Palestine

[Ram-Alf]

20 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

the decision-makers and war-mongers are just that. They've planned to go to war with every nation not in the world banking system since the early 70s and have invaded each one systematically since. They've planned to undermine all the oil-rich countries they can, and have done so. They've got army bases everywhere, with no justification.

The owner of Bethlehem Steel in Pennsylvania once the USA declared war on Japan, He got all the other steel makers together and said..."Gentlemen we're going to be very rich"

The USA is built on the arms industry. 

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's the fact they felt the need to drop a second bomb that I can never fathom.

Because the Japanese refused after the 1st bomb hit Hiroshima to surrender, Once Nagasaki was hit...surrender terms were signed at Tokyo Bay 

[sage]

26 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's the fact they felt the need to drop a second bomb that I can never fathom.

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.

 

 

[Alph]

54 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

the decision-makers and war-mongers are just that. They've planned to go to war with every nation not in the world banking system since the early 70s and have invaded each one systematically since. They've planned to undermine all the oil-rich countries they can, and have done so. They've got army bases everywhere, with no justification.

Hey, they protect democracy and freedom. They fight tyranny and injustice. 

Manifest Destiny is waaaay back then and besides native Americans didn't know what was for the best then. If they were left in charge you'd probably have inequality and chaos across states now. 

They even stopped supporting Apartheid in South Africa when it became no benefit to them. Freedom restored. 

Now of course they condemn Putin for his war crimes. Look! They say. Look what the UN say. Look what Amnesty international discovered. Sanctions! Sanctions! Sanctions! 

They obviously want world peace. How can you suggest they're war mongers! I should napalm strike you for such insults. 

Joe's over there right now to condemn the occupied territories. He might even visit the US embassy in Israel's capital, Jerusalem. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Alpha

[Ram-Alf]

18 minutes ago, sage said:

 

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

 

 

3000 in Caan alone as the Germans were entrenched there.

[Ram-Alf]

14 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Hey, they protect democracy and freedom. They fight tyranny and injustice. 

Manifest Destiny is waaaay back then and besides native Americans didn't know what was for the best then. If they were left in charge you'd probably have inequality and chaos across states now. 

 

They did on the "Trail of Tears" 😪

The Japanese/Germans had broken the some of the American code network, And guess who came to the rescue...native Apache Indians, They used their written language for the code network...bingo 

[PistoldPete]

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? 

[Highgate]

4 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's the fact they felt the need to drop a second bomb that I can never fathom.

Hiroshima on the 6th...the Soviets declare war on Japan on the 8th, and the very next day they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki..  You think they may have given them a little time to ponder the situation at least.  Given that many Japanese were fighting for their Emperor, did anyone bother explaining that Hirohito could stay as emperor after an unconditional surrender?   Apparently not.  Anyway...off topic now. 

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

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? 

Defeating armies with your army is possible...as history has proven.  Defeating a terrorist organization by bombing civilian areas....has that ever worked?  I think it's a recipe for making the situation even worse in the years and decades to come .... and that's not even taking into account the tragic loss of life during the operation itself. 

It seems likely that the Israeli response so far is exactly as Hamas hoped it would be. 

[DerbysLane]

On 17/10/2023 at 17:01, PistoldPete said:

You can call it reckless , even potentially a war crime if you prefer, but they do not on purpose kill civilians . 

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.

Edited October 18, 2023 by DerbysLane

[PistoldPete]

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. 

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

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. 

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

[Day]

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.

[GboroRam]

I hope we can still laugh at the stupid stuff. 

[Alph]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

I hope we can still laugh at the stupid stuff. 

In Gaza every year they have a fund raiser for Doncaster. 

[PistoldPete]

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. 

[Mostyn6]

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.

[ramit]

What is going on in Gaza is wholesale slaughter of civilians.  No western nation calls for a cease fire, for they are not independent nations, they are lapdogs of the American empire.  I cannot understand how any decent human being can justify this carnage, we are ruled by ethical cowards and sycophants of psychopaths.  The west should not dare anytime soon to speak of human rights.

[PistoldPete]

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. 

[PistoldPete]

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.