DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

The Geneva Convention is not the final arbiter, but who is? The ICC? The UN?

Treaties have the full force of law. That is kind of the point of treaties and you are certainly aware of that, counselor.

Whether you agree it is the final arbiter or intermediate or whatever is irrelevant, what you propose is unlawful violence (blowing up the home) for political purposes (deterrence). If you'd like to correct me by showing which part of your proposed plan of action is not "unlawful violence" for "political purpose", by all means, educate me.

If laws don't matter and you seem to disregard laws that you find inconvenient, how are we going to get to your subtype of terrorism? Or is it only unlawful if you disagree with the actors?

And as I said, I'm not as interested in this on granular level, but your proposed war crime is a micro example of what the real problem is. Your proposal, when done at scale, is a very serious problem to think about because not only does the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure create material problems, it will be followed by disease, illness, and death and a refugee crisis.

So, is the carrying out of the Dahiya Doctrine terrorism?

I agree with your definition of religious terrorism. But you should proceed with caution.

---

I disagree with you that destroying the home of a mass murderer is per se unlawful, much less terrorism. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree on that. I understand that definition is convenient for your erroneous argument, but when you can't even acknowledge the enormous distinction between mass murdering civilians in a public marketplace, and destroying the home of a known mass murderer (while giving the occupants warning beforehand), then you're just not an intellectually honest person and clearly have an agenda.

I mean, you're on this board downplaying the destruction wrought by Islamists. It's incredible. You would deny reality due to your dislike of the Jews.

As for the Dahiya Doctrine, I don't necessarily agree with it, but am cognizant that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian society, and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield. We know this because we've uncovered the weapons depots and tunnels underneath hospitals. The question is, how do you deal with that when the stated goal of Hamas is your destruction? Israel is in a pickle, and it's hard for me to judge a doctrine that is attempting to deal with an existential threat to Israeli existence.

As for religious terrorism, I am glad we can agree on the definition. I wish you could also acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous terroristic threat in the world today.

What caution do you suggest?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So to you, the Chabad movement which only started in the late 18th Century and in no way represents most Jews' opinions, is the necessary focus for this thread?

---

Well, the degree to which Chabad represents most Jews' opinions is debatable. It certainly doesn't represent all Jews. But it is a mainstream movement within Judaism, and far from being a fringe group. The Kushners donated 2 million dollars to it.

"As American Jewry overall has experienced an increase in Jewish engagement in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks, in what has been deemed "The Surge," the largest rise has been seen among those connected to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, outpacing all other denominations and among unaffiliated Jews, according to survey data from Jewish Federations of North America"

So it is a very relevant question...and one that remains unanswered by Christian Zionists.

---

I know a fairly large number of Jews. Zero Chabad members.

So for now I call BS on the claim that Chabad represents Judaism any more than Joel Osteen is a good example of a Christian in practice.

---

How dare you chide him for stereotyping and painting with a broad brush. You should know by now that a few examples of bad Jews means all Jews are bad.

---

Didn't you post something about Atheists not having morals and being unable to distinguish right from wrong?

---

No.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

However, if I merely take you at your word that Chabad believes and teaches what you claim it does, then yes, it is an evil and racist organization.

---

Good! We're getting closer.

Quote:

---

Are all Jews evil and bad because Chabad exists?

---

Of course not. In life, "all" and "none" often lead to wrong conclusions.

Quote:

---

Do you condemn all white people as evil and racist because the KKK exists?

---

Nope. I do hold the KKK and Chabad as moral equivalents.

---

We've never been far apart on these issues, if those are your positions. You're just too obtuse, too argumentative, and leap to too many illogical conclusions due to your tendency to assume.

Need to read up on the Geneva Convention. I seem to recall that there are specific definitions of wartime actions.

IIRC, that's why everybody signed the agreement; it has holes.

The Geneva Conention has been routinely ignored by all warring parties since its inception.

Occaisionally the victors use it to execute the losers.......other than that it is meaningless.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

The Geneva Convention is not the final arbiter, but who is? The ICC? The UN?

Treaties have the full force of law. That is kind of the point of treaties and you are certainly aware of that, counselor.

Whether you agree it is the final arbiter or intermediate or whatever is irrelevant, what you propose is unlawful violence (blowing up the home) for political purposes (deterrence). If you'd like to correct me by showing which part of your proposed plan of action is not "unlawful violence" for "political purpose", by all means, educate me.

If laws don't matter and you seem to disregard laws that you find inconvenient, how are we going to get to your subtype of terrorism? Or is it only unlawful if you disagree with the actors?

And as I said, I'm not as interested in this on granular level, but your proposed war crime is a micro example of what the real problem is. Your proposal, when done at scale, is a very serious problem to think about because not only does the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure create material problems, it will be followed by disease, illness, and death and a refugee crisis.

So, is the carrying out of the Dahiya Doctrine terrorism?

I agree with your definition of religious terrorism. But you should proceed with caution.

---

I disagree with you that destroying the home of a mass murderer is per se unlawful, much less terrorism. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree on that. I understand that definition is convenient for your erroneous argument, but when you can't even acknowledge the enormous distinction between mass murdering civilians in a public marketplace, and destroying the home of a known mass murderer (while giving the occupants warning beforehand), then you're just not an intellectually honest person and clearly have an agenda.

I mean, you're on this board downplaying the destruction wrought by Islamists. It's incredible. You would deny reality due to your dislike of the Jews.

As for the Dahiya Doctrine, I don't necessarily agree with it, but am cognizant that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian society, and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield. We know this because we've uncovered the weapons depots and tunnels underneath hospitals. The question is, how do you deal with that when the stated goal of Hamas is your destruction? Israel is in a pickle, and it's hard for me to judge a doctrine that is attempting to deal with an existential threat to Israeli existence.

As for religious terrorism, I am glad we can agree on the definition. I wish you could also acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous terroristic threat in the world today.

What caution do you suggest?

---

Feel free to actually engage on substance. It is where the real fun is.

The Geneva Convention is clear that the targeting of civilian real and personal property and civilian infrastructure unless absolutely necessary is illegal. Every UN member state is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. There is not a single SJA in uniform in this country that would give you a legal opinion blessing your proposed "blow up the dead guy's house after giving a warning to inhabitants to deter future actors" plan. Your plan as drafted is about as per se illegal as it gets. And that is before we even get into the problem with collective guilt that you are implicitly endorsing.

I am not downplaying Islamist extremism and the danger it poses. Of course it is terrible and needs to be rooted out, confronted and stopped.

But a defense of "I'm breaking the law less than the other guy" is no defense at all and it is morally bankrupt when it directly results in the death and/or displacement of tens of thousands of innocent women and children.

As for your inability to judge someone who is in a pickle, that is sort of a cop out. First, treaties like the Geneva Convention exist precisely to stop evil things from happening when state actors find themselves in a pickle. Second, ideas of proportionality and just war have been tackled for centuries by theologians, philosophers, statesmen and lawyers precisely because the moment an actor believes it is in a pickle is the moment when things start escalating into shocking horrors. Third, I doubt you extend that same grace to everyone who *believes* they are in a pickle. I mean, Russia *purports* to have gone into Ukraine because it found itself to be in the pickle of NATO getting closer and closer to Russian borders (to be clear, I am not endorsing this justification, only pointing out how finding oneself in a "pickle" can be used to justify all sorts of things). Do you find it hard to judge Russia's actions?

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I downplay or equivocate on Islamism. It is horrible, it needs to be stopped and I condemn it.

What I have done is call you out for clearly not having studied or tried to understand the people who you believe are your enemy. Have you figured out yet who are defined as infidels under sharia law (hint: it is not Christians or Jews)?

You earlier accused someone of teenage boy reasoning. Funny enough, I was in middle school when the OKC bombing happened. My history teacher was a retired USMC Colonel who had taken up teaching (and basketball coaching) in retirement. Before Timothy M. had been identified and caught, I suggested during in class discussion something similar to your plan about destroying his home and salting the Earth to send a message. My teacher broke off the lesson plan and gave a passionate lecture/class discussion about everything that was morally and legally wrong about what I had proposed. He kept me after class to explain that he was not trying to humiliate me, but that laws combined with morality are the difference between justice and vigilanteism and to never forget it. Then he finished by telling me not to worry, I was still his point guard. I think my dad sent him a bottle of whiskey after I told the story at dinner that night. An old school great man that made such a huge impact on my life in so many ways. I hope there are still some teachers like him around. Thank you for jogging my memory.

---

Respectfully, I have engaged you on actual substance, but we simply don't agree. For instance, you keep appealing to authority I do not agree with. I do not agree with the Geneva Convention in this circumstance. So what it says on this topic doesn't move the needle for me. I thought I made that clear in my last post. That's disagreeing with you on substance, my friend. So, snarky comments like those don't really aid in a discussion, if a substantive discussion is what you're actually interested in.

With respect to Israel's focus on destroying infrastructure, again, I think context is important. You obviously disagree with the destruction of the home of a mass murderer. What would you propose instead, when dealing with an enemy that wants you destroyed? Should the Israelis just let their citizens be murdered? If not, then what do you think the appropriate response to such terrorism should be? You are quick to be critical of Israeli actions, and apparently don't agree with what I would think would be a proportionate response and deterrent to mass murder. What then would you suggest, if you were in their shoes? It's easy to criticize but a bit more difficult to come up with solutions.

Now, if Israel is destroying infrastructure just to destroy infrastructure, I don't disagree that is a disproportionate response and wrong. While what Israel is doing depends on who you are listening to, if that is indeed what is happening we would agree that is immoral. If, however, they are destroying infrastructure that is housing weapons, tunnels and Hamas activities, that is a different story entirely. If they are indiscriminately targeting civilians, that is wrong. The problem is it's very murky.

As for Sharia law, if you will read my comments, I said Sharia law says that those who leave the faith should be killed. It absolutely says this. I didn't say Sharia law encourages the deaths of Christians.

Bottom line is Islam is an intolerant religion that is responsible for the vast majority of terrorism and subjugation of people in the world today. We see it in almost every Islamic country. It's unfortunate you are unable to admit that.

KaiBear said:

---

The Geneva Conention has been routinely ignored by all warring parties since its inception.

Occaisionally the victors use it to execute the losers.......other than that it is meaningless.

---

.

That's a mostly reasonable take (though I would quibble that post-Vietnam the USA has paid more than lip service to the GC and ROEs), but then calling something "terrorism" becomes equally meaningless.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The Geneva Conention has been routinely ignored by all warring parties since its inception.

Occaisionally the victors use it to execute the losers.......other than that it is meaningless.

---

.

That's a mostly reasonable take (though I would quibble that post-Vietnam the USA has paid more than lip service to the GC and ROEs), but then calling something "terrorism" becomes equally meaningless.

---

Agreed

British police officers aren't even allowed to carry guns but when Jews are offended, there's a special army with automatic weapons. This overt display of inequality is fueling antisemitism. If Jews are equal, they should be treated equally. I.e., call the cops when you've been… https://t.co/R7vfjBIsGs

— Johannes M. Koenraadt (@johannesmkx) March 24, 2026

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

The Geneva Convention is not the final arbiter, but who is? The ICC? The UN?

Treaties have the full force of law. That is kind of the point of treaties and you are certainly aware of that, counselor.

Whether you agree it is the final arbiter or intermediate or whatever is irrelevant, what you propose is unlawful violence (blowing up the home) for political purposes (deterrence). If you'd like to correct me by showing which part of your proposed plan of action is not "unlawful violence" for "political purpose", by all means, educate me.

If laws don't matter and you seem to disregard laws that you find inconvenient, how are we going to get to your subtype of terrorism? Or is it only unlawful if you disagree with the actors?

And as I said, I'm not as interested in this on granular level, but your proposed war crime is a micro example of what the real problem is. Your proposal, when done at scale, is a very serious problem to think about because not only does the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure create material problems, it will be followed by disease, illness, and death and a refugee crisis.

So, is the carrying out of the Dahiya Doctrine terrorism?

I agree with your definition of religious terrorism. But you should proceed with caution.

---

I disagree with you that destroying the home of a mass murderer is per se unlawful, much less terrorism. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree on that. I understand that definition is convenient for your erroneous argument, but when you can't even acknowledge the enormous distinction between mass murdering civilians in a public marketplace, and destroying the home of a known mass murderer (while giving the occupants warning beforehand), then you're just not an intellectually honest person and clearly have an agenda.

I mean, you're on this board downplaying the destruction wrought by Islamists. It's incredible. You would deny reality due to your dislike of the Jews.

As for the Dahiya Doctrine, I don't necessarily agree with it, but am cognizant that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian society, and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield. We know this because we've uncovered the weapons depots and tunnels underneath hospitals. The question is, how do you deal with that when the stated goal of Hamas is your destruction? Israel is in a pickle, and it's hard for me to judge a doctrine that is attempting to deal with an existential threat to Israeli existence.

As for religious terrorism, I am glad we can agree on the definition. I wish you could also acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous terroristic threat in the world today.

What caution do you suggest?

---

Feel free to actually engage on substance. It is where the real fun is.

The Geneva Convention is clear that the targeting of civilian real and personal property and civilian infrastructure unless absolutely necessary is illegal. Every UN member state is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. There is not a single SJA in uniform in this country that would give you a legal opinion blessing your proposed "blow up the dead guy's house after giving a warning to inhabitants to deter future actors" plan. Your plan as drafted is about as per se illegal as it gets. And that is before we even get into the problem with collective guilt that you are implicitly endorsing.

I am not downplaying Islamist extremism and the danger it poses. Of course it is terrible and needs to be rooted out, confronted and stopped.

But a defense of "I'm breaking the law less than the other guy" is no defense at all and it is morally bankrupt when it directly results in the death and/or displacement of tens of thousands of innocent women and children.

As for your inability to judge someone who is in a pickle, that is sort of a cop out. First, treaties like the Geneva Convention exist precisely to stop evil things from happening when state actors find themselves in a pickle. Second, ideas of proportionality and just war have been tackled for centuries by theologians, philosophers, statesmen and lawyers precisely because the moment an actor believes it is in a pickle is the moment when things start escalating into shocking horrors. Third, I doubt you extend that same grace to everyone who *believes* they are in a pickle. I mean, Russia *purports* to have gone into Ukraine because it found itself to be in the pickle of NATO getting closer and closer to Russian borders (to be clear, I am not endorsing this justification, only pointing out how finding oneself in a "pickle" can be used to justify all sorts of things). Do you find it hard to judge Russia's actions?

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I downplay or equivocate on Islamism. It is horrible, it needs to be stopped and I condemn it.

What I have done is call you out for clearly not having studied or tried to understand the people who you believe are your enemy. Have you figured out yet who are defined as infidels under sharia law (hint: it is not Christians or Jews)?

You earlier accused someone of teenage boy reasoning. Funny enough, I was in middle school when the OKC bombing happened. My history teacher was a retired USMC Colonel who had taken up teaching (and basketball coaching) in retirement. Before Timothy M. had been identified and caught, I suggested during in class discussion something similar to your plan about destroying his home and salting the Earth to send a message. My teacher broke off the lesson plan and gave a passionate lecture/class discussion about everything that was morally and legally wrong about what I had proposed. He kept me after class to explain that he was not trying to humiliate me, but that laws combined with morality are the difference between justice and vigilanteism and to never forget it. Then he finished by telling me not to worry, I was still his point guard. I think my dad sent him a bottle of whiskey after I told the story at dinner that night. An old school great man that made such a huge impact on my life in so many ways. I hope there are still some teachers like him around. Thank you for jogging my memory.

---

Respectfully, I have engaged you on actual substance, but we simply don't agree. For instance, you keep appealing to authority I do not agree with. I do not agree with the Geneva Convention in this circumstance. So what it says on this topic doesn't move the needle for me. I thought I made that clear in my last post. That's disagreeing with you on substance, my friend. So, snarky comments like those don't really aid in a discussion, if a substantive discussion is what you're actually interested in.

With respect to Israel's focus on destroying infrastructure, again, I think context is important. You obviously disagree with the destruction of the home of a mass murderer. What would you propose instead, when dealing with an enemy that wants you destroyed? Should the Israelis just let their citizens be murdered? If not, then what do you think the appropriate response to such terrorism should be? You are quick to be critical of Israeli actions, and apparently don't agree with what I would think would be a proportionate response and deterrent to mass murder. What then would you suggest, if you were in their shoes? It's easy to criticize but a bit more difficult to come up with solutions.

Now, if Israel is destroying infrastructure just to destroy infrastructure, I don't disagree that is a disproportionate response and wrong. While what Israel is doing depends on who you are listening to, if that is indeed what is happening we would agree that is immoral. If, however, they are destroying infrastructure that is housing weapons, tunnels and Hamas activities, that is a different story entirely. If they are indiscriminately targeting civilians, that is wrong. The problem is it's very murky.

As for Sharia law, if you will read my comments, I said Sharia law says that those who leave the faith should be killed. It absolutely says this. I didn't say Sharia law encourages the deaths of Christians.

Bottom line is Islam is an intolerant religion that is responsible for the vast majority of terrorism and subjugation of people in the world today. We see it in almost every Islamic country. It's unfortunate you are unable to admit that.

---

I am 99% certain that you understand whether you find a legal authority persuasive or not is irrelevant. The law is the law. You are smart enough to understand that such a construct leads to chaos as people will only respect the laws that "move the needle" for them.

I am sorry, I presupposed that you knew the history of military tactics. Fighting an enemy in a fortified, entrenched urban position is not something novel or that the Israelis are the first to face. You basically have two options: (a) Chechnya; just bomb the hell out of everything and destroy it (innocent or not) or (b) Fallujah; door-to-door, house-by-house, block-by-block, street-by-street close quarters fighting clearing out the urban position. With option (a) you are just bombing and destroying everything, and then you let God sort it out. With option (b) you are trying to remove an entrenched enemy from the host position. You are going to suffer massive casualties but you actually have some hope of minimizing collateral damage and trying to only kill the enemy. Option (b) will also lead to a steep political price on the home front.

If the moral high ground means anything, you choose option (b). If you don't care about the moral high ground, you choose (a). Of course, Russia chose option (a) which is the option you seem to be endorsing. America in 2004 chose option (b). Fallujah was also almost certainly the nastiest, hardest fought battle in the GWOT. That's the alternative to what Israel is doing.

To be clear, the Dahiya Doctrine is about completely scraping the ground and making life so insufferable that civilians (in the original case, Lebanese) turn against the hostile forces (Hezbollah). This isn't just destroy enemy positions. This is destroy all form of life sustaining development where the enemy is in hopes that the civilians will turn against your enemy. That this tactic happens to create a humanitarian crisis is not an unfortunate happenstance. Rather, the humanitarian crisis is precisely the point. The tactic has been repeated multiple times, most recently in southern Gaza.

Without going back to check, I must have misread your sharia comments. My apologies.

If you really are interested in educating yourself, you should do side-by-side comparisons of Chechnya and Gaza after the respective military actions there.

I would not call Islam intolerant. I would call it partly oppressive and partly intolerant. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Islam does have a long history of imposing very modest (and unacceptable to me) minority protections, especially for monotheists who worship the God of Abraham and who pay the jizya tax (protection scheme in modern parlance). To be clear, I'm not defending Islam and I am not excusing violent actions inspired by or done in the name of Islam. But history is a complicated and nuanced thing. And I think it best to try to understand one's adversary. And, in your case, I would also try to understand your ally. For around a year now, Netanyahu has been floating trial balloons and playing footsie with the idea of reunifying "Greater Israel". Keep an eye on southern Lebanon and parts of Syria.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

The Geneva Convention is not the final arbiter, but who is? The ICC? The UN?

Treaties have the full force of law. That is kind of the point of treaties and you are certainly aware of that, counselor.

Whether you agree it is the final arbiter or intermediate or whatever is irrelevant, what you propose is unlawful violence (blowing up the home) for political purposes (deterrence). If you'd like to correct me by showing which part of your proposed plan of action is not "unlawful violence" for "political purpose", by all means, educate me.

If laws don't matter and you seem to disregard laws that you find inconvenient, how are we going to get to your subtype of terrorism? Or is it only unlawful if you disagree with the actors?

And as I said, I'm not as interested in this on granular level, but your proposed war crime is a micro example of what the real problem is. Your proposal, when done at scale, is a very serious problem to think about because not only does the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure create material problems, it will be followed by disease, illness, and death and a refugee crisis.

So, is the carrying out of the Dahiya Doctrine terrorism?

I agree with your definition of religious terrorism. But you should proceed with caution.

---

I disagree with you that destroying the home of a mass murderer is per se unlawful, much less terrorism. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree on that. I understand that definition is convenient for your erroneous argument, but when you can't even acknowledge the enormous distinction between mass murdering civilians in a public marketplace, and destroying the home of a known mass murderer (while giving the occupants warning beforehand), then you're just not an intellectually honest person and clearly have an agenda.

I mean, you're on this board downplaying the destruction wrought by Islamists. It's incredible. You would deny reality due to your dislike of the Jews.

As for the Dahiya Doctrine, I don't necessarily agree with it, but am cognizant that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian society, and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield. We know this because we've uncovered the weapons depots and tunnels underneath hospitals. The question is, how do you deal with that when the stated goal of Hamas is your destruction? Israel is in a pickle, and it's hard for me to judge a doctrine that is attempting to deal with an existential threat to Israeli existence.

As for religious terrorism, I am glad we can agree on the definition. I wish you could also acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous terroristic threat in the world today.

What caution do you suggest?

---

Feel free to actually engage on substance. It is where the real fun is.

The Geneva Convention is clear that the targeting of civilian real and personal property and civilian infrastructure unless absolutely necessary is illegal. Every UN member state is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. There is not a single SJA in uniform in this country that would give you a legal opinion blessing your proposed "blow up the dead guy's house after giving a warning to inhabitants to deter future actors" plan. Your plan as drafted is about as per se illegal as it gets. And that is before we even get into the problem with collective guilt that you are implicitly endorsing.

I am not downplaying Islamist extremism and the danger it poses. Of course it is terrible and needs to be rooted out, confronted and stopped.

But a defense of "I'm breaking the law less than the other guy" is no defense at all and it is morally bankrupt when it directly results in the death and/or displacement of tens of thousands of innocent women and children.

As for your inability to judge someone who is in a pickle, that is sort of a cop out. First, treaties like the Geneva Convention exist precisely to stop evil things from happening when state actors find themselves in a pickle. Second, ideas of proportionality and just war have been tackled for centuries by theologians, philosophers, statesmen and lawyers precisely because the moment an actor believes it is in a pickle is the moment when things start escalating into shocking horrors. Third, I doubt you extend that same grace to everyone who *believes* they are in a pickle. I mean, Russia *purports* to have gone into Ukraine because it found itself to be in the pickle of NATO getting closer and closer to Russian borders (to be clear, I am not endorsing this justification, only pointing out how finding oneself in a "pickle" can be used to justify all sorts of things). Do you find it hard to judge Russia's actions?

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I downplay or equivocate on Islamism. It is horrible, it needs to be stopped and I condemn it.

What I have done is call you out for clearly not having studied or tried to understand the people who you believe are your enemy. Have you figured out yet who are defined as infidels under sharia law (hint: it is not Christians or Jews)?

You earlier accused someone of teenage boy reasoning. Funny enough, I was in middle school when the OKC bombing happened. My history teacher was a retired USMC Colonel who had taken up teaching (and basketball coaching) in retirement. Before Timothy M. had been identified and caught, I suggested during in class discussion something similar to your plan about destroying his home and salting the Earth to send a message. My teacher broke off the lesson plan and gave a passionate lecture/class discussion about everything that was morally and legally wrong about what I had proposed. He kept me after class to explain that he was not trying to humiliate me, but that laws combined with morality are the difference between justice and vigilanteism and to never forget it. Then he finished by telling me not to worry, I was still his point guard. I think my dad sent him a bottle of whiskey after I told the story at dinner that night. An old school great man that made such a huge impact on my life in so many ways. I hope there are still some teachers like him around. Thank you for jogging my memory.

---

Respectfully, I have engaged you on actual substance, but we simply don't agree. For instance, you keep appealing to authority I do not agree with. I do not agree with the Geneva Convention in this circumstance. So what it says on this topic doesn't move the needle for me. I thought I made that clear in my last post. That's disagreeing with you on substance, my friend. So, snarky comments like those don't really aid in a discussion, if a substantive discussion is what you're actually interested in.

With respect to Israel's focus on destroying infrastructure, again, I think context is important. You obviously disagree with the destruction of the home of a mass murderer. What would you propose instead, when dealing with an enemy that wants you destroyed? Should the Israelis just let their citizens be murdered? If not, then what do you think the appropriate response to such terrorism should be? You are quick to be critical of Israeli actions, and apparently don't agree with what I would think would be a proportionate response and deterrent to mass murder. What then would you suggest, if you were in their shoes? It's easy to criticize but a bit more difficult to come up with solutions.

Now, if Israel is destroying infrastructure just to destroy infrastructure, I don't disagree that is a disproportionate response and wrong. While what Israel is doing depends on who you are listening to, if that is indeed what is happening we would agree that is immoral. If, however, they are destroying infrastructure that is housing weapons, tunnels and Hamas activities, that is a different story entirely. If they are indiscriminately targeting civilians, that is wrong. The problem is it's very murky.

As for Sharia law, if you will read my comments, I said Sharia law says that those who leave the faith should be killed. It absolutely says this. I didn't say Sharia law encourages the deaths of Christians.

Bottom line is Islam is an intolerant religion that is responsible for the vast majority of terrorism and subjugation of people in the world today. We see it in almost every Islamic country. It's unfortunate you are unable to admit that.

---

I am 99% certain that you understand whether you find a legal authority persuasive or not is irrelevant. The law is the law. You are smart enough to understand that such a construct leads to chaos as people will only respect the laws that "move the needle" for them.

I am sorry, I presupposed that you knew the history of military tactics. Fighting an enemy in a fortified, entrenched urban position is not something novel or that the Israelis are the first to face. You basically have two options: (a) Chechnya; just bomb the hell out of everything and destroy it (innocent or not) or (b) Fallujah; door-to-door, house-by-house, block-by-block, street-by-street close quarters fighting clearing out the urban position. With option (a) you are just bombing and destroying everything, and then you let God sort it out. With option (b) you are trying to remove an entrenched enemy from the host position. You are going to suffer massive casualties but you actually have some hope of minimizing collateral damage and trying to only kill the enemy. Option (b) will also lead to a steep political price on the home front.

If the moral high ground means anything, you choose option (b). If you don't care about the moral high ground, you choose (a). Of course, Russia chose option (a) which is the option you seem to be endorsing. America in 2004 chose option (b). Fallujah was also almost certainly the nastiest, hardest fought battle in the GWOT. That's the alternative to what Israel is doing.

To be clear, the Dahiya Doctrine is about completely scraping the ground and making life so insufferable that civilians (in the original case, Lebanese) turn against the hostile forces (Hezbollah). This isn't just destroy enemy positions. This is destroy all form of life sustaining development where the enemy is in hopes that the civilians will turn against your enemy. That this tactic happens to create a humanitarian crisis is not an unfortunate happenstance. Rather, the humanitarian crisis is precisely the point. The tactic has been repeated multiple times, most recently in southern Gaza.

Without going back to check, I must have misread your sharia comments. My apologies.

If you really are interested in educating yourself, you should do side-by-side comparisons of Chechnya and Gaza after the respective military actions there.

I would not call Islam intolerant. I would call it partly oppressive and partly intolerant. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Islam does have a long history of imposing very modest (and unacceptable to me) minority protections, especially for monotheists who worship the God of Abraham and who pay the jizya tax (protection scheme in modern parlance). To be clear, I'm not defending Islam and I am not excusing violent actions inspired by or done in the name of Islam. But history is a complicated and nuanced thing. And I think it best to try to understand one's adversary. And, in your case, I would also try to understand your ally. For around a year now, Netanyahu has been floating trial balloons and playing footsie with the idea of reunifying "Greater Israel". Keep an eye on southern Lebanon and parts of Syria.

---

It's funny to me that someone as cocky and sure of himself as yourself believes that "the law is the law." Such a naive and glib position clearly evidences an individual who has no experience whatsoever in the legal field, and has done no legal study. As you should well know, the law is almost always up for interpretation. It has changed repeatedly and consistently over the years through various court rulings and amendments. If the "law is the law," as you say,. then lawyers such as myself wouldn't have jobs.

Hell, even the Geneva Convention has been subject to numerous legal interpretations over the years by international and domestic courts. That is why there are so many "commentaries" and court rulings interpreting what constitutes a violation of same. Thus, the idea that Israel's actions in Gaza are per se terrorism is just an absurd and ridiculous position.

As for urban war tactics, I would submit someone familiar with same would also know there are more than the two options you referenced, and sometimes a combination of those options (like Israel has employed in Gaza). I am not saying that Israel hasn't done things I disagree with, or haven't even committed what are arguably war crimes in some instances, but I also know that massive Israeli casualties and endless war - the option you think they should have chosen - are likewise not a reasonable option. I know several marines who fought in Fallujah, and they will all tell you the way we conducted that operation was a huge mistake.

As for Islam, I find it humorous that you continue to make apologies for it. I would suggest visiting a Muslim country and let's see how free you are to live your life. You are once again, completely glib.

Let me ask you this? What do you think poses a greater threat to peace and freedom today: Islam or Judaism? Which of the two are more responsible for death and destruction in the world today? And which religion's beliefs are more a call to violence?

Your answers will be telling, as there can be no legitimate debate over the answers to any of the foregoing.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

The Geneva Convention is not the final arbiter, but who is? The ICC? The UN?

Treaties have the full force of law. That is kind of the point of treaties and you are certainly aware of that, counselor.

Whether you agree it is the final arbiter or intermediate or whatever is irrelevant, what you propose is unlawful violence (blowing up the home) for political purposes (deterrence). If you'd like to correct me by showing which part of your proposed plan of action is not "unlawful violence" for "political purpose", by all means, educate me.

If laws don't matter and you seem to disregard laws that you find inconvenient, how are we going to get to your subtype of terrorism? Or is it only unlawful if you disagree with the actors?

And as I said, I'm not as interested in this on granular level, but your proposed war crime is a micro example of what the real problem is. Your proposal, when done at scale, is a very serious problem to think about because not only does the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure create material problems, it will be followed by disease, illness, and death and a refugee crisis.

So, is the carrying out of the Dahiya Doctrine terrorism?

I agree with your definition of religious terrorism. But you should proceed with caution.

---

I disagree with you that destroying the home of a mass murderer is per se unlawful, much less terrorism. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree on that. I understand that definition is convenient for your erroneous argument, but when you can't even acknowledge the enormous distinction between mass murdering civilians in a public marketplace, and destroying the home of a known mass murderer (while giving the occupants warning beforehand), then you're just not an intellectually honest person and clearly have an agenda.

I mean, you're on this board downplaying the destruction wrought by Islamists. It's incredible. You would deny reality due to your dislike of the Jews.

As for the Dahiya Doctrine, I don't necessarily agree with it, but am cognizant that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian society, and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield. We know this because we've uncovered the weapons depots and tunnels underneath hospitals. The question is, how do you deal with that when the stated goal of Hamas is your destruction? Israel is in a pickle, and it's hard for me to judge a doctrine that is attempting to deal with an existential threat to Israeli existence.

As for religious terrorism, I am glad we can agree on the definition. I wish you could also acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous terroristic threat in the world today.

What caution do you suggest?

---

Feel free to actually engage on substance. It is where the real fun is.

The Geneva Convention is clear that the targeting of civilian real and personal property and civilian infrastructure unless absolutely necessary is illegal. Every UN member state is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. There is not a single SJA in uniform in this country that would give you a legal opinion blessing your proposed "blow up the dead guy's house after giving a warning to inhabitants to deter future actors" plan. Your plan as drafted is about as per se illegal as it gets. And that is before we even get into the problem with collective guilt that you are implicitly endorsing.

I am not downplaying Islamist extremism and the danger it poses. Of course it is terrible and needs to be rooted out, confronted and stopped.

But a defense of "I'm breaking the law less than the other guy" is no defense at all and it is morally bankrupt when it directly results in the death and/or displacement of tens of thousands of innocent women and children.

As for your inability to judge someone who is in a pickle, that is sort of a cop out. First, treaties like the Geneva Convention exist precisely to stop evil things from happening when state actors find themselves in a pickle. Second, ideas of proportionality and just war have been tackled for centuries by theologians, philosophers, statesmen and lawyers precisely because the moment an actor believes it is in a pickle is the moment when things start escalating into shocking horrors. Third, I doubt you extend that same grace to everyone who *believes* they are in a pickle. I mean, Russia *purports* to have gone into Ukraine because it found itself to be in the pickle of NATO getting closer and closer to Russian borders (to be clear, I am not endorsing this justification, only pointing out how finding oneself in a "pickle" can be used to justify all sorts of things). Do you find it hard to judge Russia's actions?

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I downplay or equivocate on Islamism. It is horrible, it needs to be stopped and I condemn it.

What I have done is call you out for clearly not having studied or tried to understand the people who you believe are your enemy. Have you figured out yet who are defined as infidels under sharia law (hint: it is not Christians or Jews)?

You earlier accused someone of teenage boy reasoning. Funny enough, I was in middle school when the OKC bombing happened. My history teacher was a retired USMC Colonel who had taken up teaching (and basketball coaching) in retirement. Before Timothy M. had been identified and caught, I suggested during in class discussion something similar to your plan about destroying his home and salting the Earth to send a message. My teacher broke off the lesson plan and gave a passionate lecture/class discussion about everything that was morally and legally wrong about what I had proposed. He kept me after class to explain that he was not trying to humiliate me, but that laws combined with morality are the difference between justice and vigilanteism and to never forget it. Then he finished by telling me not to worry, I was still his point guard. I think my dad sent him a bottle of whiskey after I told the story at dinner that night. An old school great man that made such a huge impact on my life in so many ways. I hope there are still some teachers like him around. Thank you for jogging my memory.

---

Respectfully, I have engaged you on actual substance, but we simply don't agree. For instance, you keep appealing to authority I do not agree with. I do not agree with the Geneva Convention in this circumstance. So what it says on this topic doesn't move the needle for me. I thought I made that clear in my last post. That's disagreeing with you on substance, my friend. So, snarky comments like those don't really aid in a discussion, if a substantive discussion is what you're actually interested in.

With respect to Israel's focus on destroying infrastructure, again, I think context is important. You obviously disagree with the destruction of the home of a mass murderer. What would you propose instead, when dealing with an enemy that wants you destroyed? Should the Israelis just let their citizens be murdered? If not, then what do you think the appropriate response to such terrorism should be? You are quick to be critical of Israeli actions, and apparently don't agree with what I would think would be a proportionate response and deterrent to mass murder. What then would you suggest, if you were in their shoes? It's easy to criticize but a bit more difficult to come up with solutions.

Now, if Israel is destroying infrastructure just to destroy infrastructure, I don't disagree that is a disproportionate response and wrong. While what Israel is doing depends on who you are listening to, if that is indeed what is happening we would agree that is immoral. If, however, they are destroying infrastructure that is housing weapons, tunnels and Hamas activities, that is a different story entirely. If they are indiscriminately targeting civilians, that is wrong. The problem is it's very murky.

As for Sharia law, if you will read my comments, I said Sharia law says that those who leave the faith should be killed. It absolutely says this. I didn't say Sharia law encourages the deaths of Christians.

Bottom line is Islam is an intolerant religion that is responsible for the vast majority of terrorism and subjugation of people in the world today. We see it in almost every Islamic country. It's unfortunate you are unable to admit that.

---

I am 99% certain that you understand whether you find a legal authority persuasive or not is irrelevant. The law is the law. You are smart enough to understand that such a construct leads to chaos as people will only respect the laws that "move the needle" for them.

I am sorry, I presupposed that you knew the history of military tactics. Fighting an enemy in a fortified, entrenched urban position is not something novel or that the Israelis are the first to face. You basically have two options: (a) Chechnya; just bomb the hell out of everything and destroy it (innocent or not) or (b) Fallujah; door-to-door, house-by-house, block-by-block, street-by-street close quarters fighting clearing out the urban position. With option (a) you are just bombing and destroying everything, and then you let God sort it out. With option (b) you are trying to remove an entrenched enemy from the host position. You are going to suffer massive casualties but you actually have some hope of minimizing collateral damage and trying to only kill the enemy. Option (b) will also lead to a steep political price on the home front.

If the moral high ground means anything, you choose option (b). If you don't care about the moral high ground, you choose (a). Of course, Russia chose option (a) which is the option you seem to be endorsing. America in 2004 chose option (b). Fallujah was also almost certainly the nastiest, hardest fought battle in the GWOT. That's the alternative to what Israel is doing.

To be clear, the Dahiya Doctrine is about completely scraping the ground and making life so insufferable that civilians (in the original case, Lebanese) turn against the hostile forces (Hezbollah). This isn't just destroy enemy positions. This is destroy all form of life sustaining development where the enemy is in hopes that the civilians will turn against your enemy. That this tactic happens to create a humanitarian crisis is not an unfortunate happenstance. Rather, the humanitarian crisis is precisely the point. The tactic has been repeated multiple times, most recently in southern Gaza.

Without going back to check, I must have misread your sharia comments. My apologies.

If you really are interested in educating yourself, you should do side-by-side comparisons of Chechnya and Gaza after the respective military actions there.

I would not call Islam intolerant. I would call it partly oppressive and partly intolerant. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Islam does have a long history of imposing very modest (and unacceptable to me) minority protections, especially for monotheists who worship the God of Abraham and who pay the jizya tax (protection scheme in modern parlance). To be clear, I'm not defending Islam and I am not excusing violent actions inspired by or done in the name of Islam. But history is a complicated and nuanced thing. And I think it best to try to understand one's adversary. And, in your case, I would also try to understand your ally. For around a year now, Netanyahu has been floating trial balloons and playing footsie with the idea of reunifying "Greater Israel". Keep an eye on southern Lebanon and parts of Syria.

---

It's funny to me that someone as cocky and sure of himself as yourself believes that "the law is the law." Such a naive and glib position clearly evidences an individual who has no experience whatsoever in the legal field, and has done no legal study. As you should well know, the law is almost always up for interpretation. It has changed repeatedly and consistently over the years through various court rulings and amendments. If the "law is the law," as you say,. then lawyers such as myself wouldn't have jobs.

Hell, even the Geneva Convention has been subject to numerous legal interpretations over the years by international and domestic courts. That is why there are so many "commentaries" and court rulings interpreting what constitutes a violation of same. Thus, the idea that Israel's actions in Gaza are per se terrorism is just an absurd and ridiculous position.

As for urban war tactics, I would submit someone familiar with same would also know there are more than the two options you referenced, and sometimes a combination of those options (like Israel has employed in Gaza). I am not saying that Israel hasn't done things I disagree with, or haven't even committed what are arguably war crimes in some instances, but I also know that massive Israeli casualties and endless war - the option you think they should have chosen - are likewise not a reasonable option. I know several marines who fought in Fallujah, and they will all tell you the way we conducted that operation was a huge mistake.

As for Islam, I find it humorous that you continue to make apologies for it. I would suggest visiting a Muslim country and let's see how free you are to live your life. You are once again, completely glib.

---

LOL. I see we are back to personal attacks and not substance.

1. You didn't argue for interpretation, you simply dismissed binding legal authority as "not moving the needle" for you. I even asked you to offer a different interpretation and all you did was dismiss the binding legal authority as not important to you. There is a difference between interpreting the law and completely disregarding the law. They might teach you that in law school.

2. Of course there is room for interpretation. That doesn't mean every fact pattern is subject to interpretation. When Israel is telling you that they are intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis in order to put political pressure on population-wide groups you are in open-shut territory. When you propose in writing something like: "I'm going to blow up the dead guy's house after giving his family warning in order to send a message deterring future aggression" you are in open-shut territory. If you really think there is interpretation around this fact patter then perhaps you might ask yourself why the USA has disavowed such actions in the post-Vietnam era.

3. Your apparent lack of desire to understand your adversary and your undiscerning support for your ally betrays a Cold War, good guys v bad guys Gen X mentality. The world has moved on from such simplicity. It is entirely possible to understand nuance without betraying your principles. Understanding that Netanyahu seems to be toying with the idea of unification of Greater Israel and the implications thereof doesn't mean you hate a people. Understanding what it is that Islamism does (or at least says it does) is not apologetics. It is seeking understanding.

You have teenage sons. I do, too. One of my biggest worries is that they could be dragged into a war on foreign soil. Truth be told I went through the trouble of getting them a second passport so that they may have optionality in the future, because the last thing I want to do is see them drafted into some murky war. They will ultimately make their own choices, but "good guys v bad guys" mentality is a recipe for personal and national disaster.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this? What do you think poses a greater threat to peace and freedom today: Islam or Judaism? Which of the two are more responsible for death and destruction in the world today? And which religion's beliefs are more a call to violence?

Your answers will be telling, as there can be no legitimate debate over the answers to any of the foregoing.

---

Islam.

You are a big fan of interpretation when it suits your needs but when it suits you there are airtight questions not subject to interpretation (even though there are people who would give a different answer)? I am indeed cocky. But you're incapable of coherence. And you don't understand the words you use.

Tucker is running circles around the Kosher Right:

“Tucker obviously isn’t only loyal to America because he’s also loyal to his family.”

I’m sorry, what? https://t.co/m350sJ8brT

— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) March 25, 2026

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Look up the Dahiya Doctrine and then rerun your death toll numbers.

---

So your position is that is violence based on religion?

Interesting.

Also interesting that you just refuse to acknowledge the violence committed in the name of Islam. Purposeful ignorance.

---

Let's try to build toward something here:

What is your definition of terrorism?

---

I'm not sure there's anything to build on giving your shoddy reasoning, but it probably would be a more productive conversation if you explained your definition, since it seems to vary from what most reasonable people would agree, constitutes terrorism, especially religious terrorism

---

LOL.

Try this one, let me know if you disagree: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

Now let's see if we can agree on what constitutes religious terrorism. The internet defines it as "violence motivated or justified by religious beliefs, texts, or divine mandates, often aiming to achieve theological, political, or social goals rather than just political change."

Anything you disagree with there?

---

Fine.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against civilians for political purposes.

Anything you disagree with there?

Violence includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure (particularly vital infrastructure like water supplies).

Anything you disagree with there?

I offered you the lead and you chickened out. I'll come back to your definition once I'm done.

---

Your accusations of cowardice are ironic, considering I answered your question while you failed to answer mine and have avoided the topic of Islamic terrorism and religious terrorism altogether. But of course, honest answers to my question would destroy your whole narrative. So I'll play along even if you're too big a coward to do so.

I would disagree that terrorism includes the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure. During war, infrastructure is destroyed all the time. Were the allies engaging in terrorism when they blew up bridges, train stations and depots? Of course not. As with all things context is important.

For instance, if a terrorist detonated himself in, say, an Israeli marketplace, and the Israel response was to, say, destroy the home of said terrorist (while warning its inhabitants before hand) - a structure thatvery likely housed family members who supported and sympathized with his heinous act, I would not call that terrorism, but instead a deterrent against terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person would call that actual terrorism unless of course they hate Jews and don't want to see any retaliatory response to terrorism.

Now, care to answer my questions since I've answered yours, repeatedly? Or are you too big of chicken?

---

I'll answer your question, but I want to make sure we agree on what the type is before we get into a subtype. Let's agree on what a dog is before we get to whether a German Shepherd is a dog…

What you described is actually a war crime under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the 1977 additional protocols. Provided the home is not a current threat and its destruction is not absolutely necessary, then you are proposing violating the Geneva Convention (to which every UN Member state is a signatory). It is illegal to target civilian real or personal protest under Geneva.

The Geneva Convention followed after the end of WWII, so I am less interested in whether Allied actions were terroristic in nature in WWII, but we can revisit that later if you'd like (I think the "absolutely necessary" qualifier in the Geneva Convention looms large).

So, understanding that blowing up the home is unlawful violent under the Geneva Convention and you propose to do it for political purposes (deterrence, as you put it) is your proposal terrorism?

Truth be told, I'm not as interested in this on such a granular level, but what is your answer if the targeting of civilian homes and infrastructure is done for political purposes on a systematic, neighborhood/district basis/city?

---

A few things…

The US has likewise been accused of violating the Geneva Convention on numerous occasions. I recall numerous accusations as such during the Afghanistan War, among others.

I suppose the question is the Geneva convention the final arbitrar of what constitutes terrorism? I certainly don't believe so and also believe how you define terrorism requires much interpretation.

As long as we are arguing semantics, I'd also submit that any reasonable person understands there's a big difference between mass murdering innocent people and destroying the home of a murderer. Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that is not intellectually honest.

So as long as we are going to put a mass murderer who blows himself up in the marketplace in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible with a response that includes the destruction of the mass murderers home, we likely aren't going to agree on much because you're not an intellectually honest person.

---

The Geneva Convention is not the final arbiter, but who is? The ICC? The UN?

Treaties have the full force of law. That is kind of the point of treaties and you are certainly aware of that, counselor.

Whether you agree it is the final arbiter or intermediate or whatever is irrelevant, what you propose is unlawful violence (blowing up the home) for political purposes (deterrence). If you'd like to correct me by showing which part of your proposed plan of action is not "unlawful violence" for "political purpose", by all means, educate me.

If laws don't matter and you seem to disregard laws that you find inconvenient, how are we going to get to your subtype of terrorism? Or is it only unlawful if you disagree with the actors?

And as I said, I'm not as interested in this on granular level, but your proposed war crime is a micro example of what the real problem is. Your proposal, when done at scale, is a very serious problem to think about because not only does the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure create material problems, it will be followed by disease, illness, and death and a refugee crisis.

So, is the carrying out of the Dahiya Doctrine terrorism?

I agree with your definition of religious terrorism. But you should proceed with caution.

---

I disagree with you that destroying the home of a mass murderer is per se unlawful, much less terrorism. Sorry, but we are just not going to agree on that. I understand that definition is convenient for your erroneous argument, but when you can't even acknowledge the enormous distinction between mass murdering civilians in a public marketplace, and destroying the home of a known mass murderer (while giving the occupants warning beforehand), then you're just not an intellectually honest person and clearly have an agenda.

I mean, you're on this board downplaying the destruction wrought by Islamists. It's incredible. You would deny reality due to your dislike of the Jews.

As for the Dahiya Doctrine, I don't necessarily agree with it, but am cognizant that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian society, and uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as a shield. We know this because we've uncovered the weapons depots and tunnels underneath hospitals. The question is, how do you deal with that when the stated goal of Hamas is your destruction? Israel is in a pickle, and it's hard for me to judge a doctrine that is attempting to deal with an existential threat to Israeli existence.

As for religious terrorism, I am glad we can agree on the definition. I wish you could also acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous terroristic threat in the world today.

What caution do you suggest?

---

Feel free to actually engage on substance. It is where the real fun is.

The Geneva Convention is clear that the targeting of civilian real and personal property and civilian infrastructure unless absolutely necessary is illegal. Every UN member state is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. There is not a single SJA in uniform in this country that would give you a legal opinion blessing your proposed "blow up the dead guy's house after giving a warning to inhabitants to deter future actors" plan. Your plan as drafted is about as per se illegal as it gets. And that is before we even get into the problem with collective guilt that you are implicitly endorsing.

I am not downplaying Islamist extremism and the danger it poses. Of course it is terrible and needs to be rooted out, confronted and stopped.

But a defense of "I'm breaking the law less than the other guy" is no defense at all and it is morally bankrupt when it directly results in the death and/or displacement of tens of thousands of innocent women and children.

As for your inability to judge someone who is in a pickle, that is sort of a cop out. First, treaties like the Geneva Convention exist precisely to stop evil things from happening when state actors find themselves in a pickle. Second, ideas of proportionality and just war have been tackled for centuries by theologians, philosophers, statesmen and lawyers precisely because the moment an actor believes it is in a pickle is the moment when things start escalating into shocking horrors. Third, I doubt you extend that same grace to everyone who *believes* they are in a pickle. I mean, Russia *purports* to have gone into Ukraine because it found itself to be in the pickle of NATO getting closer and closer to Russian borders (to be clear, I am not endorsing this justification, only pointing out how finding oneself in a "pickle" can be used to justify all sorts of things). Do you find it hard to judge Russia's actions?

I don't know where you are getting this idea that I downplay or equivocate on Islamism. It is horrible, it needs to be stopped and I condemn it.

What I have done is call you out for clearly not having studied or tried to understand the people who you believe are your enemy. Have you figured out yet who are defined as infidels under sharia law (hint: it is not Christians or Jews)?

You earlier accused someone of teenage boy reasoning. Funny enough, I was in middle school when the OKC bombing happened. My history teacher was a retired USMC Colonel who had taken up teaching (and basketball coaching) in retirement. Before Timothy M. had been identified and caught, I suggested during in class discussion something similar to your plan about destroying his home and salting the Earth to send a message. My teacher broke off the lesson plan and gave a passionate lecture/class discussion about everything that was morally and legally wrong about what I had proposed. He kept me after class to explain that he was not trying to humiliate me, but that laws combined with morality are the difference between justice and vigilanteism and to never forget it. Then he finished by telling me not to worry, I was still his point guard. I think my dad sent him a bottle of whiskey after I told the story at dinner that night. An old school great man that made such a huge impact on my life in so many ways. I hope there are still some teachers like him around. Thank you for jogging my memory.

---

Respectfully, I have engaged you on actual substance, but we simply don't agree. For instance, you keep appealing to authority I do not agree with. I do not agree with the Geneva Convention in this circumstance. So what it says on this topic doesn't move the needle for me. I thought I made that clear in my last post. That's disagreeing with you on substance, my friend. So, snarky comments like those don't really aid in a discussion, if a substantive discussion is what you're actually interested in.

With respect to Israel's focus on destroying infrastructure, again, I think context is important. You obviously disagree with the destruction of the home of a mass murderer. What would you propose instead, when dealing with an enemy that wants you destroyed? Should the Israelis just let their citizens be murdered? If not, then what do you think the appropriate response to such terrorism should be? You are quick to be critical of Israeli actions, and apparently don't agree with what I would think would be a proportionate response and deterrent to mass murder. What then would you suggest, if you were in their shoes? It's easy to criticize but a bit more difficult to come up with solutions.

Now, if Israel is destroying infrastructure just to destroy infrastructure, I don't disagree that is a disproportionate response and wrong. While what Israel is doing depends on who you are listening to, if that is indeed what is happening we would agree that is immoral. If, however, they are destroying infrastructure that is housing weapons, tunnels and Hamas activities, that is a different story entirely. If they are indiscriminately targeting civilians, that is wrong. The problem is it's very murky.

As for Sharia law, if you will read my comments, I said Sharia law says that those who leave the faith should be killed. It absolutely says this. I didn't say Sharia law encourages the deaths of Christians.

Bottom line is Islam is an intolerant religion that is responsible for the vast majority of terrorism and subjugation of people in the world today. We see it in almost every Islamic country. It's unfortunate you are unable to admit that.

---

I am 99% certain that you understand whether you find a legal authority persuasive or not is irrelevant. The law is the law. You are smart enough to understand that such a construct leads to chaos as people will only respect the laws that "move the needle" for them.

I am sorry, I presupposed that you knew the history of military tactics. Fighting an enemy in a fortified, entrenched urban position is not something novel or that the Israelis are the first to face. You basically have two options: (a) Chechnya; just bomb the hell out of everything and destroy it (innocent or not) or (b) Fallujah; door-to-door, house-by-house, block-by-block, street-by-street close quarters fighting clearing out the urban position. With option (a) you are just bombing and destroying everything, and then you let God sort it out. With option (b) you are trying to remove an entrenched enemy from the host position. You are going to suffer massive casualties but you actually have some hope of minimizing collateral damage and trying to only kill the enemy. Option (b) will also lead to a steep political price on the home front.

If the moral high ground means anything, you choose option (b). If you don't care about the moral high ground, you choose (a). Of course, Russia chose option (a) which is the option you seem to be endorsing. America in 2004 chose option (b). Fallujah was also almost certainly the nastiest, hardest fought battle in the GWOT. That's the alternative to what Israel is doing.

To be clear, the Dahiya Doctrine is about completely scraping the ground and making life so insufferable that civilians (in the original case, Lebanese) turn against the hostile forces (Hezbollah). This isn't just destroy enemy positions. This is destroy all form of life sustaining development where the enemy is in hopes that the civilians will turn against your enemy. That this tactic happens to create a humanitarian crisis is not an unfortunate happenstance. Rather, the humanitarian crisis is precisely the point. The tactic has been repeated multiple times, most recently in southern Gaza.

Without going back to check, I must have misread your sharia comments. My apologies.

If you really are interested in educating yourself, you should do side-by-side comparisons of Chechnya and Gaza after the respective military actions there.

I would not call Islam intolerant. I would call it partly oppressive and partly intolerant. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Islam does have a long history of imposing very modest (and unacceptable to me) minority protections, especially for monotheists who worship the God of Abraham and who pay the jizya tax (protection scheme in modern parlance). To be clear, I'm not defending Islam and I am not excusing violent actions inspired by or done in the name of Islam. But history is a complicated and nuanced thing. And I think it best to try to understand one's adversary. And, in your case, I would also try to understand your ally. For around a year now, Netanyahu has been floating trial balloons and playing footsie with the idea of reunifying "Greater Israel". Keep an eye on southern Lebanon and parts of Syria.

---

It's funny to me that someone as cocky and sure of himself as yourself believes that "the law is the law." Such a naive and glib position clearly evidences an individual who has no experience whatsoever in the legal field, and has done no legal study. As you should well know, the law is almost always up for interpretation. It has changed repeatedly and consistently over the years through various court rulings and amendments. If the "law is the law," as you say,. then lawyers such as myself wouldn't have jobs.

Hell, even the Geneva Convention has been subject to numerous legal interpretations over the years by international and domestic courts. That is why there are so many "commentaries" and court rulings interpreting what constitutes a violation of same. Thus, the idea that Israel's actions in Gaza are per se terrorism is just an absurd and ridiculous position.

As for urban war tactics, I would submit someone familiar with same would also know there are more than the two options you referenced, and sometimes a combination of those options (like Israel has employed in Gaza). I am not saying that Israel hasn't done things I disagree with, or haven't even committed what are arguably war crimes in some instances, but I also know that massive Israeli casualties and endless war - the option you think they should have chosen - are likewise not a reasonable option. I know several marines who fought in Fallujah, and they will all tell you the way we conducted that operation was a huge mistake.

As for Islam, I find it humorous that you continue to make apologies for it. I would suggest visiting a Muslim country and let's see how free you are to live your life. You are once again, completely glib.

---

LOL. I see we are back to personal attacks and not substance.

1. You didn't argue for interpretation, you simply dismissed binding legal authority as "not moving the needle" for you. I even asked you to offer a different interpretation and all you did was dismiss the binding legal authority as not important to you. There is a difference between interpreting the law and completely disregarding the law. They might teach you that in law school.

2. Of course there is room for interpretation. That doesn't mean every fact pattern is subject to interpretation. When Israel is telling you that they are intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis in order to put political pressure on population-wide groups you are in open-shut territory. When you propose in writing something like: "I'm going to blow up the dead guy's house after giving his family warning in order to send a message deterring future aggression" you are in open-shut territory. If you really think there is interpretation around this fact patter then perhaps you might ask yourself why the USA has disavowed such actions in the post-Vietnam era.

3. Your apparent lack of desire to understand your adversary and your undiscerning support for your ally betrays a Cold War, good guys v bad guys Gen X mentality. The world has moved on from such simplicity. It is entirely possible to understand nuance without betraying your principles. Understanding that Netanyahu seems to be toying with the idea of unification of Greater Israel and the implications thereof doesn't mean you hate a people. Understanding what it is that Islamism does (or at least says it does) is not apologetics. It is seeking understanding.

You have teenage sons. I do, too. One of my biggest worries is that they could be dragged into a war on foreign soil. Truth be told I went through the trouble of getting them a second passport so that they may have optionality in the future, because the last thing I want to do is see them drafted into some murky war. They will ultimately make their own choices, but "good guys v bad guys" mentality is a recipe for personal and national disaster.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this? What do you think poses a greater threat to peace and freedom today: Islam or Judaism? Which of the two are more responsible for death and destruction in the world today? And which religion's beliefs are more a call to violence?

Your answers will be telling, as there can be no legitimate debate over the answers to any of the foregoing.

---

Islam.

You are a big fan of interpretation when it suits your needs but when it suits you there are airtight questions not subject to interpretation (even though there are people who would give a different answer)? I am indeed cocky. But you're incapable of coherence. And you don't understand the words you use.

---

LOL. I see we are back to personal attacks and not substance.

You're a hoot - accusing others of that which you regularly engage in. You project a lot.

1. You didn't argue for interpretation, you simply dismissed binding legal authority as "not moving the needle" for you. I even asked you to offer a different interpretation and all you did was dismiss the binding legal authority as not important to you. There is a difference between interpreting the law and completely disregarding the law. They might teach you that in law school.

Well, to be fair, you haven't cited or quoted any actual definition of terrorism included in the Geneva Convention (likely because there is none), much less provided any definition that clearly indicates that the act alleged (destroying the home of a mass murdering terrorist) is a war crime. So, there really isn't a definition to quibble with. To the extent that the Geneva Convention says destroying said home is somehow a war crime, I disagree with it. It's as simple as that.

2. Of course there is room for interpretation. That doesn't mean every fact pattern is subject to interpretation. When Israel is telling you that they are intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis in order to put political pressure on population-wide groups you are in open-shut territory. When you propose in writing something like: "I'm going to blow up the dead guy's house after giving his family warning in order to send a message deterring future aggression" you are in open-shut territory. If you really think there is interpretation around this fact patter then perhaps you might ask yourself why the USA has disavowed such actions in the post-Vietnam era.

As I said, I don't agree that's terrorism. To the extent your baseless assertions are correct, and the Geneva Convention defines it as such, I disagree. As I told you, I do not accept that as authoritative. Not sure why that sets you off so.

Interestingly, Israel apparently isn't being prosecuted for this supposed war crime, which is quite telling.

3. Your apparent lack of desire to understand your adversary and your undiscerning support for your ally betrays a Cold War, good guys v bad guys Gen X mentality. The world has moved on from such simplicity. It is entirely possible to understand nuance without betraying your principles. Understanding that Netanyahu seems to be toying with the idea of unification of Greater Israel and the implications thereof doesn't mean you hate a people. Understanding what it is that Islamism does (or at least says it does) is not apologetics. It is seeking understanding.

With respect to Netanyahu, you seem to be mistaking my support for strikes on Iran with support for Netanyahu. It's not. I disagree with him on a number of things, and generally believe him to be a snake. But quite frankly, Israeli control over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Golan Heights isn't a matter that I care about too much. If they want to fight the Arab world over that, they can do so, without US involvement.

As for Islam, sorry, but apologizing for and trying to explain away the greatest religious threat to civilization is indeed betraying your principles. Islam is incompatible with a free and peaceful world.

You have teenage sons. I do, too. One of my biggest worries is that they could be dragged into a war on foreign soil. Truth be told I went through the trouble of getting them a second passport so that they may have optionality in the future, because the last thing I want to do is see them drafted into some murky war. They will ultimately make their own choices, but "good guys v bad guys" mentality is a recipe for personal and national disaster.

I realize from past discussions that you are an extreme isolationist despite the globalist nature of the world we live in, and assume that bad actors with nuclear weapons that can reach our soil will simply leave us along as long as we keep to ourselves. That is of course why you've become an advocate for Muslims living peaceably with the rest of the world, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this? What do you think poses a greater threat to peace and freedom today: Islam or Judaism? Which of the two are more responsible for death and destruction in the world today? And which religion's beliefs are more a call to violence?

Your answers will be telling, as there can be no legitimate debate over the answers to any of the foregoing.

---

Islam.

But I guess as long as we don't bother them, they won't pursue missile technology that allows them to reach our shore, nor send nuclear weapons our way. I am sure they will act in good faith.

LOL.

You are a big fan of interpretation when it suits your needs but when it suits you there are airtight questions not subject to interpretation (even though there are people who would give a different answer)? I am indeed cocky. But you're incapable of coherence. And you don't understand the words you use.

More projection.

Cocky and glib is a dangerous combination. You seem to possess both attributes.

Quote:

---

Well, to be fair, you haven't cited or quoted any actual definition of terrorism included in the Geneva Convention (likely because there is none), much less provided any definition that clearly indicates that the act alleged (destroying the home of a mass murdering terrorist) is a war crime. So, there really isn't a definition to quibble with. To the extent that the Geneva Convention says destroying said home is somehow a war crime, I disagree with it. It's as simple as that.

---

I apologize up front. I seriously cannot tell if you are trolling me or you really do not understand this. I am not trying to be patronizing, but I will give this one more shot in the most basic way I can explain it.

On the previous page you said the following:

Quote:

---

I would agree that terrorism is the unlawful use of violence. I would not agree that terrorism is the mere threat of violence against civilians, no. I am sure that definition is convenient for your argument, but it's simply not accurate, and would depend on 1) what you mean by civilian, and 2) the purpose of the threat.

---

We have roughly agreed that terrorism is:

(a) the unlawful use of violence,
(b) when done for political purposes.

I seem to emphasize (b) more than you do, but I think I can fairly say we roughly agree here.

Obviously, certain violence is lawful. On the personal level, violent defense of oneself against unprovoked attack is almost always lawful violence. At the state level, domestic defense of one's borders against foreign invasion is also lawful violence. So the first question becomes: is the violence lawful?

Obviously, no state actor and virtually no non-state actor is ever going to just come out and say "hey everybody, check it out, we are engaged in unlawful violence."

Everybody believes (or at least pretends) their cause is just. Instead we need to look to applicable legal authority. With the non-state actors that is pretty easy. But with the state actors, given that they theoretically have a monopoly on violence, it is a little trickier. Thus, we do not check the Geneva Convention to determine if an act of violence is terrorism, but rather we check the Geneva Convention to determine if the act violence is lawful which only makes up one half of the greater question of terrorism. Any other binding legal authority works for our purpose, but given that nation states are not incentivized to limit their monopoly on violence, the GC is one of the few clean, applicable laws in this area.

It is pretty cut and dry under the GC (Fourth GC, Art. 147)* that an attack on civilian real or personal property (including infrastructure) causing extensive damage, unless absolutely necessary is unlawful violence. Thus, this idea of "we are going to destroy the dead terrorist's house after giving the inhabitants a warning" is unlawful violence without some demonstration of absolute necessity (though I suppose we could quibble about the meaning of extensive).**

Now we need to figure out the second prong of our agreed upon terrorism definition (political purpose). In most cases, this would be a tough fact question. But here, you and the Dahiya Doctrine make the analysis very straightforward. You say you would call blowing the dead terrorist's home up a "deterrent" and the Dahiya Doctrine explicitly states that its purpose is to make life miserable for civilians in order to get them to turn against the hostile force. In both cases, you are using violence for political purposes (change the behavior of a population).*** Again, I am only interested in the micro (your proposal) to the extent that it illustrates the macro (where I believe the real problem exists). When your proposal is applied at scale, on a population-level basis, the point is to create a humanitarian crisis and there is no longer a question on the "extensive" portion of the definition. From the General who explained and developed the doctrine (my emphasis added):

Quote:

---

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

---

Now, if we agree that terrorism is:

(a) the unlawful use of violence,
(b) when done for political purposes.

and

(A) the violence discussed here is done in violation of the GC (unlawful),
(B) for the purpose of intimidating and deterring a population (political purpose),

then it seems fairly obvious that this is terrorism under our agreed upon definition of terrorism.

Even if you want to disagree that the military tactics discussed here violate Art. 147, the Geneva Convention IV, Art. 33 also bars collective punishment. Meaning, you don't get to target an entire population simply because a perpetrator may have come from the population. So there is another hook here on the unlawful violence issue if you do not believe that Art. 147 is implicated. Art. 33 seems more open and shut given what that the general is declaring in the quote above that he is going to flatten entire villages.

If you have a substantive disagreement with this other than some vibes-based concept of you just not feeling it, by all means, share your different interpretation. I am happy to engage. If this is as simple as you think one side are the good guys and the other the bad guys, and so you are going to look the other way, then just say it and own it. But then legal structures don't matter and this is purely tribal.

*If you want to make KaiBear's argument that the GC is fig leaf selectively enforced and therefore meaningless, by all means do so, but then it means that concepts like terrorism are also meaningless.

**You seemed to imply that the destruction of the dead terrorist's house would at least be partially justified because the remaining inhabitants of the home almost certainly provided aid and support to the terrorist. This also calls into question issues of collective guilt.

***Note: I do not even disagree with the goal.

My concerns about Iran and the goal of preventing nuclear armament are playing out in real time. Happy to revisit if you want to go there, but this is probably enough text for one night....

DallasBear9902 said:

---

If this is as simple as you think one side are the good guys and the other the bad guys, and so you are going to look the other way, then just say it and own it. But then legal structures don't matter and this is purely tribal.

---

That's a bingo.

The reason I asked you to quote the specific language of the GC you are referencing is because I wanted to see exactly what the language says. You've still haven't done so, so I looked it up for myself.

The language you are referencing is stricter, as well as more nuanced, than what you are suggesting. You appear to treat the destruction of civilian property that isn't "absolutely necessary" as automatically unlawful. That's an oversimplification.

Article 147 defines "grave breaches" (the most serious violations), not all violations. Indeed, the relevant legal standard you've referenced (without quoting) is whether destruction is "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations", otherwise justified under "military necessity and proportionality." As I've repeatedly argued, punitive demolition can be viewed as a form of lawful security measure, not "unlawful violence." In short, your position assumes that the demolition is purely punitive. But Israel's stated justification is deterrence preventing future attacks. As any lawyer well knows (and I know you are not), that matters legally.

Indeed, the GC is quite clear that nation states are permitted to take preventive security measures against ongoing threats. I would submit that If a policy is aimed at deterring imminent or recurring attacks, it can be framed as part of military necessity, not arbitrary or unlawful punishment. You don't have to agree with the policy to see the legal distinction: collective punishment (clearly illegal) vs. deterrent security measure tied to an ongoing conflict (indeed, Hamas' has remained at war with Israel, with its stated goal of annihilation of the Israeli nation state. You make your argument under the first prong, when there is clearly an alternative to the interpretation you see as patently obvious (newsflash: it's not).

As for your position that the GC or international law provide that a state can only destroy property if there is no other conceivable option, that simply isn't in any way accurate. Military necessity generally allows actions that provide a definite military advantage (as here), and are not otherwise prohibited. A state could certainly argue that suicide bombings or attacks are hard to deter through conventional policing, that harsh deterrents reduce future attacks and, therefore, demolition contributes to military/security objectives. Now, you may dispute whether that works, but legally, effectiveness and intent matter.

As for your quibbling with my referring to terrorism, if you recall, you are the poster that started out this discussion by calling Israeli demolition of homes of mass murderers terrorism. Your position that the act constitutes terrorism, as you originally argued (but now seem to be abandoning, after being called out) is by far the weakest. You define terrorism as unlawful violence plus political purpose. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that the act was unlawful, your "political purpose" prong is being stretched to the absurd. By your logic, any state action aimed at influencing behavior (deterrence, sanctions, policing) becomes "terrorism." A state attempting to prevent violence is simply not the same as a group using violence to cause loss of life and spread fear as a primary tactic. Intent matters, but you seem to conflate the two.

In short, your legal reasoning is incomplete and overconfident rather than "cut and dry," as you've attempted to paint it.

At the end of the day, you're damn right I do make a moral judgment on which side's objectives and goals are moral and just, as opposed to taking your more wishy-washy "nuanced," and quite frankly, cowardly approach. I make no apologies for that. I would rather take a stand for what I believe is right rather than lay in the weeds like like you and Sam, taking potshots at a country fighting for the right to exist against an enemy that uses terrorism and targets civilians, while refraining from criticizing the terrorist organization seeking the nation state's destruction. That fact doesn't mean I support everything Israel does, as I've already stated. But on this specific discussion, you're just not able to make a persuasive argument to fit your narrative.

Trump & Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz says Nick Fuentes is TAKING OVER the GOP

“It’s a real threat to America, to democracy, to American Jews, to Israel, and to American values.” pic.twitter.com/RzdBPtnUdT

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) March 27, 2026

Texas Governor Greg Abbott was joined by Chabad Lubavitch yesterday and signed a proclamation endorsing Noahide Laws in Texas.

He also celebrated the birthday of Chabad’s fake messiah, “the Rebbe” Menachem M. Schneerson, and told the rest of the state they should do the same. pic.twitter.com/Pywolm2Eh2

— Frankie Stockes (@realStockes) March 27, 2026

I guess if I was Jewish I would probably go with the fedora over a yarmulka or one of those big hockey puck hats.

muddybrazos said:

---

Texas Governor Greg Abbott was joined by Chabad Lubavitch yesterday and signed a proclamation endorsing Noahide Laws in Texas.

He also celebrated the birthday of Chabad’s fake messiah, “the Rebbe” Menachem M. Schneerson, and told the rest of the state they should do the same. pic.twitter.com/Pywolm2Eh2

— Frankie Stockes (@realStockes) March 27, 2026

I guess if I was Jewish I would probably go with the fedora over a yarmulka or one of those big hockey puck hats.

---

Did he actually endorse those Noahide laws? Big deal if so

Every commercial construction contract in Texas requires you to sign a document promising you won't criticize Israel.

In TEXAS. The supposed most free state in the most free country in the world??

We are clownishly occupied by a foreign people who hate us.

[🎥: @DellaDream_] https://t.co/gvOQsiKpH4 pic.twitter.com/TRJxELj8dL

— ₿en Wehrman (@benwehrman) March 26, 2026

Agreeing not to take part in Arab boycotts of Israel is in no way the same thing as not being able to criticize Israel's government.

Calling BS on this claim.

muddybrazos said:

---

Texas Governor Greg Abbott was joined by Chabad Lubavitch yesterday and signed a proclamation endorsing Noahide Laws in Texas.

He also celebrated the birthday of Chabad’s fake messiah, “the Rebbe” Menachem M. Schneerson, and told the rest of the state they should do the same. pic.twitter.com/Pywolm2Eh2

— Frankie Stockes (@realStockes) March 27, 2026

I guess if I was Jewish I would probably go with the fedora over a yarmulka or one of those big hockey puck hats.

---

I'm voting for the democrat for governor in November... its the only way to remove a parasite like Greg Abbott.

4 years of hell and then a clean slate to elect somebody who is worth a damn.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agreeing not to take part in Arab boycotts of Israel is in no way the same thing as not being able to criticize Israel's government.

Calling BS on this claim.

---

Lots of Americans want to boycott doing business with Israel bcs its an evil country... and it is absolutely our right to do so.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agreeing not to take part in Arab boycotts of Israel is in no way the same thing as not being able to criticize Israel's government.

Calling BS on this claim.

---

Lots of Americans want to boycott doing business with Israel bcs its an evil country... and it is absolutely our right to do so.

---

Fine, do so without state or federal money.

Your choice.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agreeing not to take part in Arab boycotts of Israel is in no way the same thing as not being able to criticize Israel's government.

Calling BS on this claim.

---

Lots of Americans want to boycott doing business with Israel bcs its an evil country... and it is absolutely our right to do so.

---

Fine, do so without state or federal money.

Your choice.

---

Do I still have to pay taxes?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Agreeing not to take part in Arab boycotts of Israel is in no way the same thing as not being able to criticize Israel's government.

Calling BS on this claim.

---

Lots of Americans want to boycott doing business with Israel bcs its an evil country... and it is absolutely our right to do so.

---

Fine, do so without state or federal money.

Your choice.

---

Do I still have to pay taxes?

---

Of course you do. But paying taxes does not mean you get to decide what laws you will obey or not.