Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JCL
Do you suppose for a moment that the civilians being bombed have the same opinion?
So restricted bombing that still kills civilians is OK? What are acceptable collateral losses?
All I am saying is that there is more than one side to this.
|
Do you mean the civilians in Gaza that are being bombed? Or do you mean the civilians in Israel that are being bombed (rocketed)?
- Cause if there was a lessor of two evils I would say that Israel that is seeking military targets is the lesser evil. Whereas the Hamas rockets are being launched intentionally into civilian populations with the intent of killing civilians..
Yes, restricted bombing that kills civilians is okay, especially if the leaders of the groups attacking Israel are intentionally hiding behind their civilians to try to win the war of public opinion.
Accepted collateral losses should be minimized as much as possible, while allowing Israel to exterminate the terrorists who continue to attack it. If someone were to say, killing any more than 10 is unacceptable, then Hamas would hide behind 20. If someone said that 20 dead is unacceptable, then Hamas would hide behind 40.
And while I agree with you, there is more than one side to the issue. There is always more than one side to an issue. But sometimes you gotta pick a side. And for my money, I'm going to pick the side of the small country that keeps getting attacked by it's neighbors in an effort to destroy it.
And while I try to remember that there is a large number of people, the Palestinians who are going through very, very, very tough and horrible times, they will never see my support as they continue to attack Israel and it's civilians in war after war after war..
There is a long history of violence against Jews in the Middle East and I believe those Jews have the right to defend themselves. And they don't need to give land to people who keep attacking them. They were getting attacked by the same people long before the new map of 1967...