re: #661 GunstarGreen

The use it has for him is that his father might be alive if methods other than bombing the place were employed.

Methods other than bombing can produce zero civilian casualties? What are they?

If people considered the loss of civilian life a failure scenario instead of an “inevitability” that nobody is responsible for.

So you really don’t think that civilian deaths are inevitable? Can you explain how you would attack the rocket launching sites and groups without endangering citizens, please?

My point is that there are better ways. Perhaps the money spent on bombs and jet fuel and the like could be better spent on coming up with better anti-rocket defensive technologies. Modern combat ships, for instance, have defensive turrets designed to shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles. Perhaps a version for use on land against incoming rockets could be developed?

Are you trolling? Do you not know about Iron Dome?

Every time you go to take out “The Terrorists” and wind up killing somebody’s father/son/brother/uncle/cousin (or female equivalents), then write it off as “inevitable civilian casualties”, you defeat your own purpose. You give more people a reason to think that maybe “The Terrorists” are on to something.

Who’s writing it off? That civilian casualties are inevitable is a fact. It’s not a happy or pleasant fact, but it’s a fact.

You’re not arguing with me. You’re arguing with a cartoon version of me. Plus the whole thing about “Maybe they could develop some sort of ground-based missile shield”— are you just paying zero attention?