Can our Leftist friends answer this question?

Internet sleuth and CIA contractor Tony Seruga utilized GPS phone data to identify individuals waving Mexican and Palestinian flags last week in LA.

At least 309 of the devices appear to reside in $10+ million residences from Southern California’s Brentwood, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, Ranch Santa Fe, San Francisco, Palo Alto, to New York, Atlanta, Houston, Seattle, Maui, Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe, etc. And 79% of those fly private jets three or more times per year. They are very likely billionaire trust fund kids.

A bunch of spoiled, gender-confused, self-loathing rich kids.

Yep. Obama and Biden also deported quite a few.

Obama was the deporter-in-chief

He was. Deported more than any president in the 21st century apparently, despite more friendly rhetoric towards migrants and all that human rights talk. Circa 3 million. BUT he may have been slightly less heavy-handed than Trump, whose dawn-raid tactics have drawn ire and more protests than Obama got.

I agree it's pretty hypocritical though.

Obama also promised to close Guantanamo. He did reduce the number of detainees quite a bit, actually, but didn't succeed in closing the facility due to opposition from Congress, apparently. You could maybe argue his hands were tied, but innocent people still died under his watch.

Obama was president when a few serious attacks on civilians took place, like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granai_airstrike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

Democrats. Republicans. Same difference. I mean, if I was an Afghan villager, would it really make a difference to me who is president when my wedding party gets bombed to shit and I lose half my family in the most unimaginable way? Obama did apologize for some of them. How nice. If Iran bombed a US wedding party or hospital in Texas and killed dozens of innocent civilians on the happiest day of their life, and then issued an apology, would we just accept that? You wonder why so many people have animosity towards the US?

Anyway, Trump claimed to be anti-war, but now he's trigger-happy as anything and making not-so-veiled threats to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei. Not a lawyer, but pretty sure that's still illegal in international law... Aside from being chilling, tacky, and arguably deeply moral, how many other countries make it a policy to just wipe out top commanders of countries they're in conflict with? Let alone scientists? And their families and kids? That's the kind of thing you expect from corrupt "third-world" dictators, not from leaders of the free world, isn't it? Stay classy.

Imagine if every country operated that way and just assassinated top military officials or politicians (and often, the wife and kids too). Taking out a terrorist is one thing. Blowing their wives and children to shit in their sleep is another. Are their kids worthy of a brutal death by association? Isn't that something for the courts to decide? Pretty sure that goes against quite a few international laws. Even wars have laws. Shall we just blow up Netanyahu next time he goes shopping and kill his family too?

This is the stuff of barbarism and not a civilized country.

I don't invite terrorists to my weddings. Do you?Not sure what your point is. Are you implying all Muslims are potential terrorists or sth?

Are all Christians KKK sympathizers who approve of lynching black people? Do most Christians bomb abortion clinics or beat up gay people? Are most US Christians secret Conquistadors who agree with the Spanish Inquisition?

Please clarify?

"But imagine if a state-sanctioned military bombed your wedding party or BBQ or daughter's graduation party and killed 20 of your family and friends and then claimed it was justified because some wanted dangerous mass murderer who was already wanted for heinous crimes happened to be there? That seems to be your argument, or perhaps I've misunderstood? Please correct me if I'm wrong."

We were at war, there was no other opportunity, and everyone involved was complicit. They knew they were targeted and would be taken out the moment they surfaced. The
The couple getting married invited the guy. Personally if I knew a terrorist was going to be at the wedding, I wouldn't attend.
Are these things horrific? Yes. But so it's letting a terrorist that would go on to kill hundreds or thousands of people go.

No offence, but your morality is a bit questionable if it's based on that kind of reasoning. And again I think you would think very differently if it ACTUALLY happened, and you wouldn't just accept it like you're doing now.

If half your family were wiped out, I think you might be a bit more upset. It's easy to talk about this stuff when it's just "some Muslim" in some exotic country.

If it actually happened to you, I think you would absolutely be enraged.

Half my family wouldn't show up at a wedding with a terrorist your premise is flawed.

That was my whole point though.

You invite people to your wedding. It turns out one of the 200 people you invited decides to go postal that day. How do you know?

Obviously, if we all knew a terrorist was coming to the wedding, people might avoid it. But the argument is you *don't know*.

It could be your brother-in-law.

You were saying if that happened, and the whole wedding party was bombed and all attendees were killed, that is just a price you have to pay or something. (Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but that's the implication I'm getting.)

Honestly, if I'm missing something, please let me know.

No sorry, again they were a terrorist for many years and had killed many people, you seem to be missing that you would be aiding and abetting a mass murderer at that point.

Okay... and how exactly would you know that your brother-in-law was secretly a militant wanted by the Mossad before your invite him? That's the point. Obviously, you wouldn't invite him if you knew he was a wanted terrorist or had even killed people. That's the whole point.

You think Gazans are all secret terrorists and invite known murderers and militants to their weddings? The point is you don't know.

My question is simple: IF you invite someone (say, an old school friend you've known for decades and you never knew was actually a militant involved with God knows what), and then your entire party is airbombed to shit killing dozens of innocent people, is that morally justified in your world?

Because that's what has actually happened in real life in Gaza. And other places. We're not talking about if you know your friend is a terrorist nutjob and invite him anyway (and even then my argument stands). We're saying you innocently invite someone to your party with 200 innocent ppl, and you don't know they're a target. It's okay to then kill everyone present just to take out that one person?

I think we both know that's absurd. Yet this is essentially the morality Netanyahu is operating on.

Just this week they bombed a popular beach cafe in Gaza to kill one (or a few) Hamas militants. They destroyed the cafe and killed innocent people and blew their brains to bits. In any normal world, this would be a war crime and they'd make movies about it. But it's just another day in Gaza.

You're okay with that if it happens to you and your family? Really? Are you being 100% serious? I'm genuinely curious. You seem like a reasonable person. So I think you might have a problem with this. That's all I'm saying.

All attacks on weddings were because a terrorist was attending. Don't invite terrorists, your wedding won't get bombed. It's pretty simple.

Okay, so if a single nutjob comes to your wedding, it's okay to murder all the other attendees. Got it. That's your level of morality.

So if a single high school shooter nutjob happens to turn up to my sweet 16 house party, you can airstrike my entire party and murder evertyone at the party, and that's fine.

I think your morality needs a bit of work, no offence. And I think you haven't thought this through for more than 5 minutes.

If you invited him, yes.

Okay, so how do you know one if the people you invited to your wedding/party/whatever happens to have picked that day to flip out and start shooting people indiscriminately for whatever personal grievance or reasons only they know before committing suicide (themselves or by cop)? Especially in a country where access to lethal firearms is so much easier than most of the rest of the world.

Could even be one of your old school friends. (What if it was your own sibling or another member of your own family (or your fiancée's, or your daughter's ex-boyfriend, or your uncle/aunt, or whoever?) Can you *really* ever know for sure?

It's okay to then airstrike your entire party because you/your fiancée/your family made the innocent mistake of inviting one nutjob or person having a Really Bad Day? It's okay to kill your entire family and all your friends because of one person who decided to go postal?

You're genuinely okay with that? I find that a bit hard to believe, actually. Do you really think that? Like, if it actually happened, you'd just be like, "Well, it's tragic and we're devastated but, well, it had to be done for the safety of everyone"? 🤔 I have a feeling you might be a bit more emotional about it.

In any case, your claim that "All attacks on weddings were because a terrorist was attending" is debatable.

There are examples where there is no convincing or confirmed evidence terrorists were present.

(But again, even if they had been, does it justify killing dozens or even hundreds of innocent civilians who just happened to be present? Is that how law works these days in the US and in democratic freedom-loving countries that respect the rule of law and human rights and want to make a better world for all, and prevent hostile regimes like the Iranian one from posing a threat to innocent civilians? Is that the kind of country you come from and the values you espouse? Just curious... )

Some examples. Some of these incidents include claims that shots were fired first. Others have no credible evidence of a terrorist threat. Either way, innocent people were killed by various militaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike [37 killed by US forces]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Radda_airstrike [30–40 killed by US-backed Saudi coalition]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43863608 [30+ killed by US-backed Saudi coalition]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre [42 killed by US forces]

Its not "that day" it was years of terrorist acts. Please do some research. Keep in mind the wedding participants knew the guys were on terror watch lists and in hiding and US intelligence had them at the wedding. They can't reveal their sources because it puts everyone involved in danger. Same reason ICE wears face masks, to protect them and their families from leftist reprisal.

Okay. So let's say the terrorists were on the watch list (and even that some of the attendees knew those terrorists were on the watch list and were "in on it" and invited them anyway.) Fine. I'll go with that.

You said: "They can't reveal their sources because it puts everyone involved in danger."

Dude, bombing the whole wedding to death (including the bride and groom in some cases) surely puts all the other attendees in danger, no? Because now they're dead. I mean, to be fair, technically they're no longer "in danger" now, but I'm not sure that's quite what we meant. 🤔

I'm a bit confused.

If a terrorist is on the watch list, isn't there a better way to take them out? The Mossad does that all the time (when they're not bombarding entire tower blocks of random people just to take out one military commander, like they've just done in Iran (or was that the IDF?). They're arguably world experts at this shit. Possibly the best in the world, even. But do other countries' militaries really have to bomb a wedding to shit to kill a single terrorist? Can't they just poison them with Novichok or use a sniper rifle or something like Russia does?

I'm not sure bombing dozens of people to get one target is legal in international law... Actually, I'm not sure extrajudicial killings (assassinations) are legal in international law anyway, but whatever.

These are horrific incidents. I know it's easy to sanitize them because it's some country miles away and strangers you can't relate to. Even for me. It's easy to get numb to statistics. Places in warzones where innocent people die all the time anyway, so meh. It's not like if it happened in Europe or the US or something.

But imagine if a state-sanctioned military bombed your wedding party or BBQ or daughter's graduation party and killed 20 of your family and friends and then claimed it was justified because some wanted dangerous mass murderer who was already wanted for heinous crimes happened to be there? That seems to be your argument, or perhaps I've misunderstood? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Correction:
The Bani Qais wedding strike in Yemen apparently killed around 20, not over 30, and wounded some more.

Anyway, my point still arguably stands. If even a single innocent person is killed because they just happened to attend an event where some terrorist nutjob or whoever was there decided to let rip, is that morally justified in your world?

You can look all this up yourself anyway and check all the figures and correct me. They're documented incidents. It's just sometimes hard to get exact figures in all cases (yes, copout, I know).

Actually the Obama numbers are skewed. They started including illegals trying to enter the border who were turned around right there, and that beefed up his numbers. So while he did deport quite a few, the big increase under him had a bit to do with redefining deportations to include simply blocking them from going past the border.