Sundial

That's not a threat. It's a question. You seem to be able to justify those actions so easily. Are you actually able to justify those actions to the victims? Are you actually able to look them in the eyes as their neighbors attack them unprovoked and without consequence and say this is good for the long term?

The question is not relevant since money does not replace human lives.

I give you a situation where a genocidal maniac attacks a foreign country entirely unprovoked and inflicts thousands of deaths to kill a single person and you think it's the best long term option? Would you feel comfortable going to Lebanon right and now and preaching this point?

That's really not an excuse. I don't know what else to say to make you understand that you should appreciate and at least acknowledge the insanely high loss of human life. Especially when it's done by a genocidal colonial country known for inflicting civilian casualties with little to no justification. You seem to fail to understand the context of the situation, such as how the areas came to be so densely populated by colonial settlement of Israel, or how this was a conflict entirely escalated by Israel themselves. The fact that you actually genuinely believe these things makes it even more concerning since you seem to accept any number of human life as an acceptable loss to assassinate someone. I've debated on this topic before many times here on Lemmy. If I was the one you were debating I would not take your arguments in good faith either.

Except you're the one debating in bad faith. On a post highlighting the obscenely high cost of human life to target a single member by a state known for some of its most horrendous war crimes in modern history, you're just too keen to dismiss it. Remember my comment about people saying things online where as if they said them in person, they would be assaulted and/or socially shunned? You're this person in this case. The person even came back to reply to you why they said the things you did. If you're not capable of this basic level of self reflection, then you really shouldn't make a post like this where you complain about people arguing. I'm bad faith with you.

Also, I just went into your comment history and took a quick peek. Your latest "unpopular" opinion seems to be because you disregarded the lives of civilians from the most recent attack by Israel to assassinate Nasrallah. You come across as quite callous trying to justify the murder of hundreds/thousands all to attack one individual. Stuff like that rubs people the wrong way since you seem to display a very morally and ethically wrong opinion when you can't even seem to acknowledge the horrendous loss of life.

Personally, I wouldn't consider online debates as debating a person. The reason being is you have no idea the person you're having this conversation with is a 12 year old with too much time on their hands or a 30 year old working at a troll farm. Even if they were a genuine person you're debating with, sites like Lemmy enable assholes to actually be assholes. They can say things here that would have them socially shunned or even assaulted in real life with virtually no consequence. I've had debates with individuals on this site that I actually liked, but more often than not, I was just debating assholes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're actually interested in discussing topics, try doing it with people in your life instead of online. Doesn't have to be a debate even. You can just ask how they feel about a certain topic and talk about it together. Doscussing/debating online isn't a bad thing. Just be prepared for more assholes given the medium.

Sorry, just to clarify. Are you saying you're having these conversations with people on person or online?

Autism and social unawareness may be a factor. But points you made like the snide remarks one may also indicate that you're having these conversations with assholes.

Ok for adults. Terrible for children.

Is she going to offer to provide names to the DoJ and get Epsteined?

The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.[13] The International Court of Justice reaffirmed this position, stating that the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip are unlawful and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ rejected the claim that Gaza was no longer occupied following the 2005 disengagement, on the basis of Israel's continued control over the Gaza Strip.[106][107]

In Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. The Prime Minister, the Israeli Supreme Court assumed that occupation had ended with the disengagement but did not explain the theory or facts that led to this conclusion.[108][109] After the disengagement, Israel claimed that its occupation of Gaza had ended, but also acknowledged that Gaza was not a sovereign state. It labeled Gaza as a "hostile entity," a status that neither grants Palestinians the right to self-governance and self-protection, nor obliges Israel to protect Gaza's civilian population. Israel uses this argument to deny Palestinians of full self-governance as well as the use of military force to suppress any resistance to Israeli control.[110]

I don't need to explain it in my words since more qualified people did a much better job explaining it and I have yet to see any kind of fact, source, or piece of information which would lead me to believe the above is incorrect.