Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

Very much minority opinions. Just because there are some sane ones doesn't mean the sane ones have a meaningful voice.

Whatever, Loren. My point was simply to clarify that they did mention human shields, correcting TomC's claim that they didn’t. I’m not interested in debating your opinion on the numbers.

The point is that while some individuals are sane they have no voice. What the UN does isn't reasonable. They're actively aiding the terrorists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I realize this is hard, if Israel stopped the bombing and invasion, this war would be over.

I realize you prefer not to grasp the big picture, so this is hard. But Israel stopping their defense while Gazans (whether lead by Hamas or not) continue their attacks will Not end the war. It will be giving a victory to the violent Muslim extremists.
Tom

Right now, Hamas is not attacking - they are hiding, so what on earth are you on abo

They still have the hostages. That is a form of attack.

George Orwell would be proud of your rhetoric.

Holding hostages is not a form of attack. It is a terrible crime and tragedy, but it is not an attack.

I think this comes down to definitions.

But whether or not you consider holding them to be an attack torturing them certainly is.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize this is hard, if Israel stopped the bombing and invasion, this war would be over.

I realize you prefer not to grasp the big picture, so this is hard. But Israel stopping their defense while Gazans (whether lead by Hamas or not) continue their attacks will Not end the war. It will be giving a victory to the violent Muslim extremists.
Tom

Right now, Hamas is not attacking - they are hiding, so what on earth are you on abo

They still have the hostages. That is a form of attack.

George Orwell would be proud of your rhetoric.

Holding hostages is not a form of attack. It is a terrible crime and tragedy, but it is not an attack.

I think this comes down to definitions.

But whether or not you consider holding them to be an attack torturing them certainly is.

And you know there are hostages currently being tortured because…?

 

[Gospel]

Exactly. But let me ask you, as I’ve asked others here: What can Israel do to end the security threat posed by Gaza? If calling me a Hamas apologist makes you feel better, fine—but as humans on a platform for exchanging ideas, what solution do you propose? I’m not expecting a perfect answer (none exist), but it seems the discussion here is stuck on affirming Israel’s right to defend itself—a point I’ve already agreed with countless times.

The problem here is that you're stuck on Israel solving the problem.

Israel can't solve the problem. We are "stuck" on Israel's right to defend itself because there are a lot of people who demand absolute perfection from Israeli defense and blame them for anything less.

Bruh,

there are a lot of people who demand absolute perfection

I literally said, 'I’m not expecting a perfect answer (none exist).' If you don’t want to answer the question, you’re free to ignore it. Your comment about there being 'a lot of people who demand absolute perfection' is just your opinion, I don’t expect perfection. Do I really have to defend opinions I don’t hold just to get a response from you? Are you sure we’re stuck on this because others are demanding perfection, or is that just a strawman you’ve created? I hope you're talking to me, not to others.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

I'm aware of only one incident that might reasonably be described as a city block full of people dying--and it was from indiscriminate shooting by Hamas. The Israeli troops were disguised, they couldn't have been carrying heavy weapons.

Another dry statement that doesn't provide the confirmation I asked for.

Unfortunately, Google isn't good at specialized but basic information.

But you said you already had the information. Were you just blowing smoke up our asses when you said this?

It's one of the basic realities of war, I do not recall when or where I learned it. But remember that Biden didn't want Israel going in on the ground--if ground war was better for the people you think he would be opposed to it??

I also provided an authoritative source that contradicted you.

You provided a source that didn't back itself up at all. It proclaimed it worked but everything it talked about showed otherwise. The only cases they presented for ground war not being deadly for the inhabitants were cases where the inhabitants had already fled.

Didn't really read it, did you.

 

[Gospel]

Very much minority opinions. Just because there are some sane ones doesn't mean the sane ones have a meaningful voice.

Whatever, Loren. My point was simply to clarify that they did mention human shields, correcting TomC's claim that they didn’t. I’m not interested in debating your opinion on the numbers.

The point is that while some individuals are sane they have no voice. What the UN does isn't reasonable. They're actively aiding the terrorists.

The same UN that played a key role in establishing the state of Israel is now accused of actively aiding terrorists? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That’s a curious take. You do realize that Israel's founding was supported by the international community, including the UN as a political solution to centuries of Jewish persecution, culminating in the Holocaust.

The UN’s involvement in Gaza, including humanitarian aid and infrastructure projects, is geared towards supporting civilians, many of whom are innocent victims of the ongoing conflict. Criticism of Israel's policies by some UN bodies doesn’t equate UN support for terrorism. If anything, the UN’s history demonstrates its ability to act in both support and critique of Israel, reflecting the differing views of its member states.

I have my own disagreements with the UN, but let’s not pretend it’s some monolithic entity—just like how you oversimplify Palestinians as a single group, the UN is a coalition of nations, each with its own agendas and perspectives.

 

[ZiprHead]

But remember that Biden didn't want Israel going in on the ground--if ground war was better for the people you think he would be opposed to it??

Can you please provide a cite for this? I'm not finding it. Thanks.

I am finding Biden seeking a general pullback to all hostilities by the IDF. And he has dissallowed all shipments of the heaviest bombs Israel.

 

[ZiprHead]

Urban Myths? Exploring assumptions in the literature of urban Warfare: Part 2

????

In 1994, the Russians were invading a city with a high ethnic Russian population, so, while they bombarded, they refrained from advancing behind the curtain of explosives (which historically had such a proven protective effect). And the Somalis simply didn’t own the ordnance. In its absence they both suffered fearsome casualties. The Russians returned to Chechnya in 1999 and reverted to the proven formula, effectively destroying the city of Grozny - and were condemned for doing so by the international community.

They claim urban warfare isn't particularly bloody, yet they aren't finding examples of it other than where the city has already been smashed from the skies. Of course it's not that bloody if you're just mopping up.

You're ignoring the entirety of the rest of the article.

Israel still wants our 2000 lb bombs. Biden has refused to provide them for humanitarian puposes.

Where does it provide any examples of intact cities being taken without it being horribly bloody??

The US is not against bombing. They are against indiscriminate bombing. That's why they stopped providing 2000 lb bombs.

Selective bombing prior to ground engagement is always going to happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

Urban Myths? Exploring assumptions in the literature of urban Warfare: Part 2

????

In 1994, the Russians were invading a city with a high ethnic Russian population, so, while they bombarded, they refrained from advancing behind the curtain of explosives (which historically had such a proven protective effect). And the Somalis simply didn’t own the ordnance. In its absence they both suffered fearsome casualties. The Russians returned to Chechnya in 1999 and reverted to the proven formula, effectively destroying the city of Grozny - and were condemned for doing so by the international community.

They claim urban warfare isn't particularly bloody, yet they aren't finding examples of it other than where the city has already been smashed from the skies. Of course it's not that bloody if you're just mopping up.

You're ignoring the entirety of the rest of the article.

Israel still wants our 2000 lb bombs. Biden has refused to provide them for humanitarian puposes.

Where does it provide any examples of intact cities being taken without it being horribly bloody??

No one said anything about it not "being horribly bloody". That's your strawman.

What is being said it that a ground assault is safer for the civilian population

 

[Gospel]

Holding hostages is not a form of attack.

George Orwell would be proud of your rhetoric.

"So what if we kidnapped your family members? So what if we continue to hold the kidnappees.
It's your fault that we are violent. It's your fault that we refuse to end the violence.
We're Muslim and You are Not!
Tom

George Orwell would not be proud of your insultingly stupid straw man argument.

Kidnapping the hostage is an attack. Holding the hostages is not.

Holding hostages perpetuates the attack by continuing the threat and harm against their freedom and safety.

 

[Gospel]

Very much minority opinions. Just because there are some sane ones doesn't mean the sane ones have a meaningful voice.

Whatever, Loren. My point was simply to clarify that they did mention human shields, correcting TomC's claim that they didn’t. I’m not interested in debating your opinion on the numbers.

The point is that while some individuals are sane they have no voice. What the UN does isn't reasonable. They're actively aiding the terrorists.

Once again, you've shared an opinion unrelated to the clarification I provided. You're welcome to share your thoughts, but please refrain from replying directly to my post if they aren't relevant to your contribution. If you'd like to discuss your claim that the UN is 'actively aiding terrorists,' feel free to ask for my opinion directly, rather than repeatedly inserting it into a conversation where that wasn't my focus.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Israel, Egypt prove diplomacy isn't impossible. It can be costly though.

No. What happened with Egypt shows that the Islamists care more about the conflict than about any particular aspect of it. Peace with Egypt simply moves the conflict, it doesn't end it.

Except the whole Egypt isn't attacking Israel part.

 

[TomC]

Except the whole Egypt isn't attacking Israel part.

The reason for that is easy to understand.

Egypt and other neighboring countries have viciously attacked Israel over and over. They always get their asses handed to them. Commonly with Israel retaining control of the territory.

Egypt is not attacking Israel at the moment. But I've no doubt that they would if they thought that Israel had gotten weak or let their guard down.

I often hear things like "Israeli defense is causing another couple of generations of violent Muslim terrorists." I'm confident that the multiple Muslim attacks, over the last 70 years or so, have resulted in multiple generations of Israelis willing to fight and die for their country. Netanyahu seems like a prime example.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Holding hostages is not a form of attack.

George Orwell would be proud of your rhetoric.

"So what if we kidnapped your family members? So what if we continue to hold the kidnappees.
It's your fault that we are violent. It's your fault that we refuse to end the violence.
We're Muslim and You are Not!
Tom

George Orwell would not be proud of your insultingly stupid straw man argument.

Kidnapping the hostage is an attack. Holding the hostages is not.

Holding hostages perpetuates the attack by continuing the threat and harm against their freedom and safety.

I see that. But in my view, it is not a reason to continue violence because it suggests that West Bank Palenstinians are at war with Israel because of the myriads of detainees who are sometimes tortured, never found guilty of any crime but who are eventually released. Those unfortunates face continuing the threat and harm against their freedom and safety as well. Which, applying LP's standards, justifies West Bank attacks on the state of Israel. I don't agree that they do justify attacks. Just like I don't think hostages justifies continuing the war.

 

[laughing dog]

Except the whole Egypt isn't attacking Israel part.

The reason for that is easy to understand.

Egypt and other neighboring countries have viciously attacked Israel over and over. They always get their asses handed to them. Commonly with Israel retaining control of the territory.

Egypt is not attacking Israel at the moment. But I've no doubt that they would if they thought that Israel had gotten weak or let their guard down.

I often hear things like "Israeli defense is causing another couple of generations of violent Muslim terrorists." I'm confident that the multiple Muslim attacks, over the last 70 years or so, have resulted in multiple generations of Israelis willing to fight and die for their country. Netanyahu seems like a prime example.
Tom

Mr. Netanahyu is a prime example of someone who is willing to send others to fight and die for his country as long as they are not part of a extremist bigoted religious sect whose support is keeping him from prison.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except the whole Egypt isn't attacking Israel part.

The reason for that is easy to understand.

Egypt and other neighboring countries have viciously attacked Israel over and over. They always get their asses handed to them. Commonly with Israel retaining control of the territory.

Egypt is not attacking Israel at the moment. But I've no doubt that they would if they thought that Israel had gotten weak or let their guard down.

I often hear things like "Israeli defense is causing another couple of generations of violent Muslim terrorists." I'm confident that the multiple Muslim attacks, over the last 70 years or so, have resulted in multiple generations of Israelis willing to fight and die for their country. Netanyahu seems like a prime example.
Tom

Egypt isn't attacking Israel because the US is paying Egypt not to attack Israel since 1979ish.

 

[TomC]

Mr. Netanahyu is a prime example of someone who is willing to send others to fight and die for his country as long as they are not part of a extremist bigoted religious sect whose support is keeping him from prison.

Netanyahu is a prime example of a guy in his late 70s who has been under assault or threat of assault for his entire life.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mr. Netanahyu is a prime example of someone who is willing to send others to fight and die for his country as long as they are not part of a extremist bigoted religious sect whose support is keeping him from prison.

Netanyahu is a prime example of a guy in his late 70s who has been under assault or threat of assault for his entire life.
Tom

Want to talk about being under assault? Netanyahu fanned the flames that helped get Rabin assassinated.

 

[laughing dog]

Mr. Netanahyu is a prime example of someone who is willing to send others to fight and die for his country as long as they are not part of a extremist bigoted religious sect whose support is keeping him from prison.

Netanyahu is a prime example of a guy in his late 70s who has been under assault or threat of assault for his entire life.
Tom

The risk to a US citizen of a violent death or attack is much larger than an Israeli's in Israel, so millions of people are an example of someone who has been under assault or threat of assault their entire life.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mr. Netanahyu is a prime example of someone who is willing to send others to fight and die for his country as long as they are not part of a extremist bigoted religious sect whose support is keeping him from prison.

Netanyahu is a prime example of a guy in his late 70s who has been under assault or threat of assault for his entire life.
Tom

The risk to a US citizen of a violent death or attack is much larger than an Israeli's in Israel, so millions of people are an example of someone who has been under assault or threat of assault their entire life.

But people in the US are less likely to be hunched beside their car on the highway as they wait for the latest volley missiles / rockets to go overhead. There is no doubting that Israel is a dubious place when it comes to security and that their neighbors are the source of said dubious security.

That said, Gaza isn't waging a war on Israel and people saying they are are really responsible for screwing up the dictionary and what words mean. But there is an overhanging threat that is part of living in Israel. That said, Israel isn't remotely uniform in its political views on how Netanyahu is managing these risks (including not seeing the massacre coming), and just because Israel, at large is under threat, doesn't mean everyone agrees with how to manage that threat. IE, being under threat isn't carte blanche and many in Israel feel that way about it too.