• fizzle@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    25 days ago

    That’s not really true though is it.

    You have to consider not only the intentions but also the capability of the threat you’re trying to mitigate. Then you have to balance those things against the cost of whatever action you intend to take.

    Sure the fanciful desire of hamas might be global domination but we both know that they just don’t have any capability in that regard.

    It’s absurd to suggest that it’s appropriate to grind an entire nation to dust because they might be harboring someone with desires of global domination.

    • CokeVoAYCE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      25 days ago

      i mean, you could say the exact same for the civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure when the US was fighting ISIS. at the end of the day they did a terrorist attack and said they were going to do it again, are harboring weapons, and are right at israel’s border. they clearly have capability and intent because they fire rockets at israel all the time. what is israel supposed to do, let them fire rockets at them and not fire back? not destroy the munitions they keep in hospitals? all the deaths and the destruction of the infrastructure can be blamed on hamas, not israel. and i’m not claiming hamas does have the capability of global domination, if they did they would’ve done it. i’m saying they have that intent, just like ISIS did. are we supposed to not destroy them until they gain more power and do have the ability to be a threat to the world?