If the only way to rout out the terrorist is that I get bombed to death so that other people don’t get bombed to death, freaking do it.
I don’t believe that. I asked four questions you didn’t answer any of them.
.
Are there other ways, besides this level of violence, to resolve this issue?
…and are they r*ping the young Gazan men they keep imprisoning?
.
Why are Gazans still falling for this ploy… either they are stupid/naive or this is fake news… 
For Whom the Bell Tolls
by
John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
1 Like
You’re all quoting or referencing corporate western media, who do you think owns that?
Instead of merely criticizing, post what you’ve got.
What’s wrong with goring an ox? Seems like it’s just a part of nature.
Sir, did you just call me an ox?
not yet
Carry on then.
What’s wrong with goring an ox? Seems like it’s just a part of nature.
If it’s someone else’s ox and you gore it, that could be a problem for them. If it’s your ox and someone else gore’s it, that could be a problem to you. Problem’s compound when vengeance for the gored ox is sought.
Despite the huge disparity in the scale of human cost, I thought it appropriate to cast the Israel v. Palestinian conflict in terms of Torah law which sought justice in terms of proportion. What would that mean in terms of Gaza’s loss of 40,000 mostly non-combatants? Here’s an article about what the Torah says about ox goring:
Table of Contents
Two passages in Exodus treat of an ox doing harm: the first of harm to a person (xxi. 28-32); the second to the ox of another owner (ib. 35-36). The verb used in the first passage is “nagaḥ” (to gore); that in the second, “nagaf” (to strike or hurt). But, according to the tradition, the rules laid down in either passage apply to goring, striking with the body, biting, kicking, and lying on. These rules are also extended to animals other than oxen, either injuring or injured (B. Ḳ. i. 4); and, while the texts contemplate killing only, the rules apply to lesser injuries also.
“Tam” and “Mu’ad.”
In each of these passages a distinction is made between the ox which has not given evidence of its vicious character and one whose master has been forewarned in this regard. The former is known in the Mishnah as “tam” (lit. “innocent,” “harmless”); the latter is called “mu’ad” (lit. “testified”). An injury committed by an innocent ox is deemed a kind of accident; while the master who is forewarned, but does not watch his beast, is liable for full damage, and, in case of the death of a human being, to a mulct or forfeiture. To render an ox mu’ad, two witnesses must testify in court, in the presence of its owner, that the ox has on three separate days acted viciously. Acting thus to his kind or to other domestic animals does not render him mu’ad as to injury to persons; nor vice versa (ib. ii. 4).
Punishment.
An animal that kills a human being must be stoned to death: its flesh may not be eaten. But it should first be tried by a criminal court of twenty-three judges; for the owner, who is also morally guilty of homicide, can be tried only in such a court. Even a lion, bear, or wolf that kills a person must be so tried; only a serpent should be killed by the first comer (Sanh. i. 4). “The ox of the stadium [arena] is not stoned: it is not he that gores; he is made to gore” (B. Ḳ. 39a).
Concerning the owner of a mu’ad the text says: “and his owner, also, shall be put to death; if there be laid upon him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life,” etc. According to the rabbinic interpretation, the judges have no discretion as to putting to death or placing a ransom: they always place the ransom, which goes to the heirs of the decedent. But whose life is to be estimated? R. Ishmael says, that of the person killed; R. Akiba more logically says, that of the guilty owner, who redeems himself from death (*ib.*40a). Hence Maimonides draws the conclusion that where the ox belongs to two owners jointly, both of whom have been warned, each of them has to redeem himself in the full amount. This amount is fixed according to age and sex (Lev. xxvii.; see Estimate).
When the person killed is a (Canaanite) bondman or bondwoman, the text fixes the mulct, payable to the owner, at thirty shekels, without regard to the value of the slave (Ex. xxi. 32; B. Ḳ. iv. 5).
While the text speaks only of the ox that kills either man or beast, the animal may strike and wound without killing its victim, and thus inflict a lesser injury. In such cases the owner of a mu’ad pays full damage; the owner of a tam half damage, as will be shown hereafter.
When a human being is hurt the owner of the oxpays only for damage proper, or diminution in value: he does not pay for pain, stoppage of work, cost of cure, or shame, as would one guilty of Assault and Battery. And the words of the text, “He shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead shall be his own,” are construed contrary to their apparent meaning; the owner of the killed ox keeps the carcass, and the owner of the goring ox pays in money the difference between the value of the live animal and of the carcass, just as he pays for a hurt not resulting in death. This rule naturally followed when restoration in kind fell into disuse and the courts gave judgments for money in all cases.
Half Compensation.
Where one man’s tam kills the ox of another, the text says, “they shall sell the living ox and divide the price of it, and the dead also they shall divide.” Should the goring and the gored ox be of equal value, this would amount to making good half the damage; and, in the words of the Mishnah, “this is the ox of the Torah.” Nothing is said in the text about any responsibility of the owner beyond the value of the offending beast. Hence the sages drew the conclusion that the two purposes of the Torah were: (1) to fix the payment at half the damage done, and (2) to declare the lack of responsibility beyond the value of that beast, or, as they put it, beyond “half damage from its body,” the latter element answering to the “pauperies” of the Roman law.
The penalty of “half the damage done from the body” must be paid whether the injury be done by an ox or any other animal; whether by goring or in any other way except by “foot or eating tooth”; whether to a man (short of death) or to a beast or other property; and whether the injured animal die or not; the owner of the offending animal, however, is then free from all further liability. And where the oxen of two men injure each other, the harm or diminution of value to each is appraised, and the owner whose ox did the greater harm pays half of the difference, to the extent of the living security (B. Ḳ. iii. 8). If the offending ox is in the keeping of a bailee, it may nevertheless be taken for the damage done, and the owner then has recourse to the bailee.
For the case of doubt as to which of several oxen has committed an injury, see Burden of Proof.
Bibliography:
- Maimonides, Yad, Nizḳe Mamon, iv.-xi.
Still firm on this.
I’m neither an idiot enough to share a ton of independent, third party individual sources that would require much more extensive listening over time to gather the requisite information, let alone have the ability and desire to actually seek facts and be able to parse them with one’s own mind applying logic and derivation to actually generate knowledge rather than simply absorbing the words written or spoken by some corporate media rag, nor am I enough of an idiot to fall into that trap of making the conversation not about the facts involved but instead about becoming a dick measuring contest of “oh yeah well SoUrCeEe???” for people who can’t be bothered to think for themselves and are quite happy to pretend not to know things so long as they haven’t been compelled by someone else to admit that they know them. Not only because posting sources is a way of admitting one’s own lack of thinking ability and most often committing appeal to authority fallacy, but I also guard legitimate sources of information carefully and don’t just share them with anyone. In my experience most people neither want nor deserve access to real (truthful, non-propagandistic) information.
The tribe is continuing their genocide and land theft, that is what is going on in Gaza. We know that. But even if you think some corporate media company puts out a piece of “news” or reporting that aligns with what you believe to be true, remember who actually owns those companies and what their agendas are. Agendas not only related to ethnic cleansing and land theft over there but also agendas spanning far beyond that, through controlled western media corporations and flowing into your very home and brain via your computer/mobile devices.
Perhaps you illiterates need to invest in a good dictionary. You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘genocide’. Y’all seemed to think it was ‘good and noble’ for the US to unjustly attack Iraq after 9/11. How many muslims were slaughtered, not even including Afghanistan and the other ME countries the US has invaded? I’ve lost track. Do you really think that Hamas didn’t know exactly how Israel would react to islamic bastards raping Israeli women and parading them as trophies (dead and alive), burning its babies alive, torturing its children to death, gleefully slaughtering whole families together-- and posting it all online for sickos to gloat over? Then you pretend to ‘care’ about plasticinians (who overwhelmingly support Hamas) getting caught in the crossfire (that’s what happens when you use your own people as a human shields). Save your crocodile tears for the truly gullible.
There is no hypocrisy quite as blatant and sick as woke hypocrisy.
Btw, the ratio of civilian deaths is considerably lower than the US’ in any of its invasions, and it would be even lower if it weren’t for the comtempt and complete disrgard plasticinians have for their own people. EVERY plasticine death is at the hands of plasticinians. Now instead of rebuilding they will inflict themselves on hapless Western countries, to ‘gift’ their repulsive radicalism to the welfare states of the world.
Bro wut
That has nothing to do with anything I said. Are you talking to someone else?
Who are you talking to? What language is ‘bro wut’? I don’t recognise it.
Btw. There’s no ‘land theft’. Israel won it all. The Gazans are squatters on land that is rightfully Israel’s. Hope that helps.
You seem to assume that discussants on this thread agree about genocide in Gaza. We don’t. You assume we think the US invasion of Iraq was good and noble. I never have and no one on this thread has expressed that opinion. You ask if we think that Hamas didn’t know exactly how Israel would react to the slaughter and hostage taking on Oct 7. I think they did. You call Palestinians “plasticinians. Name calling like you’re doing there is hate speech. It is evidence that the violence has “gotten under your skin.” Then there is your allegation of hypocrisy. Not sure why you think discussing the killing of innocent people is hypocritical. Maybe you can clarify what you mean. Then you assert that the ratio of civilian deaths is lower in the Gaza massacre than in US invasions. I’d like to see how you determined that.
‘Hate speech’. Yawn. I’m so ‘offended’. I don’t believe in ‘hate speech’. You know who was a big fan of ‘hate speech’ laws? Stalin. He understood the power of bs. I say ‘plasticinians’ because there is no such thing as ‘palestinians’. Where is ‘palestine’ exactly? Pleast tell me where it is on a world map.
Right. I wasn’t trying to offend you. I don’t wish to disturb you. Ontologically, nation-states are constructed realities. They are fictions super-imposed on your maps. You can buy in, or not. Now what?