March 28, 20241 yr 33 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: 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? Putting the word terrorism in quotes is an interesting choice.
March 28, 20241 yr 34 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: 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. Any act of war, any and all, from torture to mass rape to dropping nukes can be and will be framed as an existential necessity. If the mass shooting in russia were in fact the doing of ukraine would anybody here cry foul? Siege is not only completely inhumane towards the civilian population, it is also a tactic only available to the stronger force.
March 28, 20241 yr 34 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: 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? Not sure why you put terrorism in quotes
March 28, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, DrPhilly said: 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"? You see that's the sort of horseshit exactly, 'Oh you disagree with the slaughter of 30000 civilians and enforced starvation of others? You must be pro terrorism' I'm not pro terrorism, but it does take a child like naivety to look at Israel Palestine over the last 75 years and particularly the last 30 and still suggest that the situation is caused entirely by Hamas and what happened on October 7th. The reason people like me get so agitated about the whole thing is that Israel is literally the only country on Gods green earth where our country sees multiple UN resolutions dating back to the 1960's violated and since the mid 90's not only doesn't impose any sort of sanctions on those responsible but actively funds it. 23 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Just lead with this next time and identify yourself as someone OK with terrorism and crimes against humanity. Save us all some time. Right on cue here's Vikas to condescend and misrepresent some more. I responded in kind to the glib response I got. I will say kudos on the monumental irony and lack of self awareness in your accusation of being 'OK with... crimes against humanity' line, that did make me chuckle in disbelief, I had you down as a deeply unserious bluffer but hot damn.
March 28, 20241 yr 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? Gazans have been much more oppressed by fellow Gazans than Israel. Funny how you people automatically give Egypt a pass. You probably don't even understand what I just wrote.
March 28, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Any act of war, any and all, from torture to mass rape to dropping nukes can be and will be framed as an existential necessity. If the mass shooting in russia were in fact the doing of ukraine would anybody here cry foul? Siege is not only completely inhumane towards the civilian population, it is also a tactic only available to the stronger force. So now it's a crime not to be weak and not to give in to terror. You wouldn't last 5 minutes in Gaza before October 7
March 28, 20241 yr Author 7 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said: You see that's the sort of horseshit exactly, 'Oh you disagree with the slaughter of 30000 civilians and enforced starvation of others? You must be pro terrorism' As long as you make the distinction then it is reasonable in my mind to take the nuanced position of "anti-Hamas" and "pro-Palestinian". However, I find it pretty ridiculous to take any position at all and not address the rights of Israel to defend itself and to go after the terrorists even if that means that there will be civilian casualties and in significant numbers given the way Hamas conducts their business. btw - I've never said or even implied that a position in support of the Palestinian civilians was in any way a position of "pro terrorism".
March 28, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Putting the word terrorism in quotes is an interesting choice. Never liked the word I guess, too emotional. Feels like branding against tactics used by the weaker more desperate force. If starving millions of children is an acceptable tactic of the more powerful force and can be given a technical term like "siege warfare", then the targeting of civilians untouched by the conflict deserves a similarly technical warfare term.
March 28, 20241 yr 11 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Never liked the word I guess, too emotional. Feels like branding against tactics used by the weaker more desperate force. If starving millions of children is an acceptable tactic of the more powerful force and can be given a technical term like "siege warfare", then the targeting of civilians untouched by the conflict deserves a similarly technical warfare term. When you see planes crashing into the WTC and then see them collapse in real time, knowing full well thousands of people just died in that instant, you're GD right it's emotional. Terrorists aren't desperate, they're psychotic, they're evil. And that's to say nothing of the tactics employed by Israel in this conflict. It's perfectly reasonable to condemn both without having to justify either. It's an incredibly complex and tragic situation, dating back longer than all of us were born, so trying to simplify it down to "you're either with one side or against them" is overly reductionist in my view. I'm sure the people of Gaza would disagree just as the people of Israel would too, because frankly that's easy for me to say sitting at my desk halfway around the world without any risk to my personal safety or family. Siege tactics inflict horrific harm to innocent civilians, and so do acts of terrorism. No need for quotes whatsoever to make that argument.
March 28, 20241 yr 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: Just lead with this next time and identify yourself as someone OK with terrorism and crimes against humanity. Save us all some time. SittingBull_MacNamara is just looking out for the little guy
March 28, 20241 yr This siege could end whenever Hamas wants. Return the hostages and agree to relinquish control of Gaza, and this is over. Yet no one calls for them to even return the hostages before they blame Israel... Netanyahu is a disaster, and Israel's expansion of territories in the West Bank is illegal. You can say that and still know Hamas is to blame for everything that is happening, and Hamas has the power to end this.
March 28, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: When you see planes crashing into the WTC and then see them collapse in real time, knowing full well thousands of people just died in that instant, you're GD right it's emotional. Terrorists aren't desperate, they're evil. And that's to say nothing of the tactics employed by Israel in this conflict. It's perfectly reasonable to condemn both without having to justify either. It's an incredible complex and tragic situation, dating back longer than all of us were born, so trying to simplify it down to "you're either with one side or against them" is overly reductionist in my view. I'm sure the people of Gaza would disagree just as the people of Israel would too, because frankly that's easy for me to say sitting at my desk halfway around the world without any risk to my personal safety or family. Siege tactics inflict horrific harm to innocent civilians, and so do acts of terrorism. No need for quotes whatsoever to make that argument. Sure I hear you there. Maybe the emotionally charged words are the correct ones; terrorism, genocide. My issue is when we try to shield ourselves morally by using the more technical terms only when its our guys.
March 28, 20241 yr Just now, dawkins4prez said: Sure I hear you there. Maybe the emotionally charged words are the correct ones; terrorism, genocide. My issue is when we try to shield ourselves morally by using the more technical terms only when its our guys. Honest question -- given the fact that Hamas won't return the hostages and remains in control of Gaza, what do you suggest Israel do? They offered to have a cease fire if the hostages are returned, and Hamas said no.
March 28, 20241 yr 4 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? Has any other civilization throughout world history lost multiple offensive wars and had a stake to claim land after losing? Winners and losers, that's the way it goes. Go find a Native American family and give them your home, land, and possessions if you want to take the moral high ground. They were conquered too. The difference is that this isn't a two-state or sharing of land issue. This is a one side wants the other one destroyed issue. There is no resolution to that. Which is probably the most comical part about the "We need a two-state solution!!!" debate. War is ugly. It's fair to criticize Netanyahu. Not going to argue with that. But there is no pretty solution to this issue.
March 28, 20241 yr 40 minutes ago, Procus said: So now it's a crime not to be weak and not to give in to terror. You wouldn't last 5 minutes in Gaza before October 7 I wouldn't last 5 minutes in Gaza at any time in its history. What a miserable place to be endangering the global order for. Nothing but f'ing blood soaked rocks, symbolic ledgers of humanities' stupidest cruelties.
March 28, 20241 yr 15 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Honest question -- given the fact that Hamas won't return the hostages and remains in control of Gaza, what do you suggest Israel do? They offered to have a cease fire if the hostages are returned, and Hamas said no. Allow aid into Gaza. Work with their allies like the US and Germany to come up with a more targeted way to root out hamas and recover the hostages. I'm not saying it, the entire international consensus is exactly that but i guess ya'll are way too bought in to accepting the atrocities to turn back now. You're acting like Trumpers and the only figure standing in the way of this very obvious solution is friggin' Bibi. that's the guy you're tossing your compass for.
March 28, 20241 yr Just now, dawkins4prez said: Allow aid into Gaza. Work with their allies like the US and Germany to come up with a more targeted way to root out hamas and recover the hostages. I'm not saying it, the entire international consensus is exactly that but i guess ya'll are way too bought in to accepting the atrocities to turn back now. You're acting like Trumpers. Aid does go in to Gaza, but it is slow given Israeli inspections. But it does go in. And don't assume you know my position, because you don't. I don't like Israel's plan at this point, but I don't think the Israelis or the international community have the stomach for what should happen -- the military occupation of Gaza. The Israelis should surge en masse and take over Gaza temporarily. Commit soldiers to ensure stability and allow aid to flow more freely. The issue is -- they become the US in Iraq where you're going house to house to root out Hamas and fight a counter-insurgency, and they will have to be willing to suffer heavier losses. In a perfect world, this peace keeping/counter-insurgency force is a multi-national effort lead by the Arab neighbors, but that's never going to happen. And the Israelis are rightfully skeptical of UN peace keepers and officials given history (1967 all the way to UNRWA working with Hamas), so it would have to be the IDF. If the people speaking out against Israel were suggesting something like the above, I'd be on board. But all they demand is an immediate cease fire and condemnation of Israel. Which makes all of them sound like Neville Chamberlain and supporters of terrorism. But let's be honest -- if the IDF decided to occupy Gaza, those screaming about atrocities and genocide now will only get louder.
March 28, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: Aid does go in to Gaza, but it is slow given Israeli inspections. But it does go in. Dude. Dude.
March 28, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said: Dude. Dude. I'm sorry facts and reality bother you. Some aid does go in, but not enough obviously. This is reported by those who are calling for more aid to go in. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/20/world/middleeast/gaza-aid-delivery.html
March 28, 20241 yr 13 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Allow aid into Gaza. Work with their allies like the US and Germany to come up with a more targeted way to root out hamas and recover the hostages. I'm not saying it, the entire international consensus is exactly that but i guess ya'll are way too bought in to accepting the atrocities to turn back now. You're acting like Trumpers and the only figure standing in the way of this very obvious solution is friggin' Bibi. that's the guy you're tossing your compass for. As Vikas said, aid does get into Gaza. But beyond that, my understanding is that Egypt also has a point of entry into Gaza that have also been shut down to aid and escape. Why has there been no international outcry for Egypt to open their point of entry?
March 28, 20241 yr Just now, Imp81318 said: As Vikas said, aid does get into Gaza. But beyond that, my understanding is that Egypt also has a point of entry into Gaza that have also been shut down to aid and escape. Why has there been no international outcry for Egypt to open their point of entry? The problems are multi-faceted. The Israelis inspect every aid shipment and, well,,,let's just say there is not a lot of urgency there. So trucks go from the Egypt/Gaza border to Israel to be inspected, and the backup is huge. When they are finally cleared, the go back to the border and wait to be admitted. Then once they get into Gaza, the infrastructure and roads are so bad it's hard to get north. On top of that they run into Israeli checkpoints multiple times, and then they are also looted because they don't have security. The fix here would be to pressure the Israelis to clear aid faster and then provide security for the convoys once they go into Gaza. There is plenty of aid trying to get in, but the bottleknecks are real. But people don't want to deal with the issues, they just want to emotionally cry about how Israel is committing genocide.
March 28, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I'm sorry facts and reality bother you. Some aid does go in, but not enough obviously. This is reported by those who are calling for more aid to go in. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/20/world/middleeast/gaza-aid-delivery.html So your article agrees with the UN that there needs to be a cease fire in order to distribute the aid. What do you want from me?
March 28, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said: So your article agrees with the UN that there needs to be a cease fire in order to distribute the aid. What do you want from me? For you to acknowledge that the reason that there isn't a cease fire is because Hamas refuses to accept the deal where they return the hostages in order for there to be a cease fire. Try putting the blame on the side that actually deserves it. Also, if the IDF fully occupied Gaza and provided safe passage for trucks, that would get aid in. Since Hamas won't return the hostages or surrender, that is the best option to get more food into Gaza. Would you accept the full occupation of Gaza by the IDF in order to ease humanitarian conditions? Or would you just keep screeching about Israel being a colonizer?
March 28, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, vikas83 said: For you to acknowledge that the reason that there isn't a cease fire is because Hamas refuses to accept the deal where they return the hostages in order for there to be a cease fire. Try putting the blame on the side that actually deserves it. Also, if the IDF fully occupied Gaza and provided safe passage for trucks, that would get aid in. Since Hamas won't return the hostages or surrender, that is the best option to get more food into Gaza. Would you accept the full occupation of Gaza by the IDF in order to ease humanitarian conditions? Or would you just keep screeching about Israel being a colonizer? Well I don't agree that Israel has the right to starve an entire population because they don't have all their hostages back yet. The UN agrees with me. Biden agrees with me. Bibi agrees with you.
March 28, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Well I don't agree that Israel has the right to starve an entire population because they don't have all their hostages back yet. The UN agrees with me. Biden agrees with me. Bibi agrees with you. You should try knowing things...it helps. The resolution demands the release of the hostages. Looks like the Security Council agrees with me. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-demands-immediate-ceasefire-gaza-2024-03-25/ Quote UNITED NATIONS/CAIRO, March 25 (Reuters) - The United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution on Monday demanding an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas after the United States abstained from the vote, sparking a spat with its ally Israel. The remaining 14 council members voted for the resolution - proposed by the 10 elected members of the body - that also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. There was applause in the council chamber after the vote.
Create an account or sign in to comment