Israel/Hamas PB Tribal Fight

[Dribble]

Okay. I understand your point: two wrongs don't make a right. But a question: What would you have Israel do in this circumstance? How are they going to target HAMAS without civilian casualties when that organization uses civilians as shields; sets up their military equipment and operations in places that cannot be separated from civilians without casualties?

Comshaw

That's simple Com. You clear your territory. Which they have now done. You now have the terrorists contained. You allow women and children to leave. Reports are coming in as to the targets the IDF have chosen. They are not military targets. They are humanitarian targets. Why?

You want to make excuses. They are surrounded. Where are they going?

 

[ll74]

Lol. Dude...the info is coming from CNN. Eye-witness journalism.

Of course.

And yet I read a source earlier saying that Egypt was preventing people from entering. Could they be involved? Is Hamas looking to escape,.leading to strikes from Israel? Is Hamas setting off explosives to make it appear as though Israel is being civilians?

As I said.....in the days after an attack, information is chaotic. I'm not saying it's untrue...I'm saying your bias leads you to believe what you want to believe when being skeptical is a better approach.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Lol....news isn't biased. Analysis is biased. A reported presenting the facts would be the same across every agency. Analysis/editing causes bias. (Presentation of news)

Saying it's 86 degrees out is news. Saying it's hot is bias.

That's the weather, not the news however. If there is a fire and 10 people die 8 are black. Why would you even bring race into it. The only important thing is 10 people are dead. MAybe they are in place of the building with poor ventilation but even then that could be random. MAybe just their work hours were the reason they were there, they work the night shift. If I report on every single fact there is going to be so much data that its ultimately worthless to anybody and I can't do it alone because I am going to notice that it seems like there were more blacks. But that makes me the bad guy. Maybe someone else has access to the building codes and knows this building was ten years out of date or the electrical wiring or the trees were too close. I would NEVER notice to the trees.

You would need an army for something as simple as the earthquake in Afghanistan.

 

[ll74]

That's the weather, not the news however. If there is a fire and 10 people die 8 are black. Why would you even bring race into it. The only important thing is 10 people are dead. MAybe they are in place of the building with poor ventilation but even then that could be random. MAybe just their work hours were the reason they were there, they work the night shift. If I report on every single fact there is going to be so much data that its ultimately worthless to anybody and I can't do it alone because I am going to notice that it seems like there were more blacks. But that makes me the bad guy. Maybe someone else has access to the building codes and knows this building was ten years out of date or the electrical wiring or the trees were too close. I would NEVER notice to the trees.

You would need an army for something as simple as the earthquake in Afghanistan.

It was an example. Facts aren't biased. News are facts. Presentation, analysis and editing are not.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It was an example. Facts aren't biased. News are facts. Presentation, analysis and editing are not.

Unless you're claiming that three people seeing the same situation are going to put emphasis in the same places or even notice the same details. . .

 

[ll74]

Unless you're claiming that three people seeing the same situation are going to put emphasis in the same places or even notice the same details. . .

Eyewitnesses see what they see. Reporters can quote their words or they can report on what they say from their own perspective.

In war, the difference can be completely the opposite.

 

[Bray123]

what's my position? That beheading and raping babies is bad?
I mean, maybe you're ok with that. Hamas certainly is. And defending that, to me, isn't ok. But you do you.

In just about every conflict in hundreds of years, justification for invasion has been on the basis of 'they kill babies'. I've yet to see these allegations actually turn out to be true. It's always propaganda.

View attachment 2278890

 

[ll74]

In just about every conflict in hundreds of years, justification for invasion has been on the basis of 'they kill babies'. I've yet to see these allegations actually turn out to be true. It's always propaganda.

View attachment 2278890
View attachment 2278891
View attachment 2278892

It's a right wing tactic to gain support.

 

[Comshaw]

That's simple Com. You clear your territory. Which they have now done. You now have the terrorists contained. You allow women and children to leave. Reports are coming in as to the targets the IDF have chosen. They are not military targets. They are humanitarian targets. Why?

You want to make excuses. They are surrounded. Where are they going?

Reports are also coming in that Israel has given the civilian population warning of where they will strike. So what happens if the civilians refuse to leave or are held by HAMAS against their will? I think the second of those is the most likely scenario. HAMAS has shown they have no regard for human life, Israeli or Palestinian. So should the IDF throw up their hands and allow what happened to go unanswered? Allow HAMAS to do it again? I do not condone targeting civilian populations during war. But if they refuse to leave, or HAMAS is using them as shields, it leaves the Israelis with little choice. It comes down to this: what would you do in their place if a neighboring country invaded, with the specific intent of indiscriminately killing civilians? I would be, to put it mildly, pissed. Actually, I would be ready for blood. I think Israel is showing a lot of restraint by not leveling the strip from one end to the other.

As far as the chosen targets not being military, that is only half correct. They are civilian targets hiding military assets. HAMAS uses the civilian population as a shield. Again, should the IDF allow HAMAS to do that? Would you in their place? I don't think so. The best they can do is give warning where they will strike, which they have.

Comshaw

 

[Dribble]

I have been trying to solidify the fighting size of Hamas. The best I can come up with is 35-40,000 but i have also seen estimates 10-15,000 higher and most of these have been recruited after the 2014 Gaza War.

Now comes the question ( not really a question...I know the answer)...why have they been so successful in recruitment? Could the actions of the oppressor contribute?

What I do not know...is how much support they really have from civilians? Is it just a matter of turning a blind eye because survival is hard enough day to day? Or is there a much deeper support?

I am looking back at history. Why did the rural Vietnamese support the North? Why did the Troubles last so long in Northern Ireland? Are similar dynamics playing out here? Why is it important? Because you can't crush those feelings by force.

 

[Dribble]

Reports are also coming in that Israel has given the civilian population warning of where they will strike. So what happens if the civilians refuse to leave or are held by HAMAS against their will? I think the second of those is the most likely scenario. HAMAS has shown they have no regard for human life, Israeli or Palestinian. So should the IDF throw up their hands and allow what happened to go unanswered? Allow HAMAS to do it again? I do not condone targeting civilian populations during war. But if they refuse to leave, or HAMAS is using them as shields, it leaves the Israelis with little choice. It comes down to this: what would you do in their place if a neighboring country invaded, with the specific intent of indiscriminately killing civilians? I would be, to put it mildly, pissed. Actually, I would be ready for blood. I think Israel is showing a lot of restraint by not leveling the strip from one end to the other.

Comshaw

I do not trust Israel any further than I trust Hamas. I think that is their ultimate goal...they just want to make it look justified. I pray I am wrong. But history isn't on their side.

What I do know...this will end poorly for all parties involved. Including the US.

Since so many want to compare this to 9-11...let's look at our response. Did we win? Who controls Afghanistan? What about Iraq? Who is in charge there now? Is either really over for us? See the issue? Violence never seems to resolve into anything but more violence. Yes...a response is called for. War is not it. It builds every group we don't want to get stronger

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711802155298959700

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711816567766614494

https://media0.giphy.com/media/tpwwhv1BLd31e/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952fppcxhrb6og1toiqkci01o3mqmfckyvjwvfhesk5&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

 

[ll74]

I do not trust Israel any further than I trust Hamas. I think that is their ultimate goal...they just want to make it look justified. I pray I am wrong. But history isn't on their side.

What I do know...this will end poorly for all parties involved. Including the US.

Since so many want to compare this to 9-11...let's look at our response. Did we win? Who controls Afghanistan? What about Iraq? Who is in charge there now? Is either really over for us? See the issue? Violence never seems to resolve into anything but more violence. Yes...a response is called for. War is not it. It builds every group we don't want to get stronger

I really wish there was a group who would truly represent the Palestinians and their well being. Everyone who has stepped forward seems to have done so in a power grab or in revenge for some decades long animosity.

People have a right to exist and live peacefully. Someone needs to negotiate for their people properly and without an agenda that goes beyond that. Hamas is definitely not that group. (Neither is Iran or Hezbolah) - unless they can bring in new leadership.

 

[AveryElle]

In just about every conflict in hundreds of years, justification for invasion has been on the basis of 'they kill babies'. I've yet to see these allegations actually turn out to be true. It's always propaganda.

View attachment 2278890
View attachment 2278891
View attachment 2278892

ah, well, Nazi's definitely killed babies (so we should have let the Germans win?). So did Hamas. I guess whose babies don't count. Don't really see your point.

 

[AveryElle]

I really wish there was a group who would truly represent the Palestinians and their well being. Everyone who has stepped forward seems to have done so in a power grab or in revenge for some decades long animosity.

People have a right to exist and live peacefully. Someone needs to negotiate for their people properly and without an agenda that goes beyond that. Hamas is definitely not that group. (Neither is Iran or Hezbolah) - unless they can bring in new leadership.

Where's Egypt? Oh, blockading Gaza. Where's Jordan? Oh, they have openly said they don't want the Palestinians back. It's so weird!

 

[AveryElle]

I do not trust Israel any further than I trust Hamas. I think that is their ultimate goal...they just want to make it look justified. I pray I am wrong. But history isn't on their side.

What I do know...this will end poorly for all parties involved. Including the US.

Since so many want to compare this to 9-11...let's look at our response. Did we win? Who controls Afghanistan? What about Iraq? Who is in charge there now? Is either really over for us? See the issue? Violence never seems to resolve into anything but more violence. Yes...a response is called for. War is not it. It builds every group we don't want to get stronger

Over the years, "palestinians" have been offered a state to govern no fewer than...five times? And all have been rejected. It's not about statehood at all.

 

[ll74]

Where's Egypt? Oh, blockading Gaza. Where's Jordan? Oh, they have openly said they don't want the Palestinians back. It's so weird!

As I said, the Palestinians need someone to represent their well being and livelihood.

 

[AveryElle]

As I said, the Palestinians need someone to represent their well being and livelihood.

Wonder why no one is raising their hand do that.

 

[ll74]

Wonder why no one is raising their hand do that.

I've seen that you have your answer already.

Probably because your an upstanding person or something

 

[AveryElle]

I've seen that you have your answer already.

Probably because your an upstanding person or something

I'm just as curious as you as to why no one will do it.

also, you're.

 

[jaF0]

But ‘Palestinians’ have had at least five chances to have a state.

but "Palestinians" have been offered a state FIVE times and said no.

Over the years, "palestinians" have been offered a state to govern no fewer than...five times?

Two more to go.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Eyewitnesses see what they see. Reporters can quote their words or they can report on what they say from their own perspective.

In war, the difference can be completely the opposite.

Eyewitnesses are so unreliable they are considered circumstantial in cord. Which doesn't change the fact that I might notice he had a beard and his shirt matched his shoes. You might noticed that he was six three and wore a John Cena shirt.

Neither one of us are lying but that doesn't make the data unbiased because it very much is.

Wars are even worse because so much bullshit is going on at any given moment that people are even less reliable. i don't know for shit what you saw or why.

Have you seen the stats on how many civies the US killed between 2000-2016 cus I hate Trump and you should know my record but if we are guaging all thing equal we should be in Hell

 

[eomerson]

There are two man issues that prevented peace in the past and peace in the future:
1 - Neither side wants to really compromise.

2 - Powerful entities like US, USSR, oil companies, defense contractors...there have been many external parties over the past 75 years that keep the divisions brewing.

No matter what, this will not end well for anyone. Nobody has answers to this unfortunately. South Africa may not be perfect but both sides had the will to talk peace. I am not sure that can happen here.

 

[ll74]

Eyewitnesses are so unreliable they are considered circumstantial in cord. Which doesn't change the fact that I might notice he had a beard and his shirt matched his shoes. You might noticed that he was six three and wore a John Cena shirt.

Neither one of us are lying but that doesn't make the data unbiased because it very much is.

Wars are even worse because so much bullshit is going on at any given moment that people are even less reliable. i don't know for shit what you saw or why.

Have you seen the stats on how many civies the US killed between 2000-2016 cus I hate Trump and you should know my record but if we are guaging all thing equal we should be in Hell

The data isn't biased. How it's presented is.

 

[ll74]

I'm just as curious as you as to why no one will do it.

also, you're.

U'r