2021 Israeli-Palestine Conflict - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15172740
JohnRawls wrote:This is the same story as the main HAMAS command centre is located under the main Hospital of Gaza. Why is HAMAS putting its infrastructure in civilian buildings?


I've already answered that question, because of the propaganda war.

They want the Israeli's to bomb the shit out of it. Stop auto-bombing and they won't put them there.

JohnRawls wrote:They are not missing, Iron dome is shooting them down. That is irrelevant though. Israel notifies the other side when it does it strikes at least when civilians are involved. Hamas just fires thousands of them every day at civilians.


Actually they're firing the missiles in the direction of the Iron Dome too, since it's firing them down. So there's at least 1 known military target.
#15172742
Heisenberg wrote:Israel routinely kills orders of magnitude more civilians than the handful of Hamas bottle-rockets that manage to slip through the Iron Dome.

Israel routinely kills civilians that are throwing firebombs at them, or attempting to breach the border fence.

This is complete drivel. Israel knowingly drops high explosives on densely populated civilian areas...

Because HAMAS keeps launching rockets from densely populated civilian areas, in the deliberate hope that Israel will counter-attack and kill civilians, which allows HAMAS to accuse Israel of atrocities in the compliant western press.
#15172743
Gardener wrote:Because HAMAS keeps launching rockets from densely populated civilian areas, in the deliberate hope that Israel will counter-attack and kill civilians, which allows HAMAS to accuse Israel of atrocities in the compliant western press.


Well if you stop auto-bombing they won't put them there anymore.
#15172746
@Gardener @JohnRawls

I sympathize greatly with the Israelis and the sort fight they are dealing with from an enemy who wears no uniform, is funded and supported by Iran and who hides within the civilian populatoon and uses that civilian population as fodder against Israel. Its like i said before, its asymmetric warfare. The type of warfare that the weak use against the strong. But Iran uses Hamas as its proxy to wage war against Israel.
#15172748
colliric wrote:
Well if you stop auto-bombing they won't put them there anymore.

Horse. Cart.
And I didn't say PUT them there, I said LAUNCH them from there. (heavily populated civilian areas).

I tried to quote a previous couple of members who commented about the Israeli police effectively starting the whole ball rolling by their heavy-handed policing of the Al Aqsua mosque. Apparantly peaceful worshipers where attacked and cleared from the mosque. But I havn't got the hang of multiple quotes yet :(

Where these, perchance, the same "peaceful" worshipers who had brought wheelbarrows full of rocks into Al Aqsua in advance, and hundreds of molotov cocktails ? Gosh.. you'd almost have thought they where anticipating trouble, if not actually planning for it.
#15172751
Heisenberg wrote:This is complete drivel. Israel knowingly drops high explosives on densely populated civilian areas. Mass civilian casualties are an inevitable consequence of this, as has been proven time and time and time again. To simply disavow any responsibility for the deaths it causes is so weak that I have a very hard time accepting that they even believe it themselves.


Indeed, which is why Hamas has a policy to keep civilians up close. Same applies to pretty much all similar groups in 2021, including those fighting Assad.

Heisenberg wrote:If the IDF was even remotely serious about its claim to try to minimise civilian casualties, it would adapt its tactics. It has shown absolutely no interest in doing so, because it fundamentally does not see Palestinians as human.


What would the IDF do? Use barrel bombs like Assad, who I'm supposed to believe sees Sunni Syrians as human too?

Heisenberg wrote:The two situations are not remotely comparable. Syria is fighting a total war against an actual existential threat. Israel is bombarding an impoverished subject people who it has contained within a densely populated open air prison. A more accurate comparison would be the way the various colonial empires crushed uprisings against their rule.


If Israel isn't in that situation it's precisely because it has managed to achieve military victories, deny its enemies the possibility to become militarily strong and developed its own economy, governance and society.

In any event, that's clearly not how Israelis see it, and using your reasoning it would thus not justify Assad's tactics either. But he's a darling for communists and fascists alike, hence the Lion of Damascus, Liberator of the People gets a free pass to do much worse stuff. Am I supposed to believe otherwise now?

Or if Israel was weaker than it is now, it would be okay for it to use the very humanitarian SAA's tactics and just drop barrel bombs throughout Gaza and the West Bank? Is that the claim you want to make? Why would this be any good?

Heisenberg wrote:If you think you're talking to someone who hasn't been a very vocal opponent of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you are sorely mistaken.


Yes, because they are liberals hence they don't get a free pass.

Heisenberg wrote:Of course, it's quite telling that you are making a direct comparison between Israel's bombardment of Gaza and nakedly imperialist aggression against foreign countries by NATO. I thought the official Israeli line was that it is desperately fighting for its survival against a terrifying existential threat? ;)


As far as the tactics go, they are quite similar in fact. As far as legitimacy is concerned, Israel actually has a better case although the US was responding to foreign aggression and some of us don't forget that.

Heisenberg wrote:Incredible. Scratch a liberal, etc.

You should take the "whining" seriously if you actually see Palestinians as human, or want anyone to take you seriously when you attempt to claim Israel has some sort of moral high ground.


I will take you seriously when you start seeing Sunni Syrians as humans and condemn Bashar al-Assad for doing much worse than Israel or NATO have done in the last 20 years.

I find it hilarious to see communists, who believe human rights to be a bourgeois concept, to now whine about them when it suits them. I clearly don't care and couldn't care less about your whining, which takes the form of a stupid lecturing, on the matter, and won't do so until you begin to be coherent for once. Do you really think anyone cares about your views about human rights?
#15172756
[quote="Politics_Observer"][usermention=80210]@Gardener[/usermention] [usermention=22068]@JohnRawls[/usermention]

I sympathize greatly with the Israelis and the sort fight they are dealing with from an enemy who wears no uniform, is funded and supported by Iran and who hides within the civilian populatoon and uses that civilian population as fodder against Israel. Its like i said before, its asymmetric warfare. The type of warfare that the weak use against the strong. But Iran uses Hamas as its proxy to wage war against Israel.[/quote]

I don't. I have a very high opinion of Jewish culture, and its contributions over many centuries to western civilisation, but Israel, with the material assistance, encouragement and protection of the USA, has become a rogue state.

Many apologists for Israel claim that it is merely defending its right to exist, and that the Palestinians are a deadly and immoral enemy who uses children as shields in battle.

I have seen no documented examples of this, but I have seen much evidence of the IDF using children as human shields.

https://www.google.com/search?q=IDF+usi ... 1Powe8E8rM
#15172760
Gardener wrote:Israel routinely kills civilians that are throwing firebombs at them, or attempting to breach the border fence.


I don't think small children are attacking Israel, and they should not have to pay the price for the political situation they happen to find themselves in by mere accident of birth.

In 2021 this type of indiscriminate carpet bombing is unacceptable. The IDF use white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons which is a disgusting form of warfare. Can you imagine the fear of being in that situation, where you and your loved ones could end up shelled at any moment. It's horrendous.

The problem is that this is a Western backed state that enjoys an intimate relationship with the USA and several European countries. I do not want to support this and neither should you.

For all the wrongs of the Palestinian leadership and their excesses the fact remains that Israel purports to be a Western democracy but does not behave like one. If we condemn Assad for his excesses and tactics used in his fight we should do the same for Israel, especially when it is apparently our ally.
#15172762
Israel gives Palestinians a hard time until they respond. They then kill hundreds. This time it's Netanyahu trying to save his career, but any excuse will do.

It's apartheid with the ultimate goal of ethnic cleansing..
#15172784
wat0n wrote:What would the IDF do? Use barrel bombs like Assad, who I'm supposed to believe sees Sunni Syrians as human too?

Is this really the best you can do? Please explain, in detail, why a "barrel bomb" is worse than a high explosive missile. If you even attempt to claim there is such thing as a "precision" or "surgical" strike in a city with a population density of 34,000 people per square mile, you're even dumber than I thought.

wat0n wrote:If Israel isn't in that situation it's precisely because it has managed to achieve military victories, deny its enemies the possibility to become militarily strong and developed its own economy, governance and society.

Yes, Israel's foresightedness, ingenuity and moral superiority have allowed it to achieve its current position, rather than decades of ethnic cleansing backed by military blank cheques from the US. :lol:

wat0n wrote:In any event, that's clearly not how Israelis see it

Oppressors often tell themselves ridiculous lies in order to justify their atrocities. The British Empire used to tell itself it was on a civilising mission, and that the natives in its colonies needed to be kept under the boot for their own good. Israel tells itself that it faces annihilation from women and children in Gaza. It doesn't mean we should take them seriously.

wat0n wrote:and using your reasoning it would thus not justify Assad's tactics either. But he's a darling for communists and fascists alike, hence the Lion of Damascus, Liberator of the People gets a free pass to do much worse stuff. Am I supposed to believe otherwise now?

Once again, Syria is embroiled in a total war. Israel is not.

Your desperate attempts to change the topic are noted, though.

wat0n wrote:Or if Israel was weaker than it is now, it would be okay for it to use the very humanitarian SAA's tactics and just drop barrel bombs throughout Gaza and the West Bank? Is that the claim you want to make? Why would this be any good?

See my previous comment on the "barrel bombs" line, which is complete bollocks on its own face.

wat0n wrote:As far as the tactics go, they are quite similar in fact.

Yes, I agree. They are very similar. I disagree that "it's no different to coalition war crimes in Fallujah or Mosul" is a defence of Israel, though. :lol:

wat0n wrote:I will take you seriously when you start seeing Sunni Syrians as humans and condemn Bashar al-Assad for doing much worse than Israel or NATO have done in the last 20 years.

I don't give a damn whether you take me seriously, because I find you completely repugnant and morally bankrupt. You also seem to think that you have some duty to support ethnic cleansing by a foreign power purely because someone you don't like has opposed it.

Here's an idea: leave me out of the equation for a second. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm literally worse than Hitler. Does that justify Israel murdering children? :)

(On a separate note, I do like how you're conveniently ignoring the role that NATO (and Israel!) have played in turning Syria into the immiserated hell that it is today)

wat0n wrote:I find it hilarious to see communists, who believe human rights to be a bourgeois concept, to now whine about them when it suits them.

More babble, punctuated by putting words in my mouth. I don't believe I have ever said "human rights are a bourgeois concept", lol.

But just a warning: it isn't just "communists" who can see this for what it is anymore. You might find yourself going the way of the Young Tories with "Hang Mandela" t shirts back in the 1980s. ;)

wat0n wrote: I clearly don't care and couldn't care less about your whining, which takes the form of a stupid lecturing, on the matter, and won't do so until you begin to be coherent for once.

"You need to be more coherent," says the guy whose response to "bombing children is bad" consisted of "No, actually, it is very complicated. But anyway, Syria". :lol:
#15172798
This Austrian-Jewish, Christian-Lebanese kid, who's grandma fled the holocaust in Austria, says fuck Israel, but most of all fuck the Zionist cult shit, like that cultishness displayed by the Zionist non-Jew in the OP.

The Zionists have tried to turn the victim card in to a science. They use the victim card to commit atrocity.

It is in reality the exact same shit as what was with the American settlers and the Native people of the American continents and surrounding island chains who were living there when the European conqueror cultures arrived.

The thing that cracks me up is every time a Zionist goes on a completely one-sided, biased diatribe, they like to start by saying, "can we please at least get some objectivity here?" And then they move in to the "Here is why it is correct for Israel and Zionists to murder and oppress Palestinians."

Fuck yourself, Ric.

My only advice to you, looking both ways before you cross the street, that's not really necessary and it wastes time.

I like to put in some advice to finish my posts.
#15172801
Politics_Observer wrote:@Gardener @JohnRawls

I sympathize greatly with the Israelis and the sort fight they are dealing with from an enemy who wears no uniform, is funded and supported by Iran and who hides within the civilian populatoon and uses that civilian population as fodder against Israel. Its like i said before, its asymmetric warfare. The type of warfare that the weak use against the strong. But Iran uses Hamas as its proxy to wage war against Israel.

Sadly, it is called tactics.

Which as a military man, you know far better, and just broke down better than I could.

I'm a 'can't we all just get along' sort.

But where there is conflict there are tactics. And the tactics used are whatever tactics will work.

War indeed is hell.
#15172809
Heisenberg wrote:Is this really the best you can do? Please explain, in detail, why a "barrel bomb" is worse than a high explosive missile. If you even attempt to claim there is such thing as a "precision" or "surgical" strike in a city with a population density of 34,000 people per square mile, you're even dumber than I thought.


Actually it is better if the blast radius of the missile is smaller and if the missile is more precise.

But let's assume you are correct: What's your alternative proposal here? I'm sure both the Israeli and the Syrian governments would be more than interested to hear you out, since that would provide both of them with clear political and diplomatic benefits at no tactical cost. The Syrians may be ruthless, but they are not stupid at all: They perfectly understand the value of reducing civilian casualties. Same goes for Israel and NATO. And the same goes to Islamists too, which is why they use the tactics they use.

Heisenberg wrote:Yes, Israel's foresightedness, ingenuity and moral superiority have allowed it to achieve its current position, rather than decades of ethnic cleansing backed by military blank cheques from the US. :lol:


As opposed to how the Lion of Syria's infinite kindness and compassion was an obstacle to preventing the thankless and ruthless Sunni Syrians from taking over half of his country's territory? Don't make me laugh :lol:

Heisenberg wrote:Oppressors often tell themselves ridiculous lies in order to justify their atrocities. The British Empire used to tell itself it was on a civilising mission, and that the natives in its colonies needed to be kept under the boot for their own good. Israel tells itself that it faces annihilation from women and children in Gaza. It doesn't mean we should take them seriously.


:lol:

So is this the best you can do? To tell Israelis to simply ignore their own country's history, if not their own personal ones, while at the same time arrogantly telling them, in typical British fashion, how they are supposed to think about it? Why would they listen to you, anyway? Are you going to try to civilize them, again, in usual British fashion?

Heisenberg wrote:Once again, Syria is embroiled in a total war. Israel is not.


Indeed, and one big reason for that is precisely because Israel has a policy of not allowing Hamas to freely arm itself. Not that this point will stop you from pretending that the Assad family had not being attempting to do the same in a substantially harsher way, hence it had set up a large and fairly repressive state apparatus before 2011, all to prevent something like a repeat of the 1982 Sunni revolt and needing to quell it in cities like Hama as it did back then.

Heisenberg wrote:Your desperate attempts to change the topic are noted, though.


No, it's very much on topic actually. Firstly, because many of the key actors involved are the same (including Iran) and as such the Syrian war and the current mess are simply different venues for a much larger geopolitical struggle going on in the region. Secondly, because there have been rocket launches from Syria and thus a second front could be opened as well. Thirdly, because the tactics used by the Islamists are very similar in both cases. At last, it highlights the double standards here, and since your argument is based on morality alone, this comparison dismantles it completely and indeed is precisely why you don't want to discuss it at all. Unfortunately, you have no authority to decide what the topic is here but overstepping their authority is something communists often hilariously do, and they believe anyone is supposed to apologize to them for some reason :lol:

Heisenberg wrote:Yes, I agree. They are very similar. I disagree that "it's no different to coalition war crimes in Fallujah or Mosul" is a defence of Israel, though. :lol:


Well, for starters you could then tell us if it's any different from SAA's tactics in Hama (1982), Homs or Aleppo (current war), and why. Are those war crimes? Can't comment much further, because you are providing no military alternative to those tactics at all. The more you think about it, the more you are forced to acknowledge aerial bombings are probably the least harmful for the civilians on the ground in practice, even barrel bombs by the way. Alternatives like a ground operation, forcing fighting house by house, are way worse for the civilians who are there regardless of what army follows that road.

Heisenberg wrote:I don't give a damn whether you take me seriously, because I find you completely repugnant and morally bankrupt. You also seem to think that you have some duty to support ethnic cleansing by a foreign power purely because someone you don't like has opposed it.


Said by an Assad supporter :lol:

I don't care about what you find repugnant, just as I couldn't care less about what you regard as ethnic cleansing all while your beloved Bashar al-Assad has led to the effective exile of millions of Syrians fleeing his forces' persecution, both present and future should he win the war. Again, you have no moral high ground to speak from here and there is no reason to give it to you.

Heisenberg wrote:Here's an idea: leave me out of the equation for a second.


So you arrogantly said you find me morally repugnant and now expect your own repugnance to be left alone? :lol:

Heisenberg wrote: Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm literally worse than Hitler. Does that justify Israel murdering children? :)


Does that justify Syria from doing it in a bigger scale? Do the tensions over Jerusalem justify Hamas from launching rockets that have also murdered children in Israel proper? Or children only matter when they are Palestinian?

But to grace you with your answer: If Israel deliberately does so and the child at hand is not being used as a soldier, no, it doesn't. If it's not deliberate, it depends on the situation and particularly what the alternatives are which I'm sure you will say is how the Lion of Damascus decides on how to use force when there are children in an area infested with Islamists using it for various military purposes. If the child is actually being used as a soldier, as it happens in conflicts around the globe, the child would be entitled to be treated as such and so (for instance) if the child surrendered it would not be justified either.

Heisenberg wrote:(On a separate note, I do like how you're conveniently ignoring the role that NATO (and Israel!) have played in turning Syria into the immiserated hell that it is today)


Just like I love how you conveniently ignore the role Iran and Syria itself have played in keeping Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighting Israel as well. Also, most of the "credit" for that should probably go to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with simple demographics since the figures on that last front were never favorable towards the Alawites. And, just to go on with that argument, the disgrace that has befallen the Sunnis in Syria is also something they should themselves take responsibility for, not for rebelling against Assad, but for how they treated Alawis when they were in power up to the mid 60s. Well, the older ones should at least, but I don't think there is some introspection about that latter part among them and doubt there will be should they win the war.

Heisenberg wrote:More babble, punctuated by putting words in my mouth. I don't believe I have ever said "human rights are a bourgeois concept", lol.


I'm making reference to a standard Marxist line. If you truly believe in human rights, then I don't see how you could be a Marxist.

Heisenberg wrote:But just a warning: it isn't just "communists" who can see this for what it is anymore. You might find yourself going the way of the Young Tories with "Hang Mandela" t shirts back in the 1980s. ;)


Maybe, or maybe none of that will happen at all just like it didn't happen after Sabra and Shatila, just like hippies went to the dustbin of history, just like communism did too. It's hard to tell the future, after all, I'm still waiting for capitalism to implode.

Heisenberg wrote:"You need to be more coherent," says the guy whose response to "bombing children is bad" consisted of "No, actually, it is very complicated. But anyway, Syria". :lol:


So will you say Assad's bombing of children is bad and apologize for supporting the SAA? It would seem to me it's in fact complicated given your baby crying when that was brought up. But what do I know?
Last edited by wat0n on 16 May 2021 16:42, edited 1 time in total.
#15172811
@Crantag

Crantag wrote:Sadly, it is called tactics.

Which as a military man, you know far better, and just broke down better than I could.

I'm a 'can't we all just get along' sort.

But where there is conflict there are tactics. And the tactics used are whatever tactics will work.

War indeed is hell.


Yes it is. There isn't going to be any winners coming out of that situation. The biggest losers are going to be the civilian population caught between two combatants. This is why the best military strategists are able to prevent the costs of war and never have to fight one in the first place. A lot of the concept of prevention is based around the notion of deterrence. But you don't have to use deterrence alone to "win without fighting." This is the reason why Sun Tzu, in his book, the "Art of War" prizes the general who can outsmart rather than outfight his opponents and why the concept of "winning without fighting" is the "supreme art of war." By "winning without fighting" you achieve your objectives without ever having to fire a shot or finding yourself actually fighting a costly, expensive, bloody and tragic war. You think you are learning how to fight when reading the "Art of War" but what you are really learning is how to prevent fighting in the first place. "To win a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the acme of skill...to win without fighting is the acme of skill."
#15172820
wat0n wrote:But let's assume you are correct: What's your alternative proposal here?

If I wanted to avoid civilian casualties, I would simply not lob high explosive missiles into densely populated civilian areas :)

wat0n wrote:As opposed to how the Lion of Syria's infinite kindness and compassion was an obstacle to preventing the thankless and ruthless Sunni Syrians from taking over half of his country's territory? Don't make me laugh

What in the world are you talking about?

wat0n wrote:So is this the best you can do? To tell Israelis to simply ignore their own country's history, if not their own personal ones, while at the same time arrogantly telling them, in typical British fashion, how they are supposed to think about it? Why would they listen to you, anyway? Are you going to try to civilize them, again, in usual British fashion?

More babble, tinged with the cynical appropriation of anticolonialism that is now very fashionable among Zionists.

wat0n wrote:Indeed, and one big reason for that is precisely because Israel has a policy of not allowing Hamas to freely arm itself.

This policy requires forcing two million people, almost half of whom are under 14, into a ghetto, does it?

I'd much rather you openly say what you are clearly itching to say. You aren't fooling anyone.

wat0n wrote:Not that this point will stop you from pretending that the Assad family had not being attempting to do the same in a substantially harsher way, hence it had set up a large and fairly repressive state apparatus before 2011, all to prevent something like a repeat of the 1982 Sunni revolt and needing to quell it in cities like Hama as it did back then.

You seem to have an uncanny ability to read my mind!

For the avoidance of doubt, my "support" for Assad begins and ends at not supporting yet another western-backed regime change war in the middle east, and for the Syrian army's efforts to prevent al Nusra and ISIS taking over the country - which, incidentally, is a much more clear and present danger than the idea that the people of Gaza will perpetrate a second holocaust against Israel.
wat0n wrote:you have no authority to decide what the topic is here

Watch out, the Handforth Parish Council is on the scene. Read the standing orders! Read them and understand them!

wat0n wrote:Well, for starters you could then tell us if it's any different from SAA's tactics in Hama (1982), Homs or Aleppo (current war), and why.

For someone who really, really hates Syria, you sure do like to use them a lot as your moral benchmark. :lol:

wat0n wrote:So you arrogantly said you find me morally repugnant and now expect your own repugnance to be left alone?

No, I would like you to address the topic for once, rather than droning on about me.

I get that you don't like me. I also think you're a complete piece of shit, but at least I also actually address your substantive arguments, such as they are. All you've done is shift the topic of discussion to my alleged moral failings.

wat0n wrote:But to grace you with your answer: If Israel deliberately does so and the child at hand is not being used as a soldier, no, it doesn't.

There we go, we're finally getting somewhere! I know it must have been very hard for you to type that, since you felt it was necessary to preface it with several hundred words about how evil I am beforehand, but I sincerely appreciate you actually answering a direct question. Even if it was heavily caveated and through gritted teeth. :lol:

wat0n wrote:Do the tensions over Jerusalem justify Hamas from launching rockets that have also murdered children in Israel proper?

No, they do not. But this does not give Israel carte blanche to cause orders of magnitude more casualties in response, and then disavow any responsibility for its actions.

wat0n wrote:So will you say Assad's bombing of children is bad and apologize for supporting the SAA?

Of course the Syrian army's bombing of civilian areas, and killing of children, is bad, just as the al Nusra front and ISIS's war crimes in Syria are bad. War is hell, and total wars like the Syrian Civil War inevitably lead to appalling abuses. This, incidentally, is why I have no patience for those who cheer on idealistic regime change wars halfway across the world as a way to make ourselves feel better.
Last edited by Heisenberg on 16 May 2021 16:46, edited 1 time in total.
#15172821
Gardener wrote:Horse. Cart.
And I didn't say PUT them there, I said LAUNCH them from there. (heavily populated civilian areas).

I tried to quote a previous couple of members who commented about the Israeli police effectively starting the whole ball rolling by their heavy-handed policing of the Al Aqsua mosque. Apparantly peaceful worshipers where attacked and cleared from the mosque. But I havn't got the hang of multiple quotes yet :(

Where these, perchance, the same "peaceful" worshipers who had brought wheelbarrows full of rocks into Al Aqsua in advance, and hundreds of molotov cocktails ? Gosh.. you'd almost have thought they where anticipating trouble, if not actually planning for it.






The concept of "peaceful mosques" is a tough sell. When I hear talk of "peaceful mosques" I cannot help but recall a sweet ditty by the Turk Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

"The Mosques are our barracks,
"The minarets our bayonets,
"The domes our helmets,
"The faithfuls our soldiers
#15172824
Heisenberg wrote:If I wanted to avoid civilian casualties, I would simply not lob high explosive missiles into densely populated civilian areas :)


So you are saying the glorious SAA doesn't want to avoid civilian casualties? Again, I'm waiting for a response here.

Heisenberg wrote:What in the world are you talking about?


What is it that you didn't understand?

Heisenberg wrote:More babble, tinged with the cynical appropriation of anticolonialism that is now very fashionable among Zionists./


Babble responding to babble. I find it hilarious to be a communist and whine about appropriation of anything while being one, too, do I have to pay you copyrights now? :lol:

Also, in reality communists had no qualms in practicing colonialism of their own, unless you believe Soviet foreign policy wasn't its own kind of colonialism and imperialism.

Heisenberg wrote:This policy requires forcing two million people, almost half of whom are under 14, into a ghetto, does it?

I'd much rather you openly say what you are clearly itching to say. You aren't fooling anyone.


If Gazans want to leave the strip, why don't they ask Egypt to allow them to? Why is Egypt keeping the border with Gaza closed? Why is Israel supposed to open its borders with a territory ruled by a sworn enemy? Does Assad keep Syria's border with Israel open? Am I supposed to believe Hamas has no responsibility in the plight of its own subjects?

Fact is, Israel is under no obligation to allow Hamas to arm and is also under no obligation to keep its borders open if each and every other actor in this conflict does not. If Gaza is what it is, it stands to reason that the first ones that should be held accountable are those who govern it.

Heisenberg wrote:You seem to have an uncanny ability to read my mind!

For the avoidance of doubt, my "support" for Assad begins and ends at not supporting yet another western-backed regime change war in the middle east, and for the Syrian army's efforts to prevent al Nusra and ISIS taking over the country - which, incidentally, is a much more clear and present danger than the idea that the people of Gaza will perpetrate a second holocaust against Israel.


A clear and present danger Israel doesn't have because it does not allow it to fester. Assad tried to do the same, but was unsuccessful. Had he succeeded, had he managed to quell the rebellion early on, we'd not be talking about yet another neverending war in the region.

I also find it great to see you admit that your only reason for supporting Assad is that you don't want Western interests to prevail. Why? Because that means that, should Israel change its allegiance some day, it would force you to become pro-Israel since it would be at odds with the West. Am I correct here?

Heisenberg wrote:Watch out, the Handforth Parish Council is on the scene. Read the standing orders! Read them and understand them!


:lol:

Heisenberg wrote:For someone who really, really hates Syria, you sure do like to use them a lot as your moral benchmark. :lol:


I don't "hate" Syria. As you correctly said, the Syrians are indeed fighting an existential war. That is one big reason for its brutality. As I mentioned in my post above, and this is something you can learn from our (sadly gone) Syrian posters, Alawites were treated like shit by the Sunni establishment before Hafez al-Assad rose to power in Syria. For them, losing the war is (at best) going back to being treated like that. For Sunnis, the conflict is also existential since losing means widespread persecution and repression, and second class status (at best) for those who are identified as belonging to clans who rose against the Assads.

But guess what: For Israelis and Palestinians the conflict is also existential, and both see it that way. Both believe the other is after them, and both have good reasons to believe so. Yes, Palestinians also have good reasons not to want to live under Israel's sovereignty, particularly since Israel doesn't want to take them as citizens. For Palestinians, too, it would seem to me that the different broad factions see their own internal conflicts in a similar vein, as they know the winner would completely obliterate the loser.

So pray tell, why would you treat both governments so differently in how they deal with Islamists except for the fact that you mentioned above that you're opposing the West in each? If you're going to play that game, go ahead but don't pretend to have any moral high ground here. Just state it outright: You have your own political goals and that's what matters the most, not the humanitarian costs which are secondary. I actually think that's also how most other actors not directly involved see both conflicts too. I highly doubt the civilian casualties in Syria, Israel or Palestine are the main priority for the US, the UK, the EU, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. There's more at stake here than that.

Heisenberg wrote:No, I would like you to address the topic for once, rather than droning on about me.

I get that you don't like me. I also think you're a complete piece of shit, but at least I also actually address your substantive arguments, such as they are. All you've done is shift the topic of discussion to my alleged moral failings.


I think I've been doing that by showing that these "substantive points" are applied selectively (so they're not generally important) and by mentioning that it's probably the least harmful way to deal with the tactics used by Islamists who mingle among civilian populations. You haven't really provided Israel any alternative to that at all but saying "well don't bomb them regardless, just allow your own civilian population to be bombarded by rockets indefinitely". Although this quite obviously doesn't apply to Assad, for some reason.

Heisenberg wrote:There we go, we're finally getting somewhere! I know it must have been very hard for you to type that, since you felt it was necessary to preface it with several hundred words about how evil I am beforehand, but I sincerely appreciate you actually answering a direct question. Even if it was heavily caveated and through gritted teeth. :lol:


I've already referred to this issue in the past, actually, as these arguments always surface in this discussion. And the answer is always the same, and actually is a general answer about civilians and one that has backing by international law (for whatever that is worth). What's your point here?

Heisenberg wrote:No, they do not. But this does not give Israel carte blanche to cause orders of magnitude more casualties on response, and then disavow any responsibility for its actions.


I thought you said this wasn't a numbers competition?

As for the responsibilities: I agree it has to face responsibilities, although they are diluted in this case given Hamas uses the tactics it uses and that all alternatives would actually lead to worse civilian casualties. I quite frankly believe Israel has far more responsibility for what happens in the West Bank, and yes that includes very bad things that happen with Israel's complicity (at the very least) such as the whole settlement of the region and particularly how radical settlers treat Palestinians, than for what happens in Gaza, which it effectively does not rule and hasn't done so for quite some time now.

As for the length of my response, it's long because there happens to be plenty of nuance here.

Heisenberg wrote:Of course the Syrian army's bombing of civilian areas, and killing of children, is bad, just as the al Nusra front and ISIS's war crimes in Syria are bad. War is hell, and total wars like the Syrian Civil War inevitably lead to appalling abuses. This, incidentally, is why I have no patience for those who cheer on idealistic regime change wars halfway across the world as a way to make ourselves feel better.


Correct, no disagreement with you here. I'll also reiterate that for al Nusra and ISIL the conflict is also existential in character, since we can both agree that if they are caught by the Syrians they'll experience slow, brutal deaths in a dungeon somewhere, just as Assad losing means scores of Alawites would face a similar fate and those who don't would go back into being second class citizens at best. It's why the conflict is that brutal to begin with.

And guess what, Israelis and Palestinians see each other in a similar way, Israelis may not inflict Palestinian prisoners such deaths but it will keep them locked up for as long as possible, which is not something they want either. And if Palestinian Islamists prevailed militarily, Israeli Jews believe - with good reason - they would likely be forced out (assuming they'd not be massacred), while if Palestinian secular groups prevailed they believe - also with good reason - they'd be either forced out or turned into internal pariahs. Israeli Arabs who didn't join the fray against the Israeli Government would at best become pariahs for being cowards. Of course if you believe that's your cost of losing, you will not allow your opponent to ever be in a position to win no matter what onlookers say and this applies to Israel, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, the Islamists of all kinds and all other actors involved.

Even actors like NATO, China and Russia won't ever allow Islamists to ever reach a position to existentially threaten them such as procuring themselves with a nuclear weapon - if the main possible venue for that imploded (Pakistan) there would be an immediate military intervention to destroy or retrieve the weapons and deny Islamists access to them. And if that means bombings and killing thousands or even tens of thousands of innocent civilians they will (separately or under a temporary alliance to fulfill a mutual interest), I don't doubt that for a second.

Surely we can agree about this?
#15172844
wat0n wrote:the glorious SAA

Please stop this nonsense. I have never used this sort of language in a serious discussion.

wat0n wrote:If Gazans want to leave the strip, why don't they ask Egypt to allow them to? Why is Egypt keeping the border with Gaza closed?

Are you really this dense? Because Egypt is allied to the US and cooperates with Israel.

In the words of former Israeli defence minister Binyamin Ben-Elezier, "Egypt is not only our closest friend in the region, the co-operation between us goes beyond the strategic."

wat0n wrote:I also find it great to see you admit that your only reason for supporting Assad is that you don't want Western interests to prevail. Why?

I love the use of the word "admit" as though you've forced me to concede some dark secret. :lol:

The reason I don't support western-led regime change wars in the Middle East is because of the untold human misery caused by them, and a desire for Middle Eastern countries to have self determination. It really isn't that complicated. Did you somehow manage to completely miss the Iraq and Libya wars? :lol:

wat0n wrote:Because that means that, should Israel change its allegiance some day, it would force you to become pro-Israel since it would be at odds with the West. Am I correct here?

No, you are not correct.

wat0n wrote:I don't "hate" Syria. As you correctly said, the Syrians are indeed fighting an existential war. That is one big reason for its brutality. As I mentioned in my post above, and this is something you can learn from our (sadly gone) Syrian posters, Alawites were treated like shit by the Sunni establishment before Hafez al-Assad rose to power in Syria. For them, losing the war is (at best) going back to being treated like that. For Sunnis, the conflict is also existential since losing means widespread persecution and repression, and second class status (at best) for those who are identified as belonging to clans who rose against the Assads.

Portraying the Syrian civil war as purely an ethno-religious conflict is incorrect. Most of the Syrian army is Sunni.

wat0n wrote:But guess what: For Israelis and Palestinians the conflict is also existential, and both see it that way. Both believe the other is after them, and both have good reasons to believe so.

Let's just say one side has a better case here than the other.

wat0n wrote:So pray tell, why would you treat both governments so differently in how they deal with Islamists except for the fact that you mentioned above that you're opposing the West in each?

Because Israel is in a position of considerably greater strength and is not embroiled in a total war. I really don't get what is so difficult for you to understand here.

wat0n wrote:You haven't really provided Israel any alternative to that at all but saying "well don't bomb them regardless, just allow your own civilian population to be bombarded by rockets indefinitely".

Israel is in a position of overwhelming military and political strength. If, as it repeatedly claims, it wants a peaceful solution, it is perfectly placed to take steps towards one.

Of course, it isn't interested in a peaceful solution, which is why it has ramped up settlements over the past decade, and why it has been engaging in the more recent needless crackdown on worshippers at Al Aqsa.

Hamas rocket attacks don't happen in a vacuum, and it's incredibly dishonest for you to continue to pretend otherwise.

wat0n wrote:I quite frankly believe Israel has far more responsibility for what happens in the West Bank, and yes that includes very bad things that happen with Israel's complicity (at the very least) such as the whole settlement of the region and particularly how radical settlers treat Palestinians, than for what happens in Gaza, which it effectively does not rule and hasn't done so for quite some time now.

Israel controls literally all of Gaza's access to the outside world as a result of its blockade. Of course it "effectively rules" Gaza.
#15172849
Heisenberg wrote:Are you really this dense? Because Egypt is allied to the US and cooperates with Israel.

In the words of former Israeli defence minister Binyamin Ben-Elezier, "Egypt is not only our closest friend in the region, the co-operation between us goes beyond the strategic."


Why is Egypt allied to the US and Israel? Could it be, I don't know, because Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore a threat to Egypt as well?

Heisenberg wrote:I love the use of the word "admit" as though you've forced me to concede some dark secret. :lol:

The reason I don't support western-led regime change wars in the Middle East is because of the untold human misery caused by them, and a desire for Middle Eastern countries to have self determination. It really isn't that complicated. Did you somehow manage to completely miss the Iraq and Libya wars? :lol:


Yeah, instead, one should support Russian efforts to do exactly the same as attested by the untold suffering brought by its Afghan war and now the untold suffering of those who have to bare the brunt of the SAA's attempt to restore control over Syria.

Heisenberg wrote:No, you are not correct.


I don't buy it.

Heisenberg wrote:Portraying the Syrian civil war as purely an ethno-religious conflict is incorrect. Over 70% of the Syrian army is Sunni.


And yet the ethno-religious aspect of it is fairly evident to see.

Heisenberg wrote:Let's just say one side has a better case here than the other.


Yeah because you said so.

Heisenberg wrote:Because Israel is in a position of considerably greater strength and is not embroiled in a total war. I really don't get what is so difficult for you to understand here.


The only reason for that is that it has been successful when it had to fight a total war and has aimed to keep those gains.

Heisenberg wrote:Israel is in a position of overwhelming military and political strength. If, as it repeatedly claims, it wants a peaceful solution, it is perfectly placed to take steps towards one.


It's done so before, although Hamas refuses to even talk to it, publicly.

Heisenberg wrote:Of course, it isn't interested in a peaceful solution, which is why it has ramped up settlements over the past decade, and why it has been engaging in the more recent needless crackdown on worshippers at Al Qasa.

Hamas rocket attacks don't happen in a vacuum, and it's incredibly dishonest for you to continue to pretend otherwise.


If so, neither is Hamas yet according to you they once again have no responsibility for their affairs. But in reality, the reason for why things have remained the same is that not only when talks have been carried out there has been no agreement, but also it's pointless to talk to a cripple like Fatah since it cannot deliver peace after signing a treaty.

You talk like Hamas has no responsibility here, and it's incredibly dishonest for you to continue to pretend otherwise.

Heisenberg wrote:Israel controls literally all of Gaza's access to the outside world as a result of its blockade. Of course it "effectively rules" Gaza.


No, it does not. When Egypt opened the border several years ago during Morsi's government, Israel was unable to do anything about it. That's what "control" means. And no, it doesn't "effectively rule Gaza" or else it would have little trouble to actually retake it and destroy all tunnels and other military infrastructure. Israel doesn't have the ability to put boots on the ground with little resistance from those ruling Gaza and at little cost, which is the key element that defines "effectively rule".
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

So in your view, the US shouldn't take preventi[…]

Key Rasmussen Polls

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention], Trump g[…]

Testosterone is one thing. What of muscle mass? Wh[…]

Dow futures sink over 300 points as Fed's Bullard […]