The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

And the lone terrorist cell knew how Israel would react to them killing Israeli citizens, much less teenagers, and they did it anyway.

Indeed. But Israel had no knowledge that Hamas, either as a collective organization or as a lone terrorist cell, was involved when they performed their military operation. Punishment came before proof of the crime, and that's on them.

That may be true, but they had their reasons to suspect that it was Hamas.

Of course. Palestine is their enemy, it was likely that a Palestinian would be responsible for their deaths.

But so what. That's not the World works, lol. You don't flood someone else' territory with soldiers and perform air strikes on their people "on a hunch". If the Israeli government was truly committed to getting justice for these teenagers, there are much more subtle methods for doing so, which we all know that Israel, having one of the best intelligence agencies in the World, is more than capable of doing.

So if they were provoked, and they've always retaliated the same way, then it's on Hamas.

But it seems your point was that it is irrelevant who it was. No matter what, what Israel did was overkill, correct?

My point is that Hamas didn't provoke Israel's response, as Israel had no idea Hamas was responsible when they responded.

Beyond that, yes, Israel's response was overkill either way.

We're still disagreeing here. Israel had no idea but they suspected, so they acted accordingly. It terms out their hunches were correct, even if it was a lone terrorist cell, that did what they did despite knowing how Israel would respond and choosing to provoke them nonetheless.

I understand what you're saying, but how can you say that Hamas' actions provoked Israel's candor because Israel suspected that Hamas was at fault?

As I'm interpreting it, you're basically saying that even if there's no evidence that Hamas committed a grievance against Israel, it's still Hamas' fault if Israel punishes them for it.

What I am saying is, Hamas knew how they Israel would respond and they did what they did anyways, thereby proving Israel. They knew Israel would suspect Hamas and that's what Israel did. It is definitely the lone cell's fault for provoking Israel and bringing hell onto their organization. Then it became the entirety of Hamas' fault for shooting rockets and killing people, theirs and Israelis.

If Israel had evidence that Hamas was involved before commencing with their operation, then I would agree that their [Israel's] actions were provoked.

However, that they had no idea Hamas was responsible, merely suspecting that they were, disqualifies the kidnappings from being a provocation, imo. Attacking someone for a grievance you don't know they committed isn't retaliation.

But you're missing the other side of the equation. The lone cell knowing what Israel would do indicates provocation.

If the lone cell had wanted to provoke a response from Israel, he would have openly claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, not cowered like a little ***** behind a wall of civilians.

Unless we're operating under the assumption that the kidnappings were part of some convoluted Machiavellian scheme perpetrated by a real-life Bane, it's more likely that the kidnappings were simply a hate crime, not a political or military statement by Hamas.

And unless the lone cell had a reasonable expectation of non retaliation, he went ahead and did what he did because he didn't expect to be caught.

... exactly.

It's likely that the cell didn't own up to the crime specifically to avoid provoking a response from Israel.

Or Hamas, for that matter. While Palestine may not take moral issue with killing some Jewish teenagers, I doubt they're enjoying the political/military repercussions of that act. Hamas is well aware of what a pissed off Israel is capable of.

That wouldn't make sense, especially since Hamas is the first group Israel would suspect. It's possible that this cell simply misjudged the amount of retaliation Israel was going to engage in.

Dave
It always struck me as weird that you would get into every kind of debate except for those centered around international conflicts.

That's because you have a shit memory, sport. Just a couple of months ago you and I disagreed merrily about the appropriate response to the fiasco in Crimea and broader United States foreign policy.

But what's your point? Is this supposed to be a credentials thing? Sometimes I find that discussion with people who sit in vehement opposition to me can be productive. Right now, given the quantities of frothing lunacy inspired by this topic in real life—I have a high school buddy serving in the IDF, built like Steve Rogers before the treatment but a gung ho militant Zionist, posts shit all day that makes my skin crawl—I imagine it would be fruitless. At any rate, I'm not sure I have anything useful to say to a guy who ardently resists reconciling the deaths of over forty Israelis and a thousand Palestinians with the notion of a tragedy.

Dave
Btw Faunus, I found this interesting as well from Linker, since you agree that he tells it like it is.

Dave
His assertions would seem to suggest that events such as the Crusades were indeed a perversion of religion based on individual agendas (my assertion in our previous debate, which you said was laughable).

[quote]Eminence
I have specifically asked you under what conditions you would attribute blame for a crime to religion, and your answer was effectively "none," because anything bad done in the name of religion is just a perversion. That last bit is laughable, but fine.

Eminence
I'm saying that a perversion of religion or scriptural intent is quite often not necessary to justify doing a bad thing, it's already sitting right there.

Tempest
You're engrossed by middling work? The Son of Suns trilogy is probably better overall, but I think this guy's prose is more engaging.

It's not stellar... but it's Star Wars.

😖hifty:

Originally posted by Eminence
[B]mmm

That's because you have a shit memory, sport. Just a couple of months ago you and I disagreed merrily about the appropriate response to the fiasco in Crimea and broader United States foreign policy.

But what's your point? Is this supposed to be a credentials thing? Sometimes I find that discussion with people who sit in vehement opposition to me can be productive. Right now, given the quantities of frothing lunacy inspired by this topic in real life—I have a high school buddy serving in the IDF, built like Steve Rogers before the treatment but a gung ho militant Zionist, posts shit all day that makes my skin crawl—I imagine it would be fruitless. At any rate, I'm not sure I have anything useful to say to a guy who ardently resists reconciling the deaths of over forty Israelis and a thousand Palestinians with the notion of a tragedy.

You really have goldfish-class powers of recall.

What I deemed "laughable" was the idea that one always has to twist or obscure the literal language of a scripture or given religious edict to find a reason to commit what I—we?—might consider unjust or otherwise unfounded violence. You've managed to miss the entirety of my argument if you still think I said blame for the Crusades (or anything, ever) lies entirely at the foot of an altar.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Movie wasn't terrible but it was mind-numbingly predictable and by-the-numbers. Every twist, every character arc- there wasn't a single part of the movie that took a risk.

Only thing that surprised me is how close it came to passing the bechdel test. Two women, talking to each other. So close. If only they'd talked about something other than Hercules...

And Nephthys thinks this guy is a misogynist.

Dave
Remind me

Dave
Think you missed the entire point of the "tragedy" issue I had but that isn't surprising, giving your knack for missing points.

Dave
Or..I don't go back into old posts and you do? Hardly call that recall, wouldn't you agree?

👆

Dave
I never even remotely alluded to that last part you mentioned so that was quite humorous.

edit:

Tzeentch
Movie wasn't terrible but it was mind-numbingly predictable and by-the-numbers. Every twist, every character arc- there wasn't a single part of the movie that took a risk.

Only thing that surprised me is how close it came to passing the bechdel test. Two women, talking to each other. So close. If only they'd talked about something other than Hercules...

I didn't feel the United States needed to act unilaterally with more aggression than it had, I advocated respect for international law, condemned posturing, expressed displeasure with CIA meddling in Central and South America, etc.

I correctly recalled the idea I tried to convey and posted the relevant text to conclusively illustrate your error.

This was just too funny. All you did was just go back to the conversation, while I didn't. The fact that you're going to sit here and say that you correctly recalled, and then went back to confirm it, warrants that picture.

It follows cleanly from the false premise, but I'm glad we're in agreement overall. I will again forgive, but never forget, your transgressions.