4 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Cutting off Power, Water and food delivery and destroying all civilian infrastructure rendering a place uninhabitable means it isn't 'collateral damage' FFS

No thats how you cut off an enemy supply chain. Pretty standard war tactics 

49 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Not to many

Well the entire f'ing United Nations seems to think so.

3 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Well the entire f'ing United Nations seems to think so.

Why would i care what they think?

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Why would i care what they think?

Because you guys are completely missing the forest for the trees. Hamas barbarism was MEANT to shock and awe and create a scenario that destabillized the emerging Israli-Arab relations.  Burning all of Palestine and Hamas to the ground serves only one purpose: to ensure divisions in the region that favor bad actors of the region and to tear critical western political coalitions apart.

2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Because you guys are completely missing the forest for the trees. Hamas barbarism was MEANT to shock and awe and create a scenario that destabillized the emerging Israli-Arab relations.  Burning all of Palestine and Hamas to the ground serves only one purpose: to ensure divisions in the region that favor bad actors of the region and to tear critical western political coalitions apart.

 Nope

serves the purpose of ending the cyclical terrorism. The region is and always has been divided. The only hope for a peaceful future is the elimination of hamas and its infrastructure

On 3/26/2024 at 3:59 PM, Cochis_Calhoun said:

In all seriousness why not just change the thread title to Israel Support Thread? It would avoid any confusion about what this thread is for, rather than pretending it's about 'Conflicting Views...' and all that 

Feel free to start a, I support Hamas thread. 

2 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Cutting off Power, Water and food delivery and destroying all civilian infrastructure rendering a place uninhabitable means it isn't 'collateral damage' FFS

Have you ever heard of U.S. Grant? The siege at Vicksburg. It was a Union victory. Vicksburg was the last Confederate Strong hold of the Confederates on the Mississippi River. It allowed Grant to open the River and free it from the Confederate control. Grant led assaults' on Vicksburg that failed. He reluctantly made the decision to engage in a siege. Their fortifications had been cut off. Their means of resupply was cut off. The siege last 4 months. The citizens were trapped. The Union army was in front of the them. Union gun boats were on the river making escape impossible. Food was scarce and water was blocked. Streams were dammed. The point of a siege is to create enough suffering that they would have the choice to surrender or starve to death. The Confederates waved the white flag. They chose to surrender. Grant demanded an Unconditional Surrender. The Confederates laid down their weapons and walked home. Lincoln was overjoyed with the news that Vicksburg had fallen. Gettysburg was next. 

I don't have a problem at all with what Grant did to win Vicksburg. Use of a Siege has happened in almost every war throughout history. July 4, 1863.

 

22 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Have you ever heard of U.S. Grant? The siege at Vicksburg. It was a Union victory. Vicksburg was the last Confederate Strong hold of the Confederates on the Mississippi River. It allowed Grant to open the River and free it from the Confederate control. Grant led assaults' on Vicksburg that failed. He reluctantly made the decision to engage in a siege. Their fortifications had been cut off. Their means of resupply was cut off. The siege last 4 months. The citizens were trapped. The Union army was in front of the them. Union gun boats were on the river making escape impossible. Food was scarce and water was blocked. Streams were dammed. The point of a siege is to create enough suffering that they would have the choice to surrender or starve to death. The Confederates waved the white flag. They chose to surrender. Grant demanded an Unconditional Surrender. The Confederates laid down their weapons and walked home. Lincoln was overjoyed with the news that Vicksburg had fallen. Gettysburg was next. 

I don't have a problem at all with what Grant did to win Vicksburg. Use of a Siege has happened in almost every war throughout history. July 4, 1863.

 

Don't ask Sacagawea_Wallace any questions unless you're parsing the works of Christopher Caudwell or Hugo Dewar.

5 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Cutting off Power, Water and food delivery and destroying all civilian infrastructure rendering a place uninhabitable means it isn't 'collateral damage' FFS

You are overestimating the innocence of the civilian population there.  Through years of indoctrination, the large majority of Gaza residents have been radicalized and supported the acts of war committed on October 7.  The best analogy I can think of is what happened in the 30's in Central Europe - Germany and Austria in particular.  Denazification worked in Europe only after total victory.  The world needs to see that when unprovoked atrocities take place like those from October 7, complete defeat and ruin lies in its wake.  The alternative is only to embolden barbarians to commit more atrocities.

8 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Cutting off Power, Water and food delivery and destroying all civilian infrastructure rendering a place uninhabitable means it isn't 'collateral damage' FFS

Maybe don’t rape and pillage and not expect a return on investment?

4 hours ago, Bill said:

Maybe don’t rape and pillage and not expect a return on investment?

Maybe don't oppress people for seven and a half decades and get pissy when they decide to give you a smack in the mouth back?

10 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Maybe don't oppress people for seven and a half decades and get pissy when they decide to give you a smack in the mouth back?

Yeah don't get pissy, Israel, whats a little murder/rape/abduction of women and children in the face of all the terrible oppression?? 

All Palestinians have ever wanted was to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, is that too much to ask?

10 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Have you ever heard of U.S. Grant? The siege at Vicksburg. It was a Union victory. Vicksburg was the last Confederate Strong hold of the Confederates on the Mississippi River. It allowed Grant to open the River and free it from the Confederate control. Grant led assaults' on Vicksburg that failed. He reluctantly made the decision to engage in a siege. Their fortifications had been cut off. Their means of resupply was cut off. The siege last 4 months. The citizens were trapped. The Union army was in front of the them. Union gun boats were on the river making escape impossible. Food was scarce and water was blocked. Streams were dammed. The point of a siege is to create enough suffering that they would have the choice to surrender or starve to death. The Confederates waved the white flag. They chose to surrender. Grant demanded an Unconditional Surrender. The Confederates laid down their weapons and walked home. Lincoln was overjoyed with the news that Vicksburg had fallen. Gettysburg was next. 

I don't have a problem at all with what Grant did to win Vicksburg. Use of a Siege has happened in almost every war throughout history. July 4, 1863.

 

You're comparing the siege of Vicksburg to witholding Power, Water and Food from 2.2million people in all seriousness? 

Also when Vicksburg was offered Surrender was it on the terms that it goes back to a worse situation than what they were rebelling about in the first place?

 

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

Yeah don't get pissy, Israel, whats a little murder/rape/abduction of women and children in the face of all the terrible oppression?? 

All Palestinians have ever wanted was to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, is that too much to ask?

Netanyahu funded Hamas in it's early days to specifically frustrate the two state solution agreed by Rabin, Peres and Yasser Arafat in the Oslo Accords by building a political counterweight to Arafat's PLO. Netanyahu's whole Poltical career is built on conflict with the Palestinian's that's why he's in coalition with a raving fanatic like Ben Gvir (who incidentally would cheerfully wipe Palestine, Jordan and most of Lebanon off the map Tomorrow).

On 3/26/2024 at 8:59 PM, Cochis_Calhoun said:

In all seriousness why not just change the thread title to Israel Support Thread? It would avoid any confusion about what this thread is for, rather than pretending it's about 'Conflicting Views...' and all that 

There are a few posters in here including you that are taking a very pro Hamas/Palestinian position and some that are fairly neutral.  The title denotes the country of the events and it is very clear as to the purpose of the thread.  Would you rather the title was "Israel and Palestinians" or "Israel and Gaza"?

1 hour ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Netanyahu funded Hamas in it's early days to specifically frustrate the two state solution agreed by Rabin, Peres and Yasser Arafat in the Oslo Accords by building a political counterweight to Arafat's PLO. Netanyahu's whole Poltical career is built on conflict with the Palestinian's that's why he's in coalition with a raving fanatic like Ben Gvir (who incidentally would cheerfully wipe Palestine, Jordan and most of Lebanon off the map Tomorrow).

Can't you apply your same logic about Palestine to Israel?

They've literally been under threat of attack by almost every single one of their neighboring countries, and more, since before they even had their own country.  

"Maybe don't oppress people and then get pissy when they decide to give you a smack?"

 

 

Everything you just described was done in an effort to preserve Israel's mere existence.  They're trying to do whatever they can to prevent perpetual attacks by almost everyone around them who have plainly stated their goal of eliminating the Jewish state. 

Yet you only have a problem with one side--Israel. Now you're quite literally justifying terrorism.  Why?  Why can't Israel exist and defend their nation as any other nation on earth would be expected to do?

and you people told me the idea of dave moss having a long lost siamese twin was crazy. 

1 hour ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

You're comparing the siege of Vicksburg to withholding Power, Water and Food from 2.2million people in all seriousness? 

Also when Vicksburg was offered Surrender was it on the terms that it goes back to a worse situation than what they were rebelling about in the first place?

 

Yeah, because the Confederates no longer had the will to fight, due to the siege and thanks to the lack of food and water, and made the decision to surrender rather then to starve to death. Grant allowed the Confederates to leave the city but not with their slaves. The difference here is, Hamas would gladly choose death over surrender and shows how radical they are and that they don't care about the survival of their own people. 

13 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, because the Confederates no longer had the will to fight, due to the siege and thanks to the lack of food and water, and made the decision to surrender rather then to starve to death. Grant allowed the Confederates to leave the city but not with their slaves. The difference here is, Hamas would gladly choose death of the civilians they hide among over surrender and shows how radical they are and that they don't care about the survival of their own people. 

FYP

54 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

and you people told me the idea of dave moss having a long lost siamese twin was crazy. 

yikes, imagine being connected to Moss

48 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Can't you apply your same logic about Palestine to Israel?

They've literally been under threat of attack by almost every single one of their neighboring countries, and more, since before they even had their own country.  

"Maybe don't oppress people and then get pissy when they decide to give you a smack?"

 

 

Everything you just described was done in an effort to preserve Israel's mere existence.  They're trying to do whatever they can to prevent perpetual attacks by almost everyone around them who have plainly stated their goal of eliminating the Jewish state. 

Yet you only have a problem with one side--Israel. Now you're quite literally justifying terrorism.  Why?  Why can't Israel exist and defend their nation as any other nation on earth would be expected to do?

 

This isn't the first time the UN and the US have chastised Israel because its not the first time they have committed acts that went way and well beyond "self defense".  There are powerful elements within Israel, the same ones currently keeping Bibi in place, who are every bit the genocidal scourges to a two state solution as their Hamas counterparts (maybe less raping).  

the hate built up for thousands of years isn't going anywhere regardless of any amount of western influence, interference, coaxing etc. it's not about territory, it's about existing. 

 

11 hours ago, Procus said:

You are overestimating the innocence of the civilian population there.  Through years of indoctrination, the large majority of Gaza residents have been radicalized and supported the acts of war committed on October 7.  The best analogy I can think of is what happened in the 30's in Central Europe - Germany and Austria in particular.  Denazification worked in Europe only after total victory.  The world needs to see that when unprovoked atrocities take place like those from October 7, complete defeat and ruin lies in its wake.  The alternative is only to embolden barbarians to commit more atrocities.

By that logic all civilians are complicit and therefore valid targets. And i'm not even arguing that to be untrue but why the mental gymnastics of positing that sieges are moralistically fine while "terrorism" or torture is not? 

3 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Maybe don't oppress people for seven and a half decades and get pissy when they decide to give you a smack in the mouth back?

Just lead with this next time and identify yourself as someone OK with terrorism and crimes against humanity. Save us all some time.