Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[bilby]

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough.

Du sprechen vielleicht kein Deutsch, aber viele andere schon.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Medics in UK and US say they have been barred from Gaza after speaking out

Israel accused of denying doctors re-entry into territory after they gave first-hand testimony on conflict

www.theguardian.com

 

[Derec]

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough.

Du sprechen vielleicht kein Deutsch, aber viele andere schon.

It's either "Sie sprechen" oder "du sprichst", depending on formality.

 

[bilby]

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough.

Du sprechen vielleicht kein Deutsch, aber viele andere schon.

It's either "Sie sprechen" oder "du sprichst", depending on formality.

Like I care. We won the war. 1918, 1945, 1966! /s


More seriously, here we see yet another instance of a Large Language Model failing at the one task you might expect them to actually be good for. Perhaps it was in a snit because I refused to call it "AI".

 

[Tigers!]

For example, Israel used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of the PLO. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

For example Iran used to provide support to Hamas because it was the enemy of Israel. Remind everyone how that worked out for Israel and the civilian population of Gaza.

So Israel and Iran, at least at one point, supported Hamas for their own political benefits. Neither case is moral.

Never claimed otherwise.
An ever present reminder that eventually the chickens (or pigeons if you prefer) will come home to roost.
Always choose carefully who you will spend your treasure.

 

[Tigers!]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough. Pretty much any war. Many alliances bring together disparate nations who have nothing in common other than a shared enemy.

That is not an explanation. BTW, alliances need not involve friendship.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

I tried. I don't know what your problem is. I'm guessing you said something stupid, I called you out on it and now you're just being stubborn out of shame. It's a theory. I assume you're going to stick to your guns.

Your projection is purr narcissism masquerading as insight.

We agree that you don’t know. We disagree on the extent of your ignorance.

You suggested above a hitherto hidden explanation in your bolded bigotry above. Perhaps you are Muslim?

Do you agree that evangelical Christians also often can't be reasoned with? Is that bigoted too?

Well it certainly isn't enlightened to say.

So what is your answer? Can evangelicals be reasoned with or not? Is that bigoted too?

Hamas can't be reasoned with because their foundational reason for existence isn't peace. That doesn't mean Muslims "often can't be reasoned with".

Hamas - no possibility of reasoning, Muslims perhaps.

Reminds me of the old joke
Q: What is the difference between a terrorist and a three year old?
A: There is the very, very slight possibility of reasoning with a terrorist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy usually backfire.

No, it doesn't. It usually works. There's countless examples from history. Winning WW2 is a big one. ….

. You need to explain such a nuanced argument because it appears delusional.

We are now not talking German. Is that simple enough. Pretty much any war. Many alliances bring together disparate nations who have nothing in common other than a shared enemy.

That is not an explanation. BTW, alliances need not involve friendship.

But by all means keep talking about how I am a simpleton

With such nuanced reasoning as

Just because Hamas isn't their best bet for peace today, doesn't mean Hamas wasn't their best bet earlier.

and

The big problem with Muslims is that they often can't be reasoned with.

there is no need for anyone to keep talking about simpletons.

I tried. I don't know what your problem is. I'm guessing you said something stupid, I called you out on it and now you're just being stubborn out of shame. It's a theory. I assume you're going to stick to your guns.

Your projection is purr narcissism masquerading as insight.

We agree that you don’t know. We disagree on the extent of your ignorance.

You suggested above a hitherto hidden explanation in your bolded bigotry above. Perhaps you are Muslim?

Do you agree that evangelical Christians also often can't be reasoned with? Is that bigoted too?

Well it certainly isn't enlightened to say. Hamas can't be reasoned with because their foundational reason for existence isn't peace. That doesn't mean Muslims "often can't be reasoned with".

There's trends in religion. Right now there's a fundamentalism trend among Muslims. The same trend that led to two skyscrapers going ka-boom in New York in 2001. The same trend that led to ISIS, and Boko Haram.

Christian Europe has been through the same nonsense. The Puritans under Cromwell have a strikingly similar style of rhetoric to the Al Qaeda lads. Also could not be reasoned with. During the 30 years war, both sides had this way of thinking. Both Christian.

It's really awesome to be part of a mass movement where you don't need to listen to anyone else. Fascism is the same kind of ideology. It's intoxitacting ideological poison. And humans are unfortunately very susceptible to this kind of thinking. And once it gets going it's very seductive and usually ends in a horrendous bloodbath.

The unwillingness to see this by the progressive liberals in the west I think is a kind of Rosseauist noble savage nonsense. As if brown people aren't capable of being as idiotic and flawed as the rest of us. Of course they are. Not judging Muslims/Arbs the same way as we judge Christians/westerners is racist imho. Putting them on a pedestal is just as bad as having them ride in the back of the buss. That's my firm stance on this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And not to yammer on about this, but the current Muslim fundamentalism trend is not old. It's a new trend. They like to pretend like it's an eternally unchanging Islam. But it's not. This stuff is a post war de-colonialism project initially spread through Egyptian prisons. This type of Islamism became trendy in the 1980'ies. The same demographic, (over educated and under employed young men) was before this predominantly communists. Which tells you everything about how deep the theology goes.

I don't like simple explanations to complicated problems. The same goes for Islam. I don't think Islam is the problem. I think religion is whatever it's followers want/need it to be. For whatever reason the guys who are attracted to fundamentalist Islam are such because fundamentalist Islam is the best at solving (or promising to solve) the problems that demographic has. Until we figure out that, we'll just find the trend confusing, or worse (as the woke/leftist west does) deny there's any problem at all.

There's been a tonne of stuff written on this, so I won't belabour the point. But the moment the Middle-East has peace and stability I think fundamentalist Islam will just go away. Just check out Marocco if you don't believe me. They're doing great. They have no problems with fundamentalism, because their economy is in order. Young well educated Maroccans have jobs and money. Until then Palestinians will most likely continue to wreck their own economy and blame their troubles on the jews. Like people on the far right have always done.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gaza death toll for first 16 months of war far higher than reported, says peer-reviewed study

Lancet Global Health research suggests more than 75,000 killed in period, 25,000 more than announced at the time

www.theguardian.com

 

[Derec]

Gaza death toll for first 16 months of war far higher than reported, says peer-reviewed study

Lancet Global Health research suggests more than 75,000 killed in period, 25,000 more than announced at the time

www.theguardian.com

If you look in the methods section of the paper, it is based on surveys and a lot of extrapolation.

I am not sure how accurate their results are. Note also this statement: "Women, children (ie, younger than 18 years), and older people (ie, older than 64 years) comprised 56·2% (95% CI 50·4–61·9) of violent deaths". They do not mention what percentage of the total population these demographic groups represent (~77% of the total population), as that would show that 56.2% is heavily underrepresented, meaning that adult men under 65 are heavily overrepresented. It also ignores the fact that Hamas and other terror groups routinely recruit minor teenagers. Therefore, 15-17 age cohort should have been examined separately from the 0-14 one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gaza death toll for first 16 months of war far higher than reported, says peer-reviewed study

Lancet Global Health research suggests more than 75,000 killed in period, 25,000 more than announced at the time

www.theguardian.com

If you look in the methods section of the paper, it is based on surveys and a lot of extrapolation.

There's nothing wrong with that.

I am not sure how accurate their results are.

Just because _you_ are not sure, it doesn't mean much.

Note also this statement: "Women, children (ie, younger than 18 years), and older people (ie, older than 64 years) comprised 56·2% (95% CI 50·4–61·9) of violent deaths".

So?

They do not mention what percentage of the total population these demographic groups represent (~77% of the total population), as that would show that 56.2% is heavily underrepresented, meaning that adult men under 65 are heavily overrepresented.

They do not need to mention that. You _want_ to mention it because you want to be political. Science doesn't need to be political as _you_ were able to draw the conclusion from the data anyway.

It also ignores the fact that Hamas and other terror groups routinely recruit minor teenagers.

Why do you feel that they need to state this explicitly?

Therefore, 15-17 age cohort should have been examined separately from the 0-14 one.

Show the math.

 

[laughing dog]

Look at Derec apply DEI!

 

[Derec]

Look at Derec apply DEI!

Look at the Hound not knowing what DEI is.

 

[laughing dog]

Look at Derec apply DEI!

Look at the Hound not knowing what DEI is.

Whoosh - you missed the point again. Keep chugging along, I have confidence you will eventually stumble into it. I may not live long enough to see it, but I believe in you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gaza death toll for first 16 months of war far higher than reported, says peer-reviewed study

Lancet Global Health research suggests more than 75,000 killed in period, 25,000 more than announced at the time

www.theguardian.com

If you look in the methods section of the paper, it is based on surveys and a lot of extrapolation.

I am not sure how accurate their results are. Note also this statement: "Women, children (ie, younger than 18 years), and older people (ie, older than 64 years) comprised 56·2% (95% CI 50·4–61·9) of violent deaths". They do not mention what percentage of the total population these demographic groups represent (~77% of the total population), as that would show that 56.2% is heavily underrepresented, meaning that adult men under 65 are heavily overrepresented. It also ignores the fact that Hamas and other terror groups routinely recruit minor teenagers. Therefore, 15-17 age cohort should have been examined separately from the 0-14 one.

Stop playing into the antisemites game. This is classic reframing the narrative to create a villain.

The pro Israel side gets stuck on trying to downplay the number of casualty side. This is just designed to make that side look morally bankrupt. fuck that. Boost the numbers. Interpret the numbers as inflated as possible. But blame Hamas. Blame Hamas for every single wounded or dead in this conflict. I think that's the only morally right thing to do. Israel did what they needed to do.

Modern warfare is artillery, drones and bombardment, where ground troops only come in at the very end to mop up. Everybody who knows anything about modern warfare not coming from war movies knows this. The Hamas attack of 7/10 October was designed to trigger a response by Israel, and when/if they did, Hamas had organised Gaza to maximise Palestinian civilian casualities. They were counting on a western public too dumb to understand what they were doing, so as to ruin the reputation of Israel in the west. Western support is the one thing keeping the Muslims from being able to conquer Israel.

Hamas took a gamble that Israel wouldn't have the balls to counter attack. This is a strategy they'd been planning for and designed Gaza defences around for 20 years. Basically, all of Gaza was a subterrenean military base with soft and squishy civilians on top of it. Mobile rocket batteries fired systematically from refugee camps.

If Israel hadn't attacked they'd been stuck. Hamas would have an unstoppable terror weapon, you can be sure they'd keep using. Israel had no choice but to counter attack.

And if Hamas was a bit smarter, they'd known this would happen. The Jewish world only has Israel. It's the only safe haven for Jews anywhere. No, way would they let go of this little strip of land.

Hamas was also stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hamas existence is about conquering Israel and murdering all Jews in "the holy land". Eventually they'd had to make a move. Or they'd stop getting funding from Iran. And that's, pretty much, the only money Gaza had flowing into it. Something like what happened, was going to happen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We seem to have missed the anniversary of this video:


Happy Belated Anniversary!

 

[Tigers!]

Hamas took a gamble that Israel wouldn't have the balls to counter attack. This is a strategy they'd been planning for and designed Gaza defences around for 20 years. Basically, all of Gaza was a subterrenean military base with soft and squishy civilians on top of it. Mobile rocket batteries fired systematically from refugee camps.

Hamas knew that Israel would have to reply. But they did not anticipate was the ferocity and extent of Israel's response.
Normally Israel would have launched airstrikes, artillery, an invasion that would go in a couple of kms.
Not an invasion that would split Gaza into pieces, seal the borders and then systematically attempt to destroy the tunnels.
Plus Israel stuffing up Hezbollah was on nobody's radar. Hamas could get no relief from the north.

If Israel hadn't attacked they'd been stuck. Hamas would have an unstoppable terror weapon, you can be sure they'd keep using. Israel had no choice but to counter attack.

Yes

And if Hamas was a bit smarter, they'd known this would happen. The Jewish world only has Israel. It's the only safe haven for Jews anywhere. No, way would they let go of this little strip of land.

Yes again

Hamas was also stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hamas existence is about conquering Israel and murdering all Jews in "the holy land". Eventually they'd had to make a move. Or they'd stop getting funding from Iran. And that's, pretty much, the only money Gaza had flowing into it. Something like what happened, was going to happen.

They (Iran) had to stop the Abraham Accords being signed. So Hamas was sent to the slaughter. Both start and be slaughtered.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hamas was also stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hamas existence is about conquering Israel and murdering all Jews in "the holy land". Eventually they'd had to make a move. Or they'd stop getting funding from Iran. And that's, pretty much, the only money Gaza had flowing into it. Something like what happened, was going to happen.

They (Iran) had to stop the Abraham Accords being signed. So Hamas was sent to the slaughter. Both start and be slaughtered.

Sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense. I think the Iranian govornment is more sensitive to the internal stability of Iran and their own security. The Iranian people are revolting increasingly often, and now the economy has collapsed. I think it's more likely that attacking Israel is more a diversion away from internal conflicts. In standard fascist fashion the appeal to patriotism and hopes it will kick in to override the people's hate for the govornment. That's what I suspect is going on anyway. Iran is a terror state where the government is hated by the people and only stays in power through brutal repression. Extremely brutal repression. The moment they show weakness internally they're gone. They all know it.

BTW, I have noticed that, pretty much all media shared on Social Media has been altered to emphasize the message. No matter what the message. Never before has footage been as unreliable as now. I have a bunch of exile Iranian friends. I have noticed that they're often suckered in by wishful thinking clips. I think it would be hard for anyone to have an accurate objective picture of what it going on right now. There's filters upon filters upon filters. So much bullshit.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How Israel Used the War in Gaza to Accelerate Settlements in the West Bank

The Netanyahu government is pushing expansionist policies, while America looks the other way.

www.newyorker.com

 

[DrZoidberg]

How Israel Used the War in Gaza to Accelerate Settlements in the West Bank

The Netanyahu government is pushing expansionist policies, while America looks the other way.

www.newyorker.com

That's not what is happening.

The Hamas - Israeli war, and the intransigence of Hamas, made it clear to Israel they need to take Gaza over completely. In a situation where Hamas is willing to sacrifice every Palestinian life to keep the conflict going, and enough Palestinians being cool with it, has changed the Israeli game plan.

Israel has the last 20 years have tried very hard to find an Islamic country who wants to take it over, to maintain safety. Nobody wants to touch it with a long stick. So Israel is on their own.

The last conflict, together with the last 70 years have made it clear to the Israelis that there will probably never be a situation where the Palestinians of Gaza will want to peacefully coexist. Its not just religion. Its such a complicated mess of Arabic tribal allegiences among the Palestinians. Anyway... there's no peace in sight.

If Israel wants peace with Gaza, its increasingly apparent, the only avenue left is to make it into a police state ruled by Israel.

I think that's what is happening. Israel gets all the brownie points for showing extreme restraint and patience. But enough is enough.

For those who negatively judge Israels actions, what else should they and could they have done? Other than committing collective national suicide.

The situation Israel is in is so extreme and bizarre, there's no historical equivalent. There's no other example in history of a people showing as much restraint as Israel has, considering how they have been treated.

I'll repeat, what else should they do?