Proud of my university!

You can have a job worthy of admiration and still be a douche no?

 

I am going to address this a couple of ways:

1. No, wars have innocent casualties. The issue goes to intent. In Vietnam, there were intentional killings of civilians. As such, we prosecuted those who did at least some of them.
2. Your tie to World War II is interesting because of the tie to the notion of legal conduct in a war, as international law largely developed out of the issues in World War II. If you really want to dig down into the history, there was a push in the aftermath of World War II to define legal and illegal activity in war to prevent the atrocities that happened during both world wars. Part of the motivation for this push was because people saw that engaging in certain activities, such as the purposeful killing of civilians, the purposeful destruction of their housing and property, the use of indiscriminate killing methods (such as chemical warfare), etc. tended to backfire. The activities in World War I, where the combatants did much of this, resulted in a generation growing up and fighting World War II. International law is for the benefit of everybody. Hamas certainly violated it, but that doesn't excuse Israel also violating it.

The solution is not the complete destruction of Gaza. If it is done completely, that would be genocide. If it is done partially, it will lead to a more radical future.

You realize that both sides can commit war crimes in a conflict right? Yes, the use of sexual violence, the targeting of civilians, etc. are all violations of international law and makes them war criminals. That doesn't mean that the other side gets to do anything they want without it being a war crime.

This argument does not make sense.

Fighting wars is difficult. Fighting wars to pursue long-term strategic goals is even more difficult. But it should be the goal.

 

And here we have somebody cheering genocide.

 

Also bombing schools, I think

 

So, kinda like how you were a school counselor?

 

No.
Counseling is not noble. It was crazy working in a war zone.

 

To purposefully kill for the simple sake of killing in war I agree is wrong. There is a real debate in the nuclear bombing of two cities in Japan that killed civilians. Would Japan have surrounded without that? How many Americans and Japanese would have died in an invasion to secure victory? Probably a whole lot.
Where would we be if we avoided bombing weapon instillations in Germany or Japan because they were located in large cities? We would all probably be speaking German by now.

War is ugly but sometimes necessary when defeating evil. Is all war justified? No, but sometimes it is.
The free world greatly hinders themselves when for the sake of sanitizing war we aid the enemy. Avoid killing innocent people? OK we will place our weapons in their midst.

You say Israel too is the culprit? How do you know this? It seems to me they are after Hamas wherever they are embedded. Often times they are embedded among civilians. You cannot equate what Hamas did to what Israel is doing in order to protect their citizens and right to exist. I don't see them raping, beheading, and ravaging the people of Gaza. They were not the perpetuators in this war. Engaging a war with terrorist groups is a whole new way of fighting a war. To play by their rules is suicide.

And to abide by International law, is not always wise. What if we were in a conflict like Israel, and the International law say back off, Yes Iran has bombed NY, but to avoid more bloodshed do not retaliate. They should not dictate what we do in every case.

 

What if 60 Hamas was hiding or 80 Hamas were hiding among innocent? What if weapon facilities were located in a populated city during war? We can play all sorts of scenarios. What if terrorist are allowed to exist's and explodes a bomb in a market place in Israel to kill nothing but innocent people.

 

You making a sweeping statement ("I don't like cops") about those who appear to have done nothing remotely improper in this circumstance while defending someone spitting on them as being nice is really quite the "compelling argument". Be better. I have sympathy for those that conduct reasonable and legitimate protests, this kid did nothing but surrender the high ground and distract from and damage whatever point he was hoping to make.

 

Season ticket holder for over 30 years. And in my line of work, I am at several UF baseball games each season. Never once have I hidden behind a mask, made racist comments against any individual or group, gone out of my way to intimidate or scare innocent people or spit in anyone’s face be it on UF’s campus or anywhere else.

 

Again, the point isn't to make things easy. The avoidance of the killing of citizen has important strategic benefits for both sides. Part of why there is little that Israel can do to prevent this in the future (and why they have needed to continually escalate violence) is because tactics have won out over strategy for decades.

Bellingcat just released a report that showed evidence of a unit of the Israeli military blowing up housing. Some of those houses may have been associated with Hamas. However, there are others in which even members of the unit are admitting that it was just for revenge.

“We’ve Become Addicted to Explosions” The IDF Unit Responsible for Demolishing Homes Across Gaza - bellingcat

I have not seen reports of them engaging in sexual violence as a tactic of war. "Ravaging" is a non-specific term. They are certainly killing civilians in Gaza in large numbers.

They are perpetrators of the war. They did not begin the war. Being critical of Israel's conduct is not, in any manner, a failure to acknowledge Hamas' actions.

It is not. It is what makes one not a terrorist themselves.

Then we should likely back off. The international laws are not just random. They have strategic value.

 

My answer would remain that you don't call in an airstrike on a preschool filled with children.

I said he's a nice kid in response to a poster who called him a punk and said he would have supported the police beating him. If that upsets you, oh well.

I made a "sweeping statement" that describes my feelings towards police. One I stand behind. I don't like cops. Doesn't mean all cops are bad people, but it is a bad institution that protects the worst of them and is treated as above accountability, leading to widespread abuses. Watching police beat students and professors over the past week has done nothing but make my distaste for that institution grow.

So I can understand why a young person would make an immature decision in that moment when the police are there arresting peaceful protesters. It was stupid. He'll undoubtedly have to face consequences for it. But it doesn't make him a bad person.

 

You're not a UF student. You're on campus. That makes you an "outside agitator." I don't make the rules.

 

So that makes it right?

 

Makes what right?

 

Rest assured your opinons don't upset me, no matter how obtuse they may be lol

 

Rest assured, the feeling is mutual. With that out of the way, go plague somebody else with your abysmal reading comprehension.

 

You actually sound upset....did someone spit at you because you are a lawyer and they just don't like lawyers? Don't be mad, I'm sure it was just a nice kid

 

You shouldn’t make sense in these threads. The posts stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Oh god, the horror of somebody spitting at me. How would I survive? Speaking of spittle, don't you have some officers' boots to clean?