Oh international law entitles Israel to self-defence Clive, I don't think that's being disputed. What we're talking about is the appropriate level of response.
So I'll ask you again since your entire argument is falling apart, or the rationale behind it is, but let's pick apart what you've meekly put up so far in your attempts to wriggle
"Stupid point. The birmingham pub bombings were not missiles from a location and were not a daily sustained attack over a period of years.
Ridiculous"
So you seem to be under the impression that a country can only be considered to be under attack if missiles are in use. It's a bizzarre interpretation, but in the name of good sport I'll humour you. In 1991 the IRA launched a mortar attack against the British Cabinet in Downing Street. This was their second direct attack following Brighton, at the seat of Government (Hamas aren't remotely close to this level of capacity). Mortars are missiles in the code of warfare. In 1994 they did the same at Heathrow, when jets continued to land for half an hour with two unexploded mortars lying on the runway. They also rountinely used mortars to attack police stations. So having hopefully satisfied you that the IRA also used missiles in their campaigns, you'll now accept that you can apply the same rationale you are doing? These later ones were fired from locations, and since the IRA claimed repsonsibility for each and every one of them, we can point to a broad location similar in size to the Gaza Strip as to where we think they've originated. All the terms that you seem to think distinguish the two, don't. So it's green light time then?
Your other major sticking point is that the Birmingham bombs "were not a daily sustained attack over a period of years".
It's such a laughable position to adopt it shouldn't even need responding to. In fact you should be embarrassed to be offering it in all seriousness
Just for your own military reference, neither were the 9/11 attacks against the Pentagon sustained over a period of years (the WTC had been attacked previously). In fairness this limp argument (in fact I won't even credit it with the status of 'argument'). This non argument is so poor you'd be better off trying to change the subject. Are you seriously suggesting the threat could only be considered a threat, if the IRA were attacking the same pub every week? Even you must accept that the IRA ran campaign that endured for longer than the Hamas rocket attacks. I'm quite happy to provide you the dates if you don't believe me, but trust me, they did.
Your final point is wrong - pure and simple
"Dont come out with that.
Body counts are secondary to intent. Hamas makes it clear that they would go to any lengths to maximise deaths of jews".
Body counts are most certainly not of secondary importance to intent. Someone who says "I hate you, I wish you were dead" is committing the graver act through their expressed intent, then someone who silently picks up a nice big knife and slides into them? Are you for real? I'd like to try and see you defend that line in a court of law and see what happens to you.
In fact there's an even more hysterical example of how warped your thinking is, but I won't raise it fear that it provides you with a distraction to get yourself off the hook
So I ask you again (not that I expect an answer)
At what point would you have authorised the RAF to carpet bomb Belfast?
You could have used Tornados squadrons of 12 carrying eight 500Ib each. That's just short of 50,000 tonnes of explosive on a single mission. Over a 4 week period you could have dropped 1.3M tonnes on Belfast Clive. Now you will have killed a lot of catholic civilians in this process, but that doesn't matter does it, it's there fault for having some hidden sentimental sympathy, and for living in the same post code as Jerry's 2nd cousin four times removed - right?
The way I see your logic is that you have two choices
1: Admit that this is the line of policy you'd have adopted (plenty of brain dead right wing reactionaries did) I certainly heard enough people saying bomb the **** of Belfast etc
2: Perhaps consider that you could be wrong on the whole issue, and therefore go back and revisit the whole idea of what is both appropriate and a strategically sensible response
