Yes. One of my sources state that. You see I’m not cherry picking. I’m taking a variety of sources to try to make some sense of this shit show.
So. Fair. Beheading is particularly graphic violence. Is killing by bombing acceptable, then, because it’s not a human killing another with their own hands, because there’s indirection in between, through fighter planes and the explosives?
It should all be unacceptable, I believe we agree. I acknowledge the violence of this week’s attack, but I also acknowledge the Israeli violence before and after this week’s attack.
I think the onions take is fair and can’t really argue with it. After so much bad blood on both sides over so many decades I’ve got no clue what the solution is. However, I think another objective way to look at the situation is to consider what the outcome would be if the relative military strength of the two sides were switched. I think it’s pretty clear that in such a case the state of Israel would have been erased in the late 1940s.
It would, but it’s not really objective since it was also established through military force. Either way, it’s allowing for one of peoples to use military strength and not another.
Yes. One of my sources state that. You see I’m not cherry picking. I’m taking a variety of sources to try to make some sense of this shit show.
So. Fair. Beheading is particularly graphic violence. Is killing by bombing acceptable, then, because it’s not a human killing another with their own hands, because there’s indirection in between, through fighter planes and the explosives?
It should all be unacceptable, I believe we agree. I acknowledge the violence of this week’s attack, but I also acknowledge the Israeli violence before and after this week’s attack.
What’s the objective way to look at this? Maybe is the onion’s. https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505
I think the onions take is fair and can’t really argue with it. After so much bad blood on both sides over so many decades I’ve got no clue what the solution is. However, I think another objective way to look at the situation is to consider what the outcome would be if the relative military strength of the two sides were switched. I think it’s pretty clear that in such a case the state of Israel would have been erased in the late 1940s.
It would, but it’s not really objective since it was also established through military force. Either way, it’s allowing for one of peoples to use military strength and not another.