No, the whole point was to get Israel to completely overreact to get the world questioning support for Israel. I think I called it on day one. Israel was going to totally blow this by being absolutely monstrous and terrible and murderous.
There were options on October 8 and October 9. There was worldwide goodwill, support and sympathy for Israel. They could have placed bounties on Hamas leaders. They could have dropped leaflets with photos of the terrorist attack all over Gaza. They could have airdropped DVDs with videos of the terrorist attack. They could have garnered more support from Palestinians than they have ever had in history. They could have rallied the world to find and prosecute Hamas, including help from Gazans.
Did they do that? No, of course not. That would have been too smart and there are too many absolute morons who think their only option was to...bomb civilians and civilian infrastructure because there might be a Hamas guy hiding in the basement? Sorry, that's dumb.
The sacrifice - albeit unwilling, unfair and awful - of the victims of the October 7 terrorist attack has been wasted by the moronic Israeli government and botched to a crazy degree. They played into the hands of Hamas, and now you have people all over the world directing hatred toward Jewish people. It was a great strategy from the perspective of Hamas - particularly since they DGAF about their own people.
In all my 46 years I have never seen so much negativity directed at Israel from your average Joe. Hamas played Israel like a fiddle and this will ultimately harm Israel and Jewish people more than Hamas could have ever hoped. And you are encouraging that and helping Hamas' plan work. For every kid Israel kills, 10 terrorists are born. Yet you want them to keep bombing.
Hamas is also playing you like a fiddle, but you don't care at all to see that side of the equation.
Everyone is up in arms over the numbers. Numbers provided by Hamas. You are falling into believing exactly what Hamas is putting into the world. They want everyone to feel pity for them and the Palestinians, and they do that by falsifying numbers and playing the victim. There is a good probability that we will NEVER know the true numbers of civilian deaths, but you are lapping up the terrorists claims as if it is the gospel.
Instead of looking at the REAL visual evidence on the ground (thousands of civilians being escorted by the IDF to the safe zones), you simply look at a tweet with figures and are happy to believe it. I am not by any means claiming that there are NOT civilian deaths, but this idea that Israel is now getting labeled as the murderous ones is absurd.
It's absolutely insane that Hamas is getting the benefit of doubt in this situation and not having everything they claim being taken with a huge grain of salt.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fl4me5 For This Useful Post:
Hamas is also playing you like a fiddle, but you don't care at all to see that side of the equation.
Everyone is up in arms over the numbers. Numbers provided by Hamas. You are falling into believing exactly what Hamas is putting into the world. They want everyone to feel pity for them and the Palestinians, and they do that by falsifying numbers and playing the victim. There is a good probability that we will NEVER know the true numbers of civilian deaths, but you are lapping up the terrorists claims as if it is the gospel.
Instead of looking at the REAL visual evidence on the ground (thousands of civilians being escorted by the IDF to the safe zones), you simply look at a tweet with figures and are happy to believe it. I am not by any means claiming that there are NOT civilian deaths, but this idea that Israel is now getting labeled as the murderous ones is absurd.
It's absolutely insane that Hamas is getting the benefit of doubt in this situation and not having everything they claim being taken with a huge grain of salt.
You don’t think the Israeli government is playing you like a fiddle just the same?
cant think of one, can you? every war that didnt involve one side utterly wiping out the other and replacing them ends up with the war being reversed eventually, India, the UK conquered it, now their arse is gone and India is free again
I was seeing if you had the ability to reflect for a moment on it. Every war in history? How about WW1?
Yes, WWI led to WWII but it was resolved with peace treaties, not wiping any one side completely out.
No side was wiped out in Vietnam. Korean War too(technically still at war). I mean, there's got to be thousands of conflicts and wars over the centuries that didn't end with one side completely wiping out the other.
Yes, WWI led to WWII but it was resolved with peace treaties, not wiping any one side completely out.
No side was wiped out in Vietnam. Korean War too(technically still at war). I mean, there's got to be thousands of conflicts and wars over the centuries that didn't end with one side completely wiping out the other.
the Franco Prussian war led to 1914 because while France was defeated it wasnt utterly defeated and was desperate for revenge, the Great War saw Germany beaten but not occupiad, its civilian population didn't believe they were defeated and this led to the myth that Germany hadn't lost the war but had been betrayed from within (by Jews mostly) this directly led to the rise of Hitler and 1939, you realise all of this proves my point not yours, that in the end it was only utter defeat and the deaths of millions of German civilians that ended a century long conflict
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
You guys misunderstand my point, I am not arguing it was a good or bad thing, I am saying that winning wars involves wiping the other side out utterly, the only reason we wring our hands at Vietnam is because we weren't facing our own extinction, no one here is arguing we shouldn't have bombed Germany into rubble and killed millions of civilians between 39 and 45, why? because it was an existential conflict where our survival was in the balance
Many scholars, historians, and even military strategists have argued that the deliberate bombing of civilians during WWII was unjustified even in the face of an existential threat like Nazi Germany. During the Nuremberg trials, the Soviet Union wanted to include aerial bombardment of non-combatant targets as one of the war crimes with which to charge the Nazi leaders, but this was vetoed by the USA and UK (for obvious reasons).
Most reasonable people will agree that German factories and other industrial facilities that powered their war effort were legitimate military targets, but I've never read about anyone who supported the wholesale extinction of the German (or Japanese) people, and that was never the goal of the Allies anyway.
Even to this day, there remains intense debate about whether or not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, and few if any people will defend the firebombing of Dresden. Even Winston Churchill himself questioned this, writing in March 1945:
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. [...] The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing."
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
the Franco Prussian war led to 1914 because while France was defeated it wasnt utterly defeated and was desperate for revenge, the Great War saw Germany beaten but not occupiad, its civilian population didn't believe they were defeated and this led to the myth that Germany hadn't lost the war but had been betrayed from within (by Jews mostly) this directly led to the rise of Hitler and 1939, you realise all of this proves my point not yours, that in the end it was only utter defeat and the deaths of millions of German civilians that ended a century long conflict
Fewer than 10% of Germans were killed in WWII, your posts are not proving anything, unless you are moving the goal posts from your original post where you said
Quote:
I am saying that winning wars involves wiping the other side out utterly
Germany wasn't anywhere close to wiped out, and if you are using this theory as an excuse to wipe out all the Palestinians...
Many scholars, historians, and even military strategists have argued that the deliberate bombing of civilians during WWII was unjustified even in the face of an existential threat like Nazi Germany. During the Nuremberg trials, the Soviet Union wanted to include aerial bombardment of non-combatant targets as one of the war crimes with which to charge the Nazi leaders, but this was vetoed by the USA and UK (for obvious reasons).
Most reasonable people will agree that German factories and other industrial facilities that powered their war effort were legitimate military targets, but I've never read about anyone who supported the wholesale extinction of the German (or Japanese) people, and that was never the goal of the Allies anyway.
Even to this day, there remains intense debate about whether or not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, and few if any people will defend the firebombing of Dresden. Even Winston Churchill himself questioned this, writing in March 1945:
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. [...] The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing."
I am not going to argue whether it was moral or legal, there is no such thing as a moral war and I have already clearly stated that I don't believe 'international law' really exists in any practical sense, in 1943 Churchill ordered millions of tons of rice exported from the Punjab to be stored in warehouses in Egypt for the war effort while northern India was in a desperate drought, the famine this caused directly led to the deaths of 2 to 3 million Indians, Churchill is a hero though and the rice wasn't even eaten in the end, 'international law' like everything else is something that is written every time by the winners.
My point is just that historically wars end when one side is totally and completely beaten and sees itself as beaten, when one side gives up wholly and accepts its fate as the beaten side, if that doesnt happen the conflicts just fester and run for centuries and in the end way way more civilians die, if we really care about civilians in Gaza and the West Bank we should move them, give them a better life somewhere else, that would certainly mean less innocent lives lost in the end but that would also mean Israel wins and many dont here like that let alone in Gaza itself
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Fewer than 10% of Germans were killed in WWII, your posts are not proving anything, unless you are moving the goal posts from your original post where you said
Germany wasn't anywhere close to wiped out, and if you are using this theory as an excuse to wipe out all the Palestinians...
Fewer than 10% of Germans were killed in WWII, your posts are not proving anything, unless you are moving the goal posts from your original post where you said
Germany wasn't anywhere close to wiped out, and if you are using this theory as an excuse to wipe out all the Palestinians...
Incidentally 10% of Gaza would be 200,000 dead, it is unlikely Israel will kill more than 20,000 at this rate so they are way ahead of us in the 'humane war' stakes, we actively destroyed Germanies power, water and food supplies, didnt just switch them off
if we really care about civilians in Gaza and the West Bank we should move them, give them a better life somewhere else, that would certainly mean less innocent lives lost in the end but that would also mean Israel wins and many dont here like that let alone in Gaza itself
So...ethnic cleansing of Gaza? That's your proposal?
So...ethnic cleansing of Gaza? That's your proposal?
I propose nothing, it isnt my conflict but I am not a hypocrite nor a fantasist, I live on stolen land myself as do all of us, I also recognise that nothing Israel can do will end the hatred and war except win so utterly that Palestinians are cowed into coexistence, ceding land doesn't end this at all, Hamas and most Palestinians want all the land that was stolen from their Great Grandfathers, not an unreasonable position, I would probably feel the same way if I was them.
So Israel and the Palestinians are locked into an endless war that only stops when one side destroys the other, if your concern is just innocent lives the best way have the least amount of Civilians die is to move one or other side out of the area completely, persuading Israel to leave the Middle East seems unlikely to happen, offering 2 million Gazans a better life elsewhere seems an easier task
You guys misunderstand my point, I am not arguing it was a good or bad thing, I am saying that winning wars involves wiping the other side out utterly, the only reason we wring our hands at Vietnam is because we weren't facing our own extinction, no one here is arguing we shouldn't have bombed Germany into rubble and killed millions of civilians between 39 and 45, why? because it was an existential conflict where our survival was in the balance
Israel is in an existential conflict, one side or the other is going to have to cease to exist or be so utterly defeated that, like Germany, they never think of resisting again, it is a black and white choice, either you are ok with millions of Palestinians suffering or millions of Jews
Why do you think a nuclear armed country that can turn the water and food off of a group of people is facing extinction from that very group?
You have a long history of not addressing the topic at hand and just turning the question around.
Do I think Israel is perfectly moral and ethical? No. But based on 75 years of history, I know who is more trustworthy on the global stage.
How is it any less the topic at hand? Why does asking yourself questions bother you?
I didn’t ask if Israel was perfectly moral and ethical. I didn’t ask who was more trustworthy. I asked if you think the Israeli government is manipulating you.
Feel free to “address the topic at hand” if it’s a big deal to you.
Hamas is also playing you like a fiddle, but you don't care at all to see that side of the equation.
Israel is playing you like a fiddle as well, but you don't care to see that side of the equation either. There are three sides here. Hamas, the state of Israel, and the innocent civilians - both Palestinian and Israelis caught in the middle. Hamas and the state of Israel are both the problem. Neither is going to change because they have power through the stances they take. They have a symbiotic relationship and rely on each other to maintain the power they project. That's the dirty secret here. Until both are eliminated from the equation peace is unlikely. Focus on the commonalities that bring people in the region together rather than amplifying the differences which divide people. This isn't tough until you inject the power dynamics into the mix. You can make the call whether that dynamic is political, religious, or ideological, but it is the power dynamic that needs to be broken to find peace. Treat all people the same and see peace break out across the region.
So Israel and the Palestinians are locked into an endless war that only stops when one side destroys the other, if your concern is just innocent lives the best way have the least amount of Civilians die is to move one or other side out of the area completely, persuading Israel to leave the Middle East seems unlikely to happen, offering 2 million Gazans a better life elsewhere seems an easier task
I’m not sure how you figure the last part. Aside from being a totally unrealistic idea to begin with, moving the population of Israel out would be easier if we’re to believe everything the pro-Israeli government side suggests:
- Israel is a liberal democracy and thus Israelis would adapt more easily to new areas within the global democracy
- Israel is surrounded by enemies, so removing Palestinians would likely solve nothing
Really, if we’re going with your hypothetical, if people actually cared about civilians and about the safety of Israel, they would move Israeli’s out of Israel. But they don’t and they won’t, and I’m not sure we should expect any different of Palestinians.
The statement may have been dramatic, but every time there is an accident on the highway and people attempt to divert on roads that go across the reservation they are turned back if they don't live there.
Why do you think a nuclear armed country that can turn the water and food off of a group of people is facing extinction from that very group?
I don't, I think Palestine has absolutely no chance, that they will never get any land back, that they will live crappy lives in poverty for hundreds of years, that said I know, as does every Israeli, that if they could a powerful Palestine would wipe Israel out, that they arent looking for peaceful coexistance, they want Israel gone.
At it's absolute best if Palestine totally gave in, completely turned its back on violence, kicked out both the PLO and Hamas and voted in some peace loving democratic leadership, maybe in 5 years or so Israel would stop taking more land in the West Bank, it is never giving land back, as such there is no chance the rockets, the pinprick attacks end, so the war never ends, young Palestinian kids will be doomed to poverty, anger and violence.
You think I have a moral dog in this fight? hell no I think Israel has been is at times just as reprehensible as the PLO, until a month ago I would have said Hamas as well but they upped their rapey scumbag game.
My point is not 'good side, bad side' my point is 'this is reality, sometimes the good guys lose, most times there are no good guys so how do we make life for everyone as long and prosperous as possible' I run a foster home, I have worked in jails and Group Homes my whole life, sometimes you have two kids come into a home that hate each other. beef that goes back long before they are placed, you try to talk them into a truce, sometimes in jail staff just go to the can and the kids just beef it out in the laundry room until one kid beats the #### out of the other and he accepts he's beaten, most times though you just have to move one of the kids, it aint fair but its life, you move the kid that is easiest to move, offer Gazans a better life elsewhere and most of them would be on a plane tomorrow, Christ I have Palestinian friend here who would never give up Canada to move back there, are you going to give up N America to head back to a independent but poverty stricken corrupt Palestine ruled by Islamic fundy nutters if Israel pulled back to '67 borders?
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 11-08-2023 at 09:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I’m not sure how you figure the last part. Aside from being a totally unrealistic idea to begin with, moving the population of Israel out would be easier if we’re to believe everything the pro-Israeli government side suggests:
- Israel is a liberal democracy and thus Israelis would adapt more easily to new areas within the global democracy
- Israel is surrounded by enemies, so removing Palestinians would likely solve nothing
Really, if we’re going with your hypothetical, if people actually cared about civilians and about the safety of Israel, they would move Israeli’s out of Israel. But they don’t and they won’t, and I’m not sure we should expect any different of Palestinians.
This makes less sense than usual.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
