PistoldPete

1 minute ago, David said:

There is no justification for the way Russia has responded to the expansion of NATO, none whatsoever, I think that was the point.

Whilst you're correct NATO have never attacked Russia, Russia will claim it's necessary for their own defence, what should they have done, nothing? Sat back and watched their "enemies" surround them and setup military bases on their doorsteps?

Would that not be a sign of weakness?

Same argument being used for Israel bombing Gaza now, what were they to do, nothing?

Both Russia and Israel's actions with zero care for the loss of lives to innocent civilians, is just, words fail me at this point. 

There is absolutely zero valid comparison between actions of Israel and Russia. 

10 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Why are parts of the media so obsessed with what other parts label Hamas. 

Hamas are (maybe it's changed, I've not checked) only designated a terrorist organisation by a Western Alliance of UK, USA and maybe Australia and a couple more? I should have checked)

The media should perhaps ask why Hamas aren't labeled terrorists by governments rather than the BBC. Why are they not? Unless you like car bombs and beheadings then there must be a massive reason for it? 

Why are they so concerned fighting about s*** that really doesn't matter. Because Hamas will continue to exist. They're the most able to flee. Ok so their bases will be destroyed and they'll lose weaponry. But won't be eliminated. 

It stinks of trying to control the narrative. We need to think of Hamas as terrorist otherwise we may begin to think of them on a level playing field. 

(They're Iranian funded terrorists by the way. But it's actually not that important what they're called. Hamas, Hezbollah etc exist. What's important is why they exist and how to eliminate them. Force isn't always the answer. Ask Afghanistan.) 

Well Egypt recognises Hamas as terrorists for a start. And the European Union so more than a couple of Western countries I think. 

21 minutes ago, Alpha said:

What's your opinion on Russia's invasion of Ukraine? 

Please consider Putin's reasons for the invasion. To secure Russia's future against NATO expansion (they can not afford to lose Ukraine to the West. It would leave them massively vulnerable)

And to eliminate neo nazi groups such as the Azov Brigade (and you can search their horrific crimes online) and other extremist groups/terrorists and branches of Ukrainian military from East Ukraine. 

My personal stance in that thread was that Putin's concerns are not fairytales made up in the Kremlin as the western media successfully narrated. However the reaction, the invasion, the huge loss of civilian life, the extreme damage to infrastructure was a horrific war crime 

We're talking state terrorism. We're talking total disregard for civilian life. 

I just want to be clear about what level of threat justified a disproportionate response. 

When has NATO ever attacked Russia? When has it ever committed atrocities such as those by Hamas? I don’t think any suggestion that Russia is acting in self defence has any credibility. 
 

14 minutes ago, David said:

Yeah I don't agree with doing nothing, just think that @Alpha nailed it earlier, all the current tactics will do is push more towards the extremists views.

Imagine a father, a son, having seen his whole family wiped out. The response will unlikely be a shrug of the shoulders, well that's the cost of war, we were unlucky right.

They will want revenge against Israel as a country, eye for an eye.

Remove Hamas, protect all civilians. That has to be the play here.

In reality there is no conflict in history that has involved no civilian  casualties. Even the Falklands which is mostly populated by penguins had civilian casualties. 
 

but yes the risk of escalation is a real one for sure. 

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's Zaha. Saha is the former Fulham, Man Utd, Everton and France forward.

Haha. 

1 hour ago, David said:

Harms way? Sitting ducks? Is that not what the civilians are with rockets raining down?

Soldiers are trained for combat, that is literally their job. 

As I say, the response doesn't have to be immediate, satellite images, drones, people on the ground gathering intelligence, minimising casualties should always be the answer. 

I agree with everything you say David. It is also the job of every Government to protect the lives of their own citizens. Someone on this forum has said Israel should do nothing in response . In reality there is no democratic Government anywhere in the world that would ever get reelected if they literally did nothing in response to such atrocities. 

1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

almost every mainstream media outlet is "peddling" out a narrative of Israel as innocent victims and not differentiating Hamas from Palestinian people. Almost every story being told is about support for Israel. So I don't align with your statement.

My point is that Israel is supposedly "at war", why is it worrying about something so trivial in the grand scheme of things. Any "hostile" states are hostile cos of previous conflict, not cos of BBC! (or other media)

That isn’t true. Egypt had made peace with Israel. But the lies being told now throughout all media risk inflaming the situation . 

6 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

This to me kind of typifies things and why I have a mistrust for Israel. In the midst of what it's calling a severe attack etc and when they're supposedly being subjected to the worst acts known to man, their President is more concerned about a legal battle to ensure the optics are right.

I ask onlookers, is this the kind of priority a country under attack should have? Or is it the a country more concerned with using Smoke and Mirrors to hide it's true objective? 

 

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Isaac Herzog asked what else the BBC needed “in order for them to admit that we are dealing with the worst terrorist organisation in the world?”.

Mr Herzog told the paper: “I feel the BBC’s reporting is atrocious.

“The fact that it does not recognise Hamas as a terror organisation requires a complete legal battle and public battle. It’s unbelievable.

Maybe because the false narrative being peddled in the media incites the hostile states against them. I agree though the BBC is the least of the culprits. Social media ahem is far worse. 

9 hours ago, David said:

Is the answer here not to use all the technology available and intelligence available to target and take down the terrorists individually instead of dropping bombs and hoping for the best?

The UK has no moral high ground to take here either, I would like it to be known however I did not approve of a single bomb, be it Iraq or Afghanistan.

Retaliation should be precision based, if that takes 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years to avoid even a single civilian death take that time. Let the world know you will take action against those responsible, then identify them.

Look at Ukraine, getting flattened, who's actually suffering there? Those that were flirting with the idea of joining NATO, or the innocent families just trying to crack on with their lives?

Bombs should never be the answer unless you can absolutely guarantee they are legitimate military/terrorist targets with a 0% risk of any civilian deaths.

If Hamas or whoever are setting up bases at hospitals, go in on the ground, shut that down. Just stop dropping bombs ffs.

I say this as someone that has seen zero evidence from either side on the recently bombed the hospital. Deleted tweets are not enough as we live in the world of instant reactions, whichever side it was, utterly shameful and those responsible need to be held accountable for.

Of course we would want that. I think the reason that isn’t done is sending in ground troops to take terrorists out in hostile territory puts soldiers in harms way , sitting ducks. 
 

Any country would want to minimise deaths of its own citizens . 
 

I think the evidence does seem to suggest it was a Hamas stray rocket or rocket fuel. .. nothing conclusive that I have seen so far though. Either way it was an accident , not murder and it certainly doesn’t help when people make such inflated claims. 

10 hours ago, The Last Post said:

This was the 9 year old girl that was killed in her own home, You might be thinking of the Lady that was killed in the pub

You are right Last Post, apologies to the two females involved for the confusion. 

1 hour ago, DerbysLane said:

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.

Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.

They are fundamentally the same act.

It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.

Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.

As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.

The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  

I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

So if Hamas launch a rocket aimed at an Israeli plane and it lands on a hospital , is that a murder of innocent civilians? I would say not. It is self defence. Same with Israeli attacks they are acts of self defence. The poor lady in Liverpool was not killed in any act of self defence. 

16 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

A penalty shootout is never a lottery. Also, I only heard recently that Saha had never taken a penalty in senior football before Southgate put him up to take the decisive one against Italy. Grounds in itself for getting rid of Southgate. With the players at his disposal we should be dominating world football, yet his lack of tactical awareness always sees us lose in tournaments when up against a better coach.

I only wish we had Saha taking the penalty for England . Unfortunately it was Saka and he was only 19 at the time. 

31 minutes ago, sage said:

Because they still wouldn't surrender.

The Allied bombing killed more German civilians. Just spread out over time.

In turn, more French Civilians were killed in the 6 weeks after D Day than in the whole of the Blitz.

 

 

Exactly. And yet the French were still very grateful to be liberated by the Allies. War is complicated, horrible, traumatic. But is doing nothing instead the better option? Turn the other cheek after Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or the Hamas attacks? 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Not entirely sure the rush for instant news is helping.

And I'm definitely sure that MPs, former or otherwise, shouldn't be using language like this.

 

Well that is exactly why he is an ex MP.

8 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Indeed, and following the same logic, the Israeli government could say that they will suffer no more deaths at the hands of Hamas, if they obliterate the Palestinians in their entirety. Which scarily does seem to be their end game here

I think that is exactly how they see it … obliterating Hamas rather than all Palestinians. Even so it seems bound to be a bloody war I am afraid to say. 

12 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Just want to add though that I'm not saying that Israel are owed another 58,000 dead before I sympathise with them!!

308 was too many. The festival attack horrific. 

I'm only referencing to try to show Magicman that Palestinians don't really need to act. They definitely die plenty

I get that. And I think Magicman goes too far too. 
 

as I say I did look at the stats on casualties but could only see a breakdown between Israel military and civilian, nothing similar for Palestinian. the breakdown by gender might give a clue though mostly male. 
 

3 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

And worse than that - Hiroshima. Retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbour (a military target - 2,403 U.S. personnel dead and 68 civilians). Hiroshima killed 70,000–126,000 civilians. Through the prism of this current conflict, it's hard to justify such a brutal response, yet the west look on Hiroshima as somehow "casualties of war". So much so that we did another one on Nagasaki 3 days later and killed a further 60,000–80,000 civilians 

 

Indeed it’s a moral maze. But seeing the things as tit for tat retaliations gets you nowhere in that maze,.

The nuclear bombs brought about the end of the war. Whether the terrible loss of life involved saved more lives in the end we will never know. 

11 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Civilian deaths.

 But where does it say how many civilian deaths? Only for the Israeli side I think is that distinction made. I did look at the stats you provided but couldn’t see the numbers of civilian deaths for Palestinians. If I overlooked that apologies. 

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

Their suffering, fake. Israel suffering, real. I'm catching on, see. 

Your guidance has been a massive help

Well forgive me Alpha if I took that as sarcastic comment. And that you were being sarcastic in implying that Palestines suffering is fake and Israel’s is real. Isn’t that implying Israel’s suffering isn’t real? After the worst anti semitic atrocities since the Second World War? 

This is war. It’s horrible for both sides. Yet somehow some people don’t want to recognise Jews as the victims.  
 

9 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

who said the whole Palestinian population are members of Hamas? That is ridiculous and disingenuous, and for someone calling out "offensive" comments in this thread, highly hypocritical.

Who said indeed. Not me for sure. All I pointed out was that  quoting deaths amongst  Palestinians and claiming they were all civilians is misleading and false. 

2 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I have admitted my bias. It's based on UN civilian numbers, expansion, blockades, oppression, disproportionate retaliations. Several times through the thread I've made it clear I'm pro Palestine. 

Only, I didn't suggest Israel's suffering is fake. That's just what you want to read. That's why we spent so long talking about anti-Semitism. 

I merely mocked the idea that the videos I posted and the horrific footage of Gaza is "actors" according to Magicman.

That's was a good attempt to gaslight. But I'm sorry. I'm not anti Jew. Just anti Israel expansionist. 

When the bombs dropped on Ukraine killing thousands of civilians nobody tried to justify it in the West. Nobody said, as you pretty much said, accidents happen. 

Different story when it's a place like Gaza, besieged, blockaded, without fuel, power, electricity given 24 hours to evacuate before being attacked by the "defenders". Then when the bombs kill civilians it's an accident. Who could predict bombing a terrorist organisation hidden amongst a couple of million people would end in civilian deaths. 

6,000 dead civilian Palestinians dead between 2008 and recent events. We're at 3,000 or something now? Illegal settlements by Israel. 700,000 settlers in occupied Palestine. This is all on the UN website. 

That is a lot of actors and a lot of conspiracy/antisemitism 

 

But even here you show your bias. Who said there are 6,000 civilian deaths? Hamas is a proscribed terrorist group they are not civilians. 

7 hours ago, Magicman said:

As i said earlier it is fake attack claimed to be by Israel. 

Magicman we do not know the truth. Claiming it as fake attack is misleading. It was a stray bomb… from which side we do not know. 

3 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

Of course, there are some on here, such as Ramit, who truly believe that Israel deliberately allowed over a thousand of their citizens to be massacred as a pretext to invade Gaza. Will they I wonder now hold that Hamas deliberately bombed the hospital to gain international support? Both as ludicrous as the other

Indeed. Some of the more ludicrous claims about Israel targeting civilians I have tried to call out on .  I find it equally ludicrous that Palestinians would deliberately bomb their own hospital. 
 

both extremes are crass and offensive. 

1 hour ago, Alpha said:

One day I'll wake up and realise it's all Palestinians fault. 

Their suffering, fake. Israel suffering, real. I'm catching on, see. 

Your guidance has been a massive help

Oh so Israel’s suffering isn’t real? 
 

You see try as you might to temper your bias you really can’t help yourself sometimes.

8 hours ago, MaltRam said:

Both of them. Incessantly.

Hamas let slip the dogs of war, and they only want escalation. They can't wipe out Israel on their own, they need a broader regional conflict. They'll be chuffed.

No point anyone clutching their pearls about it.

If I was Hamas, I'd hide in schools and hospitals and lie about it. If I was Israel, I'd bomb them and lie about it.

If I was Iran, or Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, I'd bomb a hospital to enrage the Arab world against Israel.

Or maybe a mistake happened...but mistakes will always happen in war.

We might never find out for sure, we will all have our opinions, but it's war. People dying is the whole point.

All this Geneva convention business has only ever applied in exceptional and narrow circumstances. Did we care in Dresden?

You can dance on the head of a pin about where moral responsibility lies, but what always happens is that people who just want to live their lives end up in pieces.

A sensible ( rare on this thread ) if rather cynical post. I am not sure what Israel will gain from lying though , if they have bombed the hospital they should fess up to it. 
 

Will we ever find out? You would hope so . The UK has said it wants to get to the bottom of it. 
 

As for Dresden, a good point. Was Churchill ever branded a war criminal?