Israeli Torture And Rape

[el midgetron]

You think she was talking about culture?

I know she was. It’s obvious. You are just scrambling to claim some sort of moral high ground while you defend terrorism.

You avoided the question that was in there, here it is again:

If a man kills all of my family except me, as he tries to eliminate a single target, am I to applaud him and credit that man with "restraint"?

Yes or No.

No. No one is suggesting you “applaud” anyone. War is ugly business.

You didn’t answer my question. Which is culture is preferable? The man who kills your family inadvertently? Or the man who intentionally tries to kill your family?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Blah blah blah. You picked your side so save the dramatics.

Please explain to me why you think the antiarab caricature is appropriate but an antisemitic one is not?

If we are to avoid antisemitic caricatures why do you think we need not also avoid antiarab caricatures? (You can click on the red image to get to the newspaper source if you want).

 

[el midgetron]

Please explain to me why you think the antiarab caricature is appropriate but an antisemitic one is not?

View attachment 1008476View attachment 1008478

If we are to avoid antisemitic caricatures why do you think we need not also avoid antiarab caricatures? (You can click on the red image to get to the newspaper source if you want).

because the cartoon is not about “Arabs” it’s about Islamic terrorists. One of them is even carrying a Quran ffs.

Stop your faggy liberal “racism” shit.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I know she was. It’s obvious. You are just scrambling to claim some sort of moral high ground while you defend terrorism.


No. No one is suggesting you “applaud” anyone. War is ugly business.

You didn’t answer my question. Which is culture is preferable? The man who kills your family inadvertently? Or the man who intentionally tries to kill your family?

The term "inadvertently" more or less means "accidentally". You're speaking of culture yet at the same time speaking of individuals.

Insofar as individuals go a truly accidental is not as bad as an intended killing, but a person killed by accident is not an accidental death, it is at best involuntary manslaughter. The Israelis are engaged in a war crime, that is these Gaza deaths are EACH the result of actions taken by Israeli soldiers during the commission of said crime.

Often in US law someone killed unintentionally during the commission of a crime, is regarded as a victim of malicious intent, this means the consequences of committing the crime are considered part of the crime.

So please do not try to paint Israeli soldiers are benevolent and reluctant players here, the siege and genocide taking place in Gaza is a crime and deaths arising from that are therefore by no stretch of the imagination, to be called "accidents".

Bombing schools and hospitals and refugee camps are crimes, everyone knows this and that's why the ICC are seeking to issue arrest warrants, these soldiers are no different to the Nazi soldiers, they are "just taking orders" but if the orders are criminal then the soldier is culpable, so says the Nuremberg court when prosecuting concentration camp staff.

If some man told me to aim my tank at a school where kids and mothers were hiding I'd say "f**k you, no, not doing that", period, that's the end of my analysis in that situation and I'll just have to face whatever consequences arise, but I don't shoot women and children, period.

 

[el midgetron]

The term "inadvertently" more or less means "accidentally". You're speaking of culture yet at the same time speaking of individuals.

Insofar as individuals go a truly accidental is not as bad as an intended killing, but a person killed by accident is not an accidental death, it is at best involuntary manslaughter. The Israelis are engaged in a war crime, that is these Gaza deaths are EACH the result of actions taken by Israeli soldiers during the commission of said crime.

Often in US law someone killed unintentionally during the commission of a crime, is regarded as a victim of malicious intent, this means the consequences of committing the crime are considered part of the crime.

So please do not try to paint Israeli soldiers are benevolent and reluctant players here, the siege and genocide taking place in Gaza is a crime and deaths arising from that are therefore by no stretch of the imagination, to be called "accidents".

Bombing schools and hospitals and refugee camps are crimes, everyone knows this and that's why the ICC are seeking to issue arrest warrants, these soldiers are no different to the Nazi soldiers, they are "just taking orders" but if the orders are criminal then the soldier is culpable, so says the Nuremberg court when prosecuting concentration camp staff.

If some man told me to aim my tank at a school where kids and mothers were hiding I'd say "f**k you, no, not doing that", period, that's the end of my analysis in that situation and I'll just have to face whatever consequences arise, but I don't shoot women and children, period.

What a bloated load of crap. There is only one reason you need to conflate your answer that much.

It was your scenario. You were the one who proposed a scenario where someone who killed your family while trying to kill a single target. Apparently, if the person in your scenario was an Israeli, their actions would be a “war crime”. However, if it was an Islamic terrorist who specifically targeted your family, then you wouldn’t care so much, it would be understandable.