It’s definitely not a black and white issue for sure, every adult must serve in the IDF or face criminal prosecution in Israel, so saying “death to the IDF” and “death to every of age Israeli citizen” are basically the same statement.
Prospects were good during PM Rabins term, the root of this problem is with corrupt people like Netanyahu. Killing every single perso on either side is not a solution.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step.
Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer.
We believe in you, champ.
I’m sure no one here wishes that anyone HAD to die. Most ethical systems throughout history have a moral justification for killing, if the death will prevent further killing of innocent people. If it’s immoral to kill someone actively murdering children and about to murder more, are you saying it would be preferable to let the children be killed?
You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It’s not just killing because of killing, there’s an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn’t rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn’t entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don’t even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using ‘aid’ centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
You haven’t answered it though, I am actually asking, why do you assume bad faith? One of my goals in life in general is to understand different viewpoints. But I see now you deny there is a genocide ongoing, so of course any action would be wrong to you because you think this is just a typical war.
It’s not a matter of perspective, there is endless footage, documentation, corpses to see, to prove the genocide, and no reputable scholar denies Israel is commiting genocide. If you believe this is all a matter of perspective then you are choosing to live in a false constructed reality.
In a hypothetical where there’s a murderer with a machine gun killing children that will not be prosecuted in court then wishing them to be dead is pretty reasonable if you want the killing to stop.
Not saying killing is moral or that people don’t have the right to live because they do but how else would you stop the murder if the government doesn’t?
I feel like wishing people who are purposefully murdering children would die is not hateful and actually a pretty moral stance
It’s definitely not a black and white issue for sure, every adult must serve in the IDF or face criminal prosecution in Israel, so saying “death to the IDF” and “death to every of age Israeli citizen” are basically the same statement.
Seems pretty black and white. The genocide is massively popular at home, and I don’t see any armed uprisings.
Prospects were good during PM Rabins term, the root of this problem is with corrupt people like Netanyahu. Killing every single perso on either side is not a solution.
deleted by creator
So in your mindset, there’s zero point where killing is “justifiable”?
I’m legitimately asking here.
In a perfect world, people would respect boundaries, not start war, or genocides to further their own beliefs.
What do you propose people facing extinction do? Parlay?
deleted by creator
Troll? You haven’t answered either of my questions? Lmao. Not everything is black and white my guy.
Again, I am legitimately curious what your opinions about this are.
You can sling insults all you want. It doesn’t further your argument in any legitimate way.
deleted by creator
I am not disingenuous in asking them.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
deleted by creator
Jesus, those are some thoroughly piss-soaked chips you’ve got there, petal.
deleted by creator
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step. Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer. We believe in you, champ.
deleted by creator
Ahhhh, I get it. No instances of me cheering at the death of others, so the other party has to fake the argument. Petty, and a pity.
Come now, you’ve started discourse with others, you really ought to answer their questions.
I’m sure no one here wishes that anyone HAD to die. Most ethical systems throughout history have a moral justification for killing, if the death will prevent further killing of innocent people. If it’s immoral to kill someone actively murdering children and about to murder more, are you saying it would be preferable to let the children be killed?
deleted by creator
You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
deleted by creator
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It’s not just killing because of killing, there’s an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
deleted by creator
You are bad at trolling.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn’t rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn’t entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don’t even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using ‘aid’ centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
deleted by creator
You haven’t answered it though, I am actually asking, why do you assume bad faith? One of my goals in life in general is to understand different viewpoints. But I see now you deny there is a genocide ongoing, so of course any action would be wrong to you because you think this is just a typical war.
It’s not a matter of perspective, there is endless footage, documentation, corpses to see, to prove the genocide, and no reputable scholar denies Israel is commiting genocide. If you believe this is all a matter of perspective then you are choosing to live in a false constructed reality.
In a hypothetical where there’s a murderer with a machine gun killing children that will not be prosecuted in court then wishing them to be dead is pretty reasonable if you want the killing to stop.
Not saying killing is moral or that people don’t have the right to live because they do but how else would you stop the murder if the government doesn’t?
deleted by creator