Benocide Shekelpiro. back at it again, cumming to the thought of dead palestinian corpses, and ripped fetuses from the wombs of mothers.
Note: The term terrorist is used in a concilliatory manner, and not intended to reflect the true nature of the movement, which is a liberation movement.
Deception at it’s finest. Ben asserts here that Israel is justified in killing palestinian civilians as collateral damage, with the intention of targeting terrorists that are hidden behind civilians. If you would notice, when did the questioner assert that collateral damage is not justified. By setting up the strawman with Britian, and a common sense ethic of war, he convinced the audience that the questioner is hypocritical when it comes to Israel (both crediting Israel in its bombings, and discrediting the questioner as nuetral and truth focused).
Ben needed to resort to tactics of deceiving his audience to score points because he is well aware of the policies of the IDF and is not stupid to not be able to differentiate when a civilian gets caught in the crossfire vs when the civilian BECOMES THE INTENDED target by means of ariel destruction.
Imagine, as Ben and many Americans such as myself are familiar with, there is an active shooter in the premises of a college.
The government has two options:
Option 1: Call in the airforce and strike the entire campus to nuetralize the target (guarenteed to kill everyone on campus)
Option 2: Call in ground units to find the shooter and nueatralize the target (potential death of held hostages by the target)
Ben purposely conflates and combines two distinct scenerios of “collateral damage”, to throw the main and original question of israels motive under the bus. When clearly, the type of bombing that israel is complicit in, puts into question weather if israel is there to fight terrorists or actively engage in terrorism under the banner of “protecting civilians.” Its equal to Joe Biden Bombing an entire college campus to nuetralize a target with the intention of “protecting the students.” Option 1’s collateral damage is equal to Option 2’s collateral damage in the eyes of Ben. Furthermore, it questions the intention of the government calling in the airforce, of weather they wanted to just neatralize the target, or destroy an area of land that would not be accessible to them legally. So if you did bomb the entire campus, was the intitiative to protect the students from the intended target, or was it to kill the students and remove them from the land? Moving on, Option 2 is considered collateral damage.
Thus we see, his entire speal was undergurted by his call for the further colonial project of Israel and seige of Gaza, rather than what came out of his mouth which was, to remind you, “civilian casualties being a cost of war.”
He then, deceivingly, to hit home, makes correlations to the british cause for freedom during WW2 and the absurd amount of German Civilian deaths that followed. Again, he sets up a straw man that accuses the sister of justifying the civilian deaths of germans while hypocritacally rejecting that of the palestinians. He deceptively uses naivety of his audience and the presumtion that views Britians war as a Just war, which justified the civilian deaths, thus to not be hypocritial, to have them justify the ‘civilian deaths ‘idea of collatoral damage’ (which NOONE disagreed with) in gaza in Israels fight for justice. However, Ben is required to set up these straw man to score points against noone so that in the mind of the audience, although he says nothing of substance defending specifcally israeli actions in gaza, justified the specific action of israel that the sister was trying to assess and critque. But because he made it seem as if he is on the common sense side by defending collateral damage, the audience automatically correlates his position as being a justified answer to the question of the sister, when its nothing further from the truth.
If the IDF chooses to do an ariel bomb to flatten an entire building, knowing there is a 300:1 civilain to terrorist ratio, then that is considered a war crime. There are other means to neutralize the “terrorist” other than flattening a refugee center or hospital. Imagine, as Ben is familiar with, a school shooter was detected. Now if the governer or president calls in the united states airforce to flatten the entire school, then, it goes from mere civilian casualities to war crimes intended to decimate a civilian population.
Notice how deceptive Ben tries to parrael the two instances under the banner of ‘civilian casualities’ – to the lay audience, ben makes a good point here because civilian casualties are a neccessary evil, and he makes the questioner look biased and double standard, when that is not what she asserted by any means. He further goes to deceptively take advantage of the “common sense truth” like the Brits were correct in WW2, and the fact that there are no monumnets of german citizens shows that all brits and common sense advocates agree with Bens position and it would be hypocritial and to hold a double standard to say otherwise of israel.
These men have diseases in their hearts that purposely lie and deceive to push its agenda.
