So your "truer face" isn't just one of hypocrisy but of dishonesty to manipulate others.
Oh for Pete's sake, cut the drama. If you have a point to make, then make it. Otherwise, please don't waste people's time.
I've been posting here for 15 years and nobody has ever accused me of dishonesty before. If you see a problem wiht my position then point it out. If I agree, I will own it. I always do and have done so here before. We're supposed to be friends here with certain commonalities. Your tone suggests otherwise. So which is it?
I'm here to learn, to teach, and have meaningful exchanges. I'm not here to trade in flame wars.
If I combine your arguments they contradict themselves.
OK, they might. Show me where and I will be happy to examine your point honestly.
If I follow your circular reasoning, you're arguing that because innocent Palestinians are the victims of terrorist Hamas (that use them as human shields), Israel has the right to kill them indiscriminately.
No. You injected "indiscriminate" to characterize my words. Now who is being manipulatively dishonest? This is a rank error and to be quite frank I am a little surprised at you for attempting it.
If the only way to defend yourself is to kill those behind whom the enemy hides, well... it comes down to you or them. It's a rock and a hard place, but please do regale us how you might bravely stand down and allow such an enemy to murder your children and friends. See how easy it is to engage in what you yourself accuse me of doing? How about we keep this real?
This is from your first post...[/QUOTE]
I do this all the time. I speak statistically as a matter of habit and have been doing it here for 15 years. I have also in years past made very clear statements explaining this. Perhaps I should have made my statement more explicit. Mea culpa.
That said, and to put it in clear terms you will have difficulty in misconstruing: some of the Palestinians are innocent, some are not. Hamas is fact and what they do is fact and not justifiable. If they have a problem with the acts of the Israeli "government" and if they are in fact at war with them, then let them confine their targeting to government installations and personnel. Murdering civilians is not an act of war. It's just murder and the world, rightly or otherwise, has agreed to not engage in certain acts, many of which Hamas commits frequently. I didn't make the rules. You appear to be under the misapprehension that it's a one or the other deal: either they are innocent or the are guilty as a monobloc. That's not what I, meant but if I constructed my sentences poorly, that's on me.
Once again I bid you place yourself in the position of the Israelis, forgetting the questions of whose land it really is because it is irrelevant to the issue in question. People living peaceably in their homes were attacked and murdered en masse. In my view far too many people seem to be defending this. I find the entire affair distasteful and utterly counterproductive. You may find differently. That's why we discuss these things - to better understand the issues and one another. Getting all excited and calling people liars and provocateurs really isn't helping things. YMMV.
In their place, I dare you to tell me you would stand idly and watch your family murdered. And once again, in case you missed it the several times I have repeated it in this thread, there is
PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND, ISRAEL INCLUDED. <-- Note the bright red color! Is the statement clear in its meaning to you? I'm no apologist for Israel, but right action is right action, even for assholes, and once again lest ye mistake my meaning here, most of the people involved are asses and have demonstrated this time and again for 70 years. But to be fair to both parties, they each claim the same space as their own. I'm sure they each see it as such with a more or less clean conscience. So each is pursuing his claim in direct opposition to that of the other. Once again so you don't mistunderstand: Mr. Rock, meet Mr. Hardplace. It's a shitty situation that, given the fundamental assumptions of the parties involved, appears to be intractable. Or do you see one or both parties coming to some compromise? I do not, but then again it is not something on which I expend much thought.