Israel - Hamas war XIII

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

There are no Christians and/or churches in Gaza according to Israeli politician. I mean, then people complain that these outrageous lies and appallingly bad propaganda gets called out.

 

The Israeli Ambassador to the UK has also repeatedly said there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza...

If there are no churches then why did they claim there was a rocket launcher in that church where they killed the two women? At least make sure the propaganda front is united.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

There are no Christians and/or churches in Gaza according to Israeli politician.

Well, maybe not anymore...definitely no safe ones. 

[Tywin et al.]

16 hours ago, Zorral said:

Again, a big part of the problems here in communication is that a lot of us have been working on learning this history, have lived through it, all our lives, while others appear to have just discovered there are problems on Oct 7 or 1967. 

Just stop. This is beyond dumb to say to someone that's Jewish. 

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

911 is a great comparison, and the US didn't respond that way.

They also didn't have Canada or Mexico actively attacking them.

Quote

Not with a nuke, no. So again - you're just okay with people doing whatever as long as they're afraid?

No, but you have to understand the psyche of the people doing it and while there's obviously been a lot of terrible things that have occurred, the need to prioritize their defense is not irrational. 
 

Quote

When your rational plan is ethnic cleansing, it's clear you are okay with ethnic cleansing. 

 No I am not and again have said as much many times. I've been nothing but critical of the Israeli government. My protest is that people don't also use the same terms about Hamas, because they started this war and if you gave them Israel's military that shit would actually likely be wiped off the map already. 

Quote

When the fuck have I ever said hamas should stick around? Is this why you thought that Israel rebuilding Gaza meant that it'd be rebuilding it for hamas? Or is it just that any Palestinians in Gaza are automatically now hamas in your eyes?

As it stands now, yes and I've said over and over Palestinians =/= Hamas, though it's a bummer their support for the group is higher than one might have thought and now growing. Without fighting Hamas you will never remove them. They can't be negotiated with because their goal is clear, kill everyone on the other side. If that's the case you do have to fight back, the problem is Israel is run by a bunch of jackasses that also don't value Palestinians lives very much. 

12 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

nobody has in this thread. saying that hamas was born out of a necesity is not the same as saying that they are right in the way they do things, we all also know that it was israel that proped them up.

Yes they have and Hamas was not born out of necessity. It started because of infighting among Palestinians. 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes they have

who? can you provide examples of this?

 

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It started because of infighting among Palestinians. 

citation needed

[Tywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

who? can you provide examples of this?

Grim, which should be obvious.

Quote

citation needed

Seriously? I cite shit all the time and then am told to cite more and when I do, nothing. It's tiring. Many people have cited sources in these threads that discuss the infighting between Palestinians and how Israel thought they could use it to their advantage. Hamas wasn't created because of desperation. It was because that faction chose violence. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Conflicting Thought]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Grim, which should be obvious.

it isnt because as far as ive seen he said is was born out of necesity, i havent seen him say that hamas was right to go in to israel and massacre israelis, havent seen him defend that, but i do think i know why you would think that.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Seriously? I cite shit all the time and then am told to cite more and when I do, nothing. It's tiring.

well you do cite somethings, why not cite about this specific claim. 

and now you know how zorral feels for example or craving peaches and their citings  wich i know you dont read or if you do you dont give a shit cuz you always bring points that have been adressed by them.

i think the origins of hamas are a confluence of factors, one of those factors was a response to the PLO and hamas  took advntage of israeli policy to get to power, from wikipedia "With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel tolerated and at times encouraged Islamic activists and groups as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO and its dominant faction, Fatah.^[19][20] Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions, but dropped the previous Egyptian rulers' harsh restrictions against Islamic activists." hamas took advantage of this but to say that hamas started because of infighting is disingeous, the larger cause obviously has to do with israel and the subjugation of the palestinians.

[Jace, Extat]

22 hours ago, Relic said:

He names one, as you asked, and that's your response?

Yeah. Sorry, my bad. Because Nigeria has modern military capabilities... 

The sad fact is that if Hamas had access to the kinds of weapons Israel has there would be no Israel. Meanwhile Israel will call phones for days, drop thousands of leaflets, to clear out buildings before striking on Hamas strongholds. Acts of brazen murder or criminality is the exception to Israeli conduct, and the point of Hamas. 

 

[Tywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

it isnt because as far as ive seen he said is was born out of necesity, i havent seen him say that hamas was right to go in to israel and massacre israelis, havent seen him defend that, but i do think i know why you would think that.

He literally called them liberators and doubled down on it. Furthermore I just linked a few articles about widespread celebrations saying more or less the same thing.

Quote

i think the origins of hamas are a confluence of factors, one of those factors was a response to the PLO and hamas  took advntage of israeli policy to get to power, from wikipedia "With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel tolerated and at times encouraged Islamic activists and groups as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO and its dominant faction, Fatah.^[19][20] Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions, but dropped the previous Egyptian rulers' harsh restrictions against Islamic activists." hamas took advantage of this but to say that hamas started because of infighting is disingeous, the larger cause obviously has to do with israel and the subjugation of the palestinians.

And what in here cries out desperation? Sounds like opportunistic thugs doing opportunistic thugs shit. Hamas isn't acting out of necessity and never has. There's no evidence of it. The PLO is flawed and needs new leadership, but I do think they care about the people they govern even if they suck at doing it (just like the Israeli government sucks too). Hamas has never been about that. They're just a hate group. 

[Zorral]

56 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hamas wasn't created because of desperation. It was because that faction chose violence. 

It has been cited every single day, from the beginning, here, by many of us, that Hamas is funded by an alliance of Israel with Qatar doing the funneling for the specific objective that Hamas would be the counterweight to the more secular PLO and other groups for achieving a Palestinian state.  You are the one who refuses to read what is in the face of the entire world in the reporting around the world on Hamas, and has been for years. Here is one of the many just this month:

‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gambled that a strong Hamas (but not too strong) would keep the peace and reduce pressure for a Palestinian state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html

Here's another.

A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance
For 14 years, Netanyahu's policy was to keep Hamas in power; the pogrom of October 7, 2023, helps the Israeli prime minister preserve his own rule

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000

Just yesterday, on this very thread, were pulls from an Israeli publication in an interview with Bibi, in which he boasted about how Hamas would keep a Palestinian state from happening.

It's particularly rough pain, learning to digest that Israel's leadership and actions are approved of and supported by the likes of Putin, Orbán, Modi, tRump and all the people in our government and voters who don't support Ukraine, who wish to take down Our Own Nation, when democracies around the world (except the US, for the obvs reasons) are not supporting what Israel's leadership and the 'extreme' settlers are doing and have been doing for years in the West Bank.  It's even worse for our Israeli and Jewish friends who don't support any of this.

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Zorral

[Rippounet]

24 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Acts of brazen murder or criminality is the exception to Israeli conduct,

Such pronouncements are a great way to show that you know and understand very little about this conflict.

No offense, but I second @Zorral here: this kind of bullshit seems to come from people who've discovered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on October 7th, 2023. And while no one could be blamed for this kind of approach initially, after 2 months of one-sided "war," I'm kinda starting to expect people to do their homework a little and start seeing the greater picture.

Edit: and to be constructive (rather than obnoxious), here's a recommendation:

Waltz with Bashir (trailer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylzO9vbEpPg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoM-L62peIo

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Rippounet

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

Yeah. Sorry, my bad. Because Nigeria has modern military capabilities... 

The sad fact is that if Hamas had access to the kinds of weapons Israel has there would be no Israel. Meanwhile Israel will call phones for days, drop thousands of leaflets, to clear out buildings before striking on Hamas strongholds. Acts of brazen murder or criminality is the exception to Israeli conduct, and the point of Hamas. 

 

clown shit. what the fuck are you even talking about? Nigeria has one of the strongest militaries in Africa. So unless you're talking about strictly nuclear powers or countries that have access to 5th generation fighter jets and subs, i repeat, what the fuck are you talking about?

And what the fuck do you mean when you say "civilized powers"? 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Relic

[TrueMetis]

Absolutely amazing to claim that murder is the exception for the IDF just days after they killed three people with white flags including chasing one of them down to kill him while he yelled for help in Hebrew.

Israel can literally do no wrong in some people's eyes.

[Ran]

31 minutes ago, Relic said:

Nigeria has one of the strongest militaries in Africa

Quote

Until the 1990s, the Nigerian military was seen as a force for stability across the region.[337] But by 2014, it was short of basic equipment, including radios and armoured vehicles. Morale was said to be low. Senior officers were allegedly skimming military procurement and budget funds which were intended to pay for the standard issue equipment which is supposed to be provided to soldiers. The country's defense budget accounted for more than a third of the country's security budget of $5.8 billion, but only 10 per cent of this money was allocated to cover capital spending.[337] A 2016 United States Department of Defense assessment stated that the Nigerian administration's response to the Boko Haram crisis was marred by "high-level corruption" but that the morale in the military had improved after several former senior government officials were arrested on corruption charges.[72]: 9

Once Nigeria got its shit together, it eventually was able to get rid of Boko Haram. But the worst of Boko Haram's atrocities, and Nigeria's inability (rather than wise, thoughtful choice) to effectively deal them was a matter of deep failure on Nigeria's side. 

If they could have wiped Boko Haram out in a swift stroke, they absolutely would have.

[Jace, Extat]

33 minutes ago, Relic said:

So unless you're talking about strictly nuclear powers or countries that have access to 5th generation fighter jets and subs, i repeat, what the fuck are you talking about?

 

 As a matter of fact I am. You're not a real military if you don't have an airforce and guided missiles. And no, I don't mean leftover Chinese and Russian surplus from the eighties. Ask Saddam how helpful the 4th largest military in the world is if you don't have modern doctrines and equipment. 

 

 

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

If they could have wiped Boko Haram out in a swift stroke, they absolutely would have.

And if they killed 20,000 civilians in this hypothetical scenario of yours, what do you think the rest of the world's "civilized powers" (whatever the fuck that dogwhistle means) would say? 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Relic said:

And if they killed 20,000 civilians in this hypothetical scenario of yours, what do you think the rest of the world's "civilized powers" (whatever the fuck that dogwhistle means) would say? 

Boko Haram killed tens of thousands during its reign of terror, and took many thousands into literal slavery, including sexual slavery. I think the rest of the world would probably have kept its nose out of Nigeria's business, to be honest.

[Relic]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

Boko Haram killed tens of thousands during its reign of terror, and took many thousands into literal slavery, including sexual slavery. I think the rest of the world would probably have kept its nose out of Nigeria's business, to be honest.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that in your hypothetical if Nigeria killed 20,000 civilians in 2 months it would be "their business" and the world should look the other way? 

[Ran]

14 minutes ago, Relic said:

Are you saying that in your hypothetical if Nigeria killed 20,000 civilians in 2 months it would be "their business" and the world should look the other way? 

If they conducted it within parameters that suggested collateral damage was the result of targeting lawful military targets in a necessary way, yeah, I think the world would not have been too troubled. 

I don't know, a lot of people just seem to shrug their shoulders at the existence of terrorist regimes. A shrug and, "What can you do?" seems to be about all people can muster, until someone actually tries to put a stop to them.

 

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

A shrug and, "What can you do?"

The same can be said about the reaction of many to  innocent civilians dying in droves in these 'necessary' wars, despite the fact that so many experts say many of these wars can't be won militarily. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Ran]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

so many experts say many of these wars can't be won militarily. 

And yet some of these organizations have been defeated militarily. 

I am highly dubious of experts who claim there's a one-size-fits-all solution for terrorism. There isn't. ISIS wasn't taken apart into relatively irrelevancy by COIN and diplomatic negotiation, it was taken apart by concerted and sustained military action including heavy air and artillery strikes in key cities they captured like Raqqa and Mosul, places that ended up looking a lot like Gaza does now.

So long as the laws of armed combat are being followed, there's not much that's going to change. Now, there's a line of argument to be made that the laws of armed combat are themselves deeply flawed, and that we should demand more than that...

But that's what's in the books, that's what presently tries to moderate warfare on an international scale, and it's what we've got to work with. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Ran