israel puts down its guns, and Hamas doesnt, were still talking about dead Israeli civilians and rocket attacks from Gaza.

Strangely enough, the posters in question don't seem to see that as a bad thing.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ahh, you are correct. I was using 2020 data. The 2020 reapportionment is the first time Montana has gotten a second representative.

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=Hous#table

NatsuSama posted...

If anything they are vastly over represented.

Ironically, the state that gets fucked over most in terms of House representation is Montana. The state most over represented is deep blue Rhode Island - by nearly double Montana's level of representation.

Were_Wyrm posted...

Honestly fixing the EC is as simple as fixing the number of reps in the house. There's no reason to cap them at 435, other than one party not wanting to lose control.

texanfan27 posted...

Remove winner takes all from states, then its better represented all aroind

These two are better options, both individually but especially in combination.