Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[pood]

likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany)

Why would he point out the obvious?
That's one of things about all this that is maddening. Israel, like Britain, are fighting a defensive war. They were attacked. Germany and the GWM are the attackers.

But a ton of people want to handwave the basic responsibility for the current situation with "both sides" nonsense.

Israel didn't build military installations under hospitals. Pretending that hitting an Israeli hospital is the same as hitting a military fortress with a hospital above it is profoundly bigoted and immoral.
Tom

Tom, what's maddening is how easily you reduce a deeply complex, decades-long conflict into a fairy tale of good guys and bad guys. No one’s excusing Hamas' crimes, but pretending that Israel's hands are clean, or that this is some black-and-white 'defensive war' ignores years of blockade, occupation, and asymmetric power dynamics.

We aren't trying to reduce it into a fairy tale. But you are preaching the Hamas gospel by blaming blockade, occupation and power dynamics. None of those existed when the war started, therefore they can't be the reason for the war.

And Gaza isn't occupied, you can't blame occupation.

And calling 'both sides' arguments immoral? What’s actually immoral is using one side’s atrocities to justify ignoring the suffering of civilians on the other. If your morality only applies when your preferred team gets hurt, it’s not morality, it’s tribalism dressed up in outrage.

Error: you are equating "atrocity" with "suffering civilians".

And you are assuming that suffering civilians must be due to the other side's actions.

You’re just repeating the same old bogus BS that NHC schooled you on so eloquently.

 

[Gospel]

And you are assuming that suffering civilians must be due to the other side's actions.

Where in the quote you pulled did I attribute the suffering to a particular side?

What’s actually immoral is using one side’s atrocities to justify ignoring the suffering of civilians on the other. If your morality only applies when your preferred team gets hurt, it’s not morality, it’s tribalism dressed up in outrage.

That statement applies, and should apply, to anyone who blindly takes one side over the other. What I think is happening here is that, because you’ve chosen a side, anything that doesn’t align 100% with it feels like opposition to you. But it’s not. You’re falsely attributing meaning to my statement that simply isn’t there. Now pick up that fucking shovel and dig up something else.

 

[pood]

I think everyone here who is against Netanyahu’s actions have made it very clear that we detest Hamas. So those who keep saying or implying otherwise either can’t read or are deliberately smearing us. And I know everyone here can read.

 

[Gospel]

And Gaza isn't occupied, you can't blame occupation.

I was talking about history, thanks for once again proving yourself a complete idiot. What I was pointing out (for one example) is that many of the Gazans who voted Hamas into power were survivors of the 1967–2005 Israeli Occupation. It's yet another link in a long chain of cause and effect, just like the rest of the history of this conflict.

The point is, nothing about this situation is as simple as “bad people on one side, good people on the other.” I could have sworn I saw you write that (however missing the mark) in reply to me once. That good guy bad guy shit only works when you cherry-pick your starting point and ignore everything that came before. and there is a fucking lot, this shit has been going on since forever and has continued because of short sighted morons like yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

Why is so important to you to deny that children are starving? Why is it so important to you to deny that the IDF is killing civilians?

Loren said no such thing.
What he he has pointed out is that the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for that is GWM, not Israeli defense.
Tom

He most certainly has dismissed that Gazan children are starving. He most certainly has denied that the IDF has killed civilians. FFS, he claims that even when the IDF admits to it that they are mistaken.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany)

Why would he point out the obvious?

Why would he “point out” the unobvious? Israel’s suffering under Iran attack isn’t even a fraction of what London endured, and besides, he started this war. Did he think Iran would not strike back? Or in his monstrous hubris did he imagine that Israel’s air defenses were totally impregnable?

But just think of his shared suffering with Israelis who have died or lost loved ones: his son had to postpone his wedding!

Try again. The war started when Iran started flipping missiles at Israel a while back because an attack on the Hezbollah weapons pipeline took out an Iranian general.

 

[TomC]

Why is so important to you to deny that children are starving? Why is it so important to you to deny that the IDF is killing civilians?

Loren said no such thing.
What he he has pointed out is that the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for that is GWM, not Israeli defense.
Tom

He most certainly has dismissed that Gazan children are starving. He most certainly has denied that the IDF has killed civilians. FFS, he claims that even when the IDF admits to it that they are mistaken.

He most certainly has not denied it.
Loren has pointed out that the evidence is sketchy. But mainly he has pointed out why terrible things are happening to civilian Gazans (and Israelis). The GWM consistently target civilians. Not IDF!
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Why is so important to you to deny that children are starving? Why is it so important to you to deny that the IDF is killing civilians?

Loren said no such thing.
What he he has pointed out is that the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for that is GWM, not Israeli defense.
Tom

He most certainly has dismissed that Gazan children are starving. He most certainly has denied that the IDF has killed civilians. FFS, he claims that even when the IDF admits to it that they are mistaken.

He most certainly has not denied it.

Which “it” do you mean?

 

[TomC]

Which “it” do you mean?

Did you read anything else in my post?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Which “it” do you mean?

Did you read anything else in my post?
Tom

Yes. Now provide evidence you read mine (and yours for that matter) and answer the question.

 

[ZiprHead]

All Jews aren't Zionists. Jews have all kinds of political opinions? So what's your point?

The point is that any Jew who disagrees with you is obviously an antisemitic Hamas sympathizer.

My analysis is that he too has bought the lie that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

I would say he has far more experience with genocide and would be much better at recognizing it than you.

That's fair. There's still plenty of Jews who don't agree with him. Clearly

I agree. There's plenty of Jews that support genocide of the Palestinians.

 

[TomC]

He most certainly has dismissed that Gazan children are starving. He most certainly has denied that the IDF has killed civilians. FFS, he claims that even when the IDF admits to it that they are mistaken.

Which “it” do you mean?

Did you read anything else in my post?
Tom

Yes. Now provide evidence you read mine (and yours for that matter) and answer the question.

Where did Loren dismiss that Gazans are starving?
That's your assertion.
Provide evidence.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would he “point out” the unobvious? Israel’s suffering under Iran attack isn’t even a fraction of what London endured, and besides, he started this war.

Just because the Ayatollah regime used vassals such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to attack Israel does not mean that they did not start the war against Israel.

I agree, but that’s the kind of statement you could apply to just about any nation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Given the broader sweep of history, how do you possibly land on Iran as the one who started this war?

The first shot was by Iran, in retaliation for a strike in Syria. Remember it? Caused a ruckus because they hit an embassy--but, once again, a situation where the usual immunities do not apply.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lauren, the irony in your response is almost impressive. You accuse me of proposing “magical answers,” then turn around and suggest that indefinite military rule, mass civilian casualties, and open-ended occupation somehow lead to peace. That’s not realism. That’s delusion weaponized.

You continue to commit exactly the same mistake.

You continue to present evidence that the current situation is very ugly, and that somehow proves there's a better answer. But it doesn't prove anything.

You present a narrative that the current situation is very ugly but unavoidable, so there are no possible better choices. But that doesn’t prove anything.

You are making the assertion that there are better choices. How about pointing to some professional who has laid out a better option? Not merely asserted that better options exist. I find the silence deafening--lots of professionals out there who are hostile to Israel, none have presented a better plan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having sufficient material is not the same as having the technical ability to construct. There is no necessary inconsistency between Gabbard’s statement and the IAEA report. Ms Gabbard may be mistaken or repeating what the US intelligence community reports.

If one thinks there is no reason to believe Ms Gabbard, then there is certainly no reason to believe Mr. Trump either.

Since Israel is making decisions on its own, it doesn’t matter what either so, only how they act.

The problem here is that the material has almost no civilian use, certainly nothing that justifies the money they spent on it. Nor have they pointed to any intended civilian use. But they have clearly spent billions on it. Lots of billions. If not for a bomb, why??

 

[laughing dog]

He most certainly has dismissed that Gazan children are starving. He most certainly has denied that the IDF has killed civilians. FFS, he claims that even when the IDF admits to it that they are mistaken.

Which “it” do you mean?

Did you read anything else in my post?
Tom

Yes. Now provide evidence you read mine (and yours for that matter) and answer the question.

Where did Loren dismiss that Gazans are starving?
That's your assertion.
Provide evidence.
Tom

From post 8277 in this thread

“You don't have to be skeletal to look underweight. To have a few starving children in a society that looks like it has enough to eat either means they can't eat or they aren't being permitted food.”


From post 8292 in this thread
"The malnourished kids--it has never been established that it's not medical cases."

From post 7867 in this thread

“We have a baby with a formula problem--the others in the picture don't look like the baby. Like the kid before they paraded in front of the cameras they find someone with medical issues and pretend they are evidence of famine."

 

[TomC]

The problem here is that the material has almost no civilian use, certainly nothing that justifies the money they spent on it. Nor have they pointed to any intended civilian use. But they have clearly spent billions on it. Lots of billions. If not for a bomb, why??

Would protecting your country against a foreign invader qualify as a civilian use or a military use?

Iran has been under threat from the US for decades. We are a nuclear power and we destroyed Iraq because they were not. Nor did we bother North Korea after they pulled a nuclear deterrent out of their asses.

Do your own math.

Iran needs nukes.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Having sufficient material is not the same as having the technical ability to construct. There is no necessary inconsistency between Gabbard’s statement and the IAEA report. Ms Gabbard may be mistaken or repeating what the US intelligence community reports.

If one thinks there is no reason to believe Ms Gabbard, then there is certainly no reason to believe Mr. Trump either.

Since Israel is making decisions on its own, it doesn’t matter what either so, only how they act.

The problem here is that the material has almost no civilian use, certainly nothing that justifies the money they spent on it. Nor have they pointed to any intended civilian use. But they have clearly spent billions on it. Lots of billions. If not for a bomb, why??

The problem here is you are responding to something you imagined. Wanting to build a bomb and not being close to achieving that goal is consistent with reality.

 

[pood]

I wish no one had nukes, but it is perfectly sensible for Iran to build them if that is what they are doing. After all, Israel has them. What I would like to see is both the right-wing Netanyahu government and the mullahs in Iran driven from power, but that is not for me or anyone else except the people of Israel and Iran to decide. It will be harder for the Iranian people because Israel at least nominally has a kind of democracy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lauren, your entire response rests on the illusion that acknowledging complexity is an excuse to abandon principle. You keep insisting the situation is ugly, as if that ugliness justifies stripping away every norm of law, proportionality, or accountability. But atrocity isn’t self-justifying. It’s not evidence that “nothing better is possible”—it’s proof that what we’re doing is wrong.

No. I'm saying that you are oversimplifying it to the point you have no understanding of what's going on. And you are repeatedly throwing out basically random answers from your prayer book. Look at your paragraph above.

You make reference to "atrocity"--but there has been only one action in this war that would reasonably be describe as an atrocity: 10/7.

And of course it's not evidence that nothing better is possible, this isn't even a strawman. The reason I say nothing better is possible is that nobody has made any serious proposal of a better answer. I'm not talking about random voices on the internet (although most of what you have suggested falls into the random answers category), but the professionals. There are a lot of them out there, many are hostile to Israel. Why have they said nothing?

Consider the two most recent air crashes. Washington--within hours I saw a post that had a picture of the helicopter's flight path, pointed to a little zig and said "there's your problem right there." And laying out what is now the accepted answer for what happened: the helicopter pilot avoided the wrong airplane, never saw the one he hit because two objects heading to a collision see each other in a static position--thus, just another light amongst the gazillion lights of a city at night. India: again, within hours we had people pointing out the deployed RAT and the sound it makes, thus showing the plane had no thrust. More than a week before the press started saying that. Yet the Gaza war, nothing.

You say there’s no evidence that a better path exists. The burden isn’t to prove utopia—it’s to stop pretending that bulldozers, sieges, and collective punishment are a substitute for policy. You want to call it realism, but the only thing you’re “realistic” about is continuing to kill civilians.

Once again, faith based answer. And the Hamas playbook: "collective punishment". No, what we see in Gaza is simply war. Particularly horrible for the people because Hamas chooses to fight on in a situation any reasonable army would have surrendered. Very similar to the Japanese strategy at the end of WWII.

You cite Hamas tunnels like a budget spreadsheet justifies bombing neighborhoods. But even your math concedes the point: Gaza is a garrison state—yes. But that didn’t happen in a vacuum. You don’t spend decades isolating, blockading, and humiliating a people without producing the militant infrastructure you claim to be shocked by.

Hamas playbook once again.

Everything you describe happens because of Iranian money.

Look at Africa. Multiple places worse than Gaza--but no meaningful combat because nobody's funding combat. Do you even know where Western Sahara is? And do you know who their oppressor is? Both are Muslim, nothing to use as a weapon before the press, I have yet to stumble on any mention of it on the Internet. (Once you know what to look for you can find it, it's not secret, just not being paraded before the press.)

You say diplomacy won’t work because “one side won’t agree.” But the side you’re referring to—the side with no army, no state, no airspace, no freedom of movement—isn’t the one dictating terms. And pretending that Iran is the only relevant factor is just geopolitical reductionism designed to dodge responsibility.

This war is Islam (currently under the mantle of Iran) vs Israel. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PLO, Hezbollah, all are just masks.

You scoff at elections, ceasefires, or regional cooperation as naïve, but what’s more naïve than thinking endless force will produce anything but more resistance? If someone like you had written off diplomacy in Northern Ireland or apartheid South Africa, those conflicts would still be burning.

The problem is your answers assume the Palestinians are after peace.

Northern Ireland--ended when we got serious about stopping the money.

South Africa--worse than it ever was under the Apartheid regime. They most clearly stepped from the frying pan to the fire. They threw off a small white boot in favor of a giant black boot. Same thing happened in Zimbabwe. When we were there it wasn't unsafe (so long as you stayed away from the minefields), but the fact it was heading into the shitter was apparent without even leaving the airport. And around the world in general the most prized currency was the US$--but in Africa it was the South African Rand (whose symbol I do not recall.)

And your moral compass—frankly—is broken. You claim to “see the facts,” but you’ve erased the distinction between combatants and children, hospitals and bunkers, resistance and terrorism. You’ve turned casualty counts into accounting errors. That’s not clarity. That’s desensitization disguised as strategy.

I see the distinction, you do not. You consistently cite things which suggest a civilian nature as proof something is civilian. But reality is the other way around, the grey areas are military. You take fire from a building, it doesn't matter what the sign says, it's military.

Let’s be clear: the difference between us isn’t idealism versus realism. It’s conscience versus collapse. You’re defending the normalization of cruelty. I’m defending the principle that being attacked by monsters doesn’t turn you into one unless you let it.

No. I recognize the manipulation, you do not.

It's same as the MAGA sheep who keep bleating about the deficit--and don't say a peep about the fact The Felon intends to run it way up.

You’ve chosen a future where domination replaces peace, suspicion replaces evidence, and morality is conditional on whether a missile can find its target. I haven’t. That’s the real difference.

No. You have chosen a "world" where the problems magically disappear. You know you can't solve Iran so you pretend Gaza can be solved without solving Iran. I understand that Gaza is simply one of the horrors Iran has created.