Ramaswamy 2024

[BugI02]

I pretty much agree with you on this. But he didn't flip flop which is what that post stated. But should students who joined an organization in college and had no say in the offensive statements that they put out be penalized? IIRC there were a couple of Jewish groups that signed onto those statements.

And one more question, does this "It is NEVER OK, there are no circumstances that can change that judgement, and I really don't care at this point if Israel just kills them all." apply to civilians old, young, and even babies?

Rome had no more trouble with Carthage after it utterly destroyed the city, salted the earth it was built upon and scattered and enslaved its inhabitants

There is a difference between unavoidable civilian casualties during a military campaign and an organization whose sole reason behind their attack was to kill civilians. If it took killing every last 'Palestinian' to stamp out that enemy root and branch, I would allow it

 

[jamil]

But “sounds like” is all we have here…

Firing 75% of the federal workforce? I know what feckless campaign promises look like. It's hard to trust people who make impossible promises. Firing 75%. Draining the swamp. yadda yadda.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Rome had no more trouble with Carthage after it utterly destroyed the city, salted the earth it was built upon and scattered and enslaved its inhabitants

There is a difference between unavoidable civilian casualties during a military campaign and an organization whose sole reason behind their attack was to kill civilians. If it took killing every last 'Palestinian' to stamp out that enemy root and branch, I would allow it

You made the statement "It is NEVER OK, there are no circumstances that can change that judgement" in regards to targeting civilians old, young, and even babies. But here you seem just fine with it. As long as it is to stamp out the enemy, root and branch. I'm pretty sure that is almost if not exactly Hamas's viewpoint. So how does that make you differ than the college students? Other than YOU believe the cause is just.

And yes I understand collateral damage, but it doesn't seem to me that is what you're talking about.

 

[BugI02]

You made the statement "It is NEVER OK, there are no circumstances that can change that judgement" in regards to targeting civilians old, young, and even babies. But here you seem just fine with it. As long as it is to stamp out the enemy, root and branch. I'm pretty sure that is almost if not exactly Hamas's viewpoint. So how does that make you differ than the college students? Other than YOU believe the cause is just.

And yes I understand collateral damage, but it doesn't seem to me that is what you're talking about.

In no respect will the Israelis be 'targeting civilians', but if you give way to the human shield strategy you will never accomplish your military goals because it will only encourage what Hamas is doing even now - not letting civilians evacuate and placing military installations in schools, hospitals and places of worship

In no respect am I calling for everyone in Gaza to be killed, but neither am I calling for civilians might be killed to be a reason for not accomplishing military objectives

If you live(d) in Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Gaza, sorry about your luck. You chose unwisely

Edit: I would not expect you to make the mistake of false equivalence here. There is a HUGE difference between 'children and civilians were killed in your operation' and 'your operation was DESIGNED to kill civilians and children and that was its only purpose'

Edit2: Exodus 21:23-25

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In no respect will the Israelis be 'targeting civilians', but if you give way to the human shield strategy you will never accomplish your military goals because it will only encourage what Hamas is doing even now - not letting civilians evacuate and placing military installations in schools, hospitals and places of worship

In no respect am I calling for everyone in Gaza to be killed, but neither am I calling for civilians might be killed to be a reason for not accomplishing military objectives

If you live(d) in Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Gaza, sorry about your luck. You chose unwisely

You said you're okay with killing every last Palestinian to wipe out the enemy root and branch, how do you do that without targeting civilians?

 

[BugI02]

I'm basically saying 'whatever it takes' to wipe out Hamas, not 'kill them all in order to get Hamas' - but it is still America, you're free to twist my words and deliberately misunderstand my intent

Please do point out where I've said 'Israeli should kill 'palestinian' civilians and their children' rather than 'Israel should kill every last member of Hamas'

Did I say that Israelis should rape their women, too? Oy

Edit: If those 'civilians' and their children pick up arms and fight for Hamas, then down they go - unless you're telling me you would let either shoot you out of some misplaced concern for 'the innocent'

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm basically saying 'whatever it takes' to wipe out Hamas, not 'kill them all in order to get Hamas' - but it is still America, you're free to twist my words and deliberately misunderstand my intent

Please do point out where I've said 'Israeli should kill 'palestinian' civilians and their children' rather than 'Israel should kill every last member of Hamas'

Did I say that Israelis should rape their women, too? Oy

Edit: If those 'civilians' and their children pick up arms and fight for Hamas, then down they go - unless you're telling me you would let either shoot you out of some misplaced concern for 'the innocent'

You didn't say Hamas, you said "If it took killing every last 'Palestinian' to stamp out that enemy root and branch, I would allow it". Does every last Palestinian include civilians? Or are all Palestinians terrorists/Hamas?

If they pick up arms, supply, or shelter Hamas, fair game. If they are being used unwillingly by Hamas as human shields I feel bad for them but collateral damage is a fact of war. Slightly different than your quoted words.

And nope you never said anything about rape.

 

[foszoe]

You didn't say Hamas, you said "If it took killing every last 'Palestinian' to stamp out that enemy root and branch, I would allow it". Does every last Palestinian include civilians? Or are all Palestinians terrorists/Hamas?

If they pick up arms, supply, or shelter Hamas, fair game. If they are being used unwillingly by Hamas as human shields I feel bad for them but collateral damage is a fact of war. Slightly different than your quoted words.

Maybe he didn't really mean what he said.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Maybe he didn't really mean what he said.

Quite possible, and if he said that I'd accept it.

 

[BugI02]

You didn't say Hamas, you said "If it took killing every last 'Palestinian' to stamp out that enemy root and branch, I would allow it". Does every last Palestinian include civilians? Or are all Palestinians terrorists/Hamas?

If they pick up arms, supply, or shelter Hamas, fair game. If they are being used unwillingly by Hamas as human shields I feel bad for them but collateral damage is a fact of war. Slightly different than your quoted words.

And nope you never said anything about rape.

Please notice that I put 'Palestinian' in quotes, there are no real Palestinians as far as I can see, only members of the jihadi diaspora who settled in Gaza because no one else wants such dedicated madmen in their midst

Now, perhaps explain why you wish to put so much effort into distorting what I write to present me as more bloodthirsty than I am? Note the 'if' I highlighted in red. 'If' it took killing every last Palestinian to stamp out Hamas, I would allow it'

I'm not saying it will take killing them all, I'm not saying it won't. I am advocating for the complete and utter destruction of Hamas and saying that concerns for 'innocent' 'palestinians' should not be allowed to stand in the way. Any other position will just encourage hostage taking and the use of human shields.

Should Israel avoid bombing the Hamas tunnel system or bunkers in Northern Gaza because Hamas might have hostages and/or civilians underground with them? If you think they should not, then you have already surrendered for them. I know there will be civilian casualties, some of them children, because Hamas is known to make use of such people as human shields and to parade the dead for the cameras of the media so as to put pressure on Israel to scale back their military response. I am saying that should not be allowed to happen this time and that I don't believe any price in collateral damage should be too high a price to pay to wipe Hamas from the face of the earth. My only concern would be how best to reach the ones living in luxury in places like Qatar as part of the clean up

I felt the same way about the 9/11 terrorists. Had I been POTUS I would not have cared about the potential fall-out from killing a minor prince of the royal house of Sand as part of offing bin Laden at the desert meet up we could have targeted. I was completely down with the idea of us doing Soleimani. Targeted operations that inevitably killed/would have killed others as well as the target. You have not seen me saying we should have just strafed the whole square to get Soleimani nor will you see me advocate for carpet bombing Gaza. I would like to see death minimized subject to getting the job done

If I was given a shot at the Devil, I would certainly shoot through someone else's head to get to him. I would not be concerned whether that person was innocent or acolyte, I would just think they had chosen unwisely where to hang out

 

[BugI02]

You didn't say Hamas, you said "If it took killing every last 'Palestinian' to stamp out that enemy root and branch, I would allow it". Does every last Palestinian include civilians? Or are all Palestinians terrorists/Hamas?

If they pick up arms, supply, or shelter Hamas, fair game. If they are being used unwillingly by Hamas as human shields I feel bad for them but collateral damage is a fact of war. Slightly different than your quoted words.

And nope you never said anything about rape.

It needs to be understood that they are saying that terrorism targeting civilians old, young and even babies - terrorism that targets the raping of captive women civilians - is OK as long as the left believes your cause is 'just'

This is copied directly from my post #439, middle paragraph. I slightly changed the text color on the salient part because you seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Seems to mention rape, doesn't it?

Maybe its time to lay your cards on the table, because you're burning down any illusions of discussion beyond vendetta. Just exactly what is your point, assuming you have one

 

[foszoe]

Maybe its time to lay your cards on the table,

Then try to pick them back up following your example. Maybe he didn't mean what he said either is what you are trying to say.

Everything is a hidden agenda.

 

[Ziggidy]

I know I am jumping in late, but can you truly get rid of the terrorist without removing the Palestinians? Are the Palestinians peace loving people who are willing to live with the Jews? I was under the impression that the Palestinians teach their children, from birth, how bad the Jews are. They are taught to hate them and want to see them destroyed. How does one target the Hamas without including ALL who want Israel destroyed?

 

[BugI02]

Then try to pick them back up following your example. Maybe he didn't mean what he said either is what you are trying to say.

Everything is a hidden agenda.

Truth stings a bit, doesn't it?

 

[foszoe]

Truth stings a bit, doesn't it?

Wouldn't know from reading supposition.

Here is one for you.

On INGO, we mostly don't believe the MSM.

SO given the newspaper, the toronto star, using Isreal in its byline AND JT never using the word Israel.

How are you certain the Israeli sentiment was from Justin Trudeau and not the editorial staff at the Toronto Star?

How are you deciding the probability of one is higher than the other?

Do you have any evidence other than that article to support your defense of the statement that JT is antisemite?

 

[bobzilla]

Folks, we got ourselves a place for that conversation. PLease take it over there. This is about the presidential candidate.

 

[Ziggidy]

On topic, the more I see Ramaswamy, the more I dislike him. He was refreshing in the beginning but he is now sounding like a skipping record. I like what he is saying but something just isn’t right with him. He seems like a spoiled cocky kid running for class president. Something is missing.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Please notice that I put 'Palestinian' in quotes, there are no real Palestinians as far as I can see, only members of the jihadi diaspora who settled in Gaza because no one else wants such dedicated madmen in their midst

Now, perhaps explain why you wish to put so much effort into distorting what I write to present me as more bloodthirsty than I am? Note the 'if' I highlighted in red. 'If' it took killing every last Palestinian to stamp out Hamas, I would allow it'

I'm not saying it will take killing them all, I'm not saying it won't. I am advocating for the complete and utter destruction of Hamas and saying that concerns for 'innocent' 'palestinians' should not be allowed to stand in the way. Any other position will just encourage hostage taking and the use of human shields.

Should Israel avoid bombing the Hamas tunnel system or bunkers in Northern Gaza because Hamas might have hostages and/or civilians underground with them? If you think they should not, then you have already surrendered for them. I know there will be civilian casualties, some of them children, because Hamas is known to make use of such people as human shields and to parade the dead for the cameras of the media so as to put pressure on Israel to scale back their military response. I am saying that should not be allowed to happen this time and that I don't believe any price in collateral damage should be too high a price to pay to wipe Hamas from the face of the earth. My only concern would be how best to reach the ones living in luxury in places like Qatar as part of the clean up

I felt the same way about the 9/11 terrorists. Had I been POTUS I would not have cared about the potential fall-out from killing a minor prince of the royal house of Sand as part of offing bin Laden at the desert meet up we could have targeted. I was completely down with the idea of us doing Soleimani. Targeted operations that inevitably killed/would have killed others as well as the target. You have not seen me saying we should have just strafed the whole square to get Soleimani nor will you see me advocate for carpet bombing Gaza. I would like to see death minimized subject to getting the job done

If I was given a shot at the Devil, I would certainly shoot through someone else's head to get to him. I would not be concerned whether that person was innocent or acolyte, I would just think they had chosen unwisely where to hang out

I'll have to disagree that there are no Palestinians, I will agree that there is no Palestinian nation. That area has been known as Palestine for just how long? I'm sure that there are at least some people living there that are descended from people that lived there long before Israel was a country, including some Jews. Especially since virtually all Ashkenazi Jews DNA can be traced in part to that area of the world. Not to mention descendants of those living in the West Bank and Gaza when Israel annex them as a buffer. Hell there are most likely people alive there who lived there when it was annexed, considering it happened in 1967.

And I already said that while I'd feel bad about unwilling people being used as human shields, collateral damage is a fact of war.

This is copied directly from my post #439, middle paragraph. I slightly changed the text color on the salient part because you seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Seems to mention rape, doesn't it?

Maybe its time to lay your cards on the table, because you're burning down any illusions of discussion beyond vendetta. Just exactly what is your point, assuming you have one

And that was in direct response to the post I quoted in which you asked "Did I say that Israelis should rape their women, too? Oy"

Folks, we got ourselves a place for that conversation. PLease take it over there. This is about the presidential candidate.

I agree, this is my last post about this here.

 

[BugI02]

Wouldn't know from reading supposition.

Here is one for you.

On INGO, we mostly don't believe the MSM.

SO given the newspaper, the toronto star, using Isreal in its byline AND JT never using the word Israel.

How are you certain the Israeli sentiment was from Justin Trudeau and not the editorial staff at the Toronto Star?

How are you deciding the probability of one is higher than the other?

Do you have any evidence other than that article to support your defense of the statement that JT is antisemite? [Please point out my post where I called him an antisemite. I'll wait. Remember, it should be what I said not what I didn't say ]

Direct quote:

“The news coming out of Gaza is horrific,” the prime minister said.

“International humanitarian and international law needs to be respected in this and in all cases. There are rules around wars and it’s not acceptable to hit a hospital.”

So, parse the language. Do you think he is speaking to BOTH parties with the bit about 'humanitarian and international law'? Why would you think that, did Hamas demonstrate any concern for 'humanitarian or international law' in the nature or conduct of their attack? Would it make sense for him to make that appeal to an organization not governed by those concerns?

Also, the 'it is not acceptable to hit a hospital' bit, is not that parsed in a way that makes it appear to be addressed to an entity that CHOSE to hit a hospital? Is anyone saying that someone deliberately targeted the hospital? Well Hamas is saying that Israel deliberately bombed the hospital. Israel is saying it was an unintentional strike by a malfunctioning missile from some Hamas adjacent group, IJ I think.

So, who do YOU think he was talking to? Comprehension revolves around paying careful attention to what was actually said and not getting to concerned about what was not said, especially when dealing with the utterances of a proven authoritarian leftist weasel politician

 

[BugI02]

Following TJBB's example

foszoe, if you want to argue nuance start a 'Justin Trudeau is not a Globalist Authoritarian Weasel' thread and we can continue there