Skip to main content

View Diary: Hamas proves once again that Palestinian lives are expendable (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, nice to know they can do no wrong then (7+ / 0-)

    In my experience sledgehammers don't make very good flyswatters.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:14:05 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't believe in the theory (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayinPortland

      That a response must not be disproportionate, sorry. This goes for any country. If a country feels its sovereignty is under attack, I support whatever defense they choose to be necessary. (Of course, only with weapons and munitions that are deemed "acceptable"- meaning, non radioactive, nuclear, cluster bombs, etc).  

      •  I rather disagree (7+ / 0-)

        And I realize this is "arguing from expertise" but I suspect I've put more real bombs on real targets in my time than you have.

        But hey, if you want disproportionate why not go all the way? Why pussyfoot around? Slaughter all the inhabitants and put the whole place to the torch.

        "Nits make lice" don't you know?

        If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

        by Major Kong on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:26:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately for you and Israel, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, PrahaPartizan

        International Law DOES feel that responses must be proportionate.

        •  Note that the "proportionate rule" only applies to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PeterHug

          targeting military that may result in civilian casualties.

          Essentially, the rule only state that you cannot cause a disproportionate amount of civilian casualties while trying to achieve some sort of military advantage.

          It doesn't stop a nation from wiping out another country's military installation in a war.

          In Israel case, however, one can argue that whatever additional military advantage they could gain is unlikely to be "proportionate" to the amount of civilian casualty they inflict. For no other reason that balance of force is so lopsided that any additional military advantage is probably very marginal (instead of you being able to effectively stop 99% of the rockets, you can now stop 99.1% of the rocket).

      •  "Defense"? Better think that one through again... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q, PrahaPartizan

        More like offense, with collective punishment as the motivator.  

        Nobody is fooling anybody here.   The world will always remember the horrors of WWII, and will also remember the horrors of just what is happening currently as well:  History isn't that blind when the once victimized, have become the victimizer of others.

        There isn't any amount of spin or revisionist history that can change those facts.

         

        “My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there." - Rumi

        by LamontCranston on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:14:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (66)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site