I really don’t understand how unanimous and encouraged this support for Israel is. And then we like to think of ourselves as the good guys, and wonder why others hate us.
It’s such an obvious wrong thing, and yet it is supported by most. It’s completely absurd.
Well, one side has tried to make peace for decades. The other side is controlled by a group recognized by many countries (including many in the Arab league) as a terrorist organization. The terrorist organization that rejects any attempt at peace agreements. That literally just committed the third biggest terrorist attacks in history.
This is the real world. There are no clear cut good and bad guys. Every person and country does good and bad things. Some do more bad than good, however. It is a crime to be gay in Gaza. They want to make Palestine into an Islamic state. So women likely aren’t looking at equal rights.
Just look at their original charter. It’s all there. So how is it so clear cut?
Cool, the other side is terrorists. Why is the IDF sniping civilians, shutting off water, and evicting people from their homes?
Do we fight terrorism with terrorism now?
You know it’s okay to look at a situation like this and just say that everything is shit, right? You don’t need to pick a team, one side might not be the good guys. Life is not an action movie, sometimes both sides are shit, and it’s okay to denounce everyone involved and just feel bad for the people who were just trying to live their lives
There are no clear cut good and bad guys. Every person and country does good and bad things. Some do more bad than good, however.
In WWII, the British and US performed saturation bombing on Germany. The US nuked Japan. Twice. Are we going to argue the genocidal intent of the Allies?
I absolutely feel bad for everyone suffering in war right now. But for 18 fucking years, the people of Gaza have had opportunity for something different. Instead, for 18 years, a group has remained in power and rather popular that has encouraged the killing of the Jews. Not Israelis. The Jews. And gays. And stated that women should be homemakers. And that peace was not an option. 18 years ago Israel extended an olive branch. I think it clearly was not accepted.
So no. I won’t denounce everyone involved. Because one side is more culpable than the other.
To be honest, if I were in control of the government in Israel, I’m not sure what I would do, entirely. I would order retaliation. I would plan for permanent changes. And in WWII, would I have dropped the second nuke? The first? The saturation bombings?
If Israel succeeds and wipes out Hamas, but peace negotiations start up again after (and especially if they succeed), then how do your value judgements change? How different do you think things might be if instead of the nukes, a ground invasion was used in Japan? I mean some of the saturation bombing in Japan killed more than the nukes. Japan was likely to surrender eventually regardless at that point in the war. But how many people would have died if a different path was chosen? Truman chose the path that he felt was going to be the most likely to end the war quickly. Israel left Gaza 18 years ago. Things have not worked out using half methods. It appears that the Israeli government has decided that wiping out Hamas and altering the situation entirely might yield different results. And what if it does? Will your value judgements change in hindsight? The world isn’t simple and people die. No one asked for it.
General Sherman also did horrible things to convince the confederates to surrender. A lot of people died because of his policies. But suppose he didn’t do those things. How many more died when the confederates waited longer to surrender. Or worse, suppose they won. How many more lives are lost? How much longer would slavery have lasted?
I think you and I both want peace. But I’m not naive enough to go “everyone fighting is just bad. Stop it guys.”
You’re going all the way back to World War 2 and the civil war? Really?
We’ve had a few advancements since those days, if you haven’t seen. Things like robust intelligence networks, spy satellites, and highly trained special forces who’s job is largely training for highly delicate scenarios like mass hostage situations. All of these strategies came out of world war 2, they were kind of in their infancy back them.
Regardless, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. The strategy that worked 70 years ago isn’t necessarily the strategy that will work today. Did no one learn from the 20 years that the US and allied forces spent in the Middle East? Bombing the shit out of civilians to fight terrorists just makes more terrorists.
Intelligence networks are not all knowing. How long did it take to find Osama? Special forces are not super soldiers. They are not trained in order to drop them into a densely populated area where they will be instantly seen and attacked. They really on the enemy not knowing that they will even be there. Spy satellites cannot actually zoom in and see your face.
This is actually a modern military strategy too. It is defined as rapid dominance. It isn’t a new strategy. It has been used in the past.
And rescuing hostages with special forces in a non hostile zone is an incredibly difficult situation. Sending special forces into Gaza would just get them killed before they found the hostages. Look at when the Chechen terrorists took over the Moscow theater.
Israel can, honestly, do very little for those hostages. That’s the problem with hostage situations. They are now trying to make it so no hostages are taken in the future. This is where the general rule of not negotiating with terrorists comes from.
When the Oslo accords were signed in 1993 there were 5000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Now there are 500,000 settlers. Israel doesn’t want peace. It wants to keep Palestinians in reservations and fool idiots like you that they are the good guys.
Personally I’m on the side of ordinary civillians, 50% of whom are age 18 and under in Gaza.
I want them to have all their human rights, whether that’s about being LGBTQ+, about free access to drinking water and medical aid, or simply about not being murdered by an army.
But when people say absurd shit like just getting along is a solution or that Israel is evil, that Israel should just fuck off, that Israel is a genocidal state, that Israel is just doing this because they are cruel, no different than the nazis, I take issue with that. Or that it is israel’s fault that this happened. I take issue with that too.
The situation is fucked. And every war also, unfortunately, involves civilians. But there are currently two groups fighting. One rejects peace, as a basis for their platform. The other is attempting to remove that group from power, which could possibly be better for civilians in both Israel and Gaza. Bad things are happening but both sides are not equal.
I really don’t understand how unanimous and encouraged this support for Israel is. And then we like to think of ourselves as the good guys, and wonder why others hate us.
It’s such an obvious wrong thing, and yet it is supported by most. It’s completely absurd.
Well, one side has tried to make peace for decades. The other side is controlled by a group recognized by many countries (including many in the Arab league) as a terrorist organization. The terrorist organization that rejects any attempt at peace agreements. That literally just committed the third biggest terrorist attacks in history.
This is the real world. There are no clear cut good and bad guys. Every person and country does good and bad things. Some do more bad than good, however. It is a crime to be gay in Gaza. They want to make Palestine into an Islamic state. So women likely aren’t looking at equal rights.
Just look at their original charter. It’s all there. So how is it so clear cut?
Cool, the other side is terrorists. Why is the IDF sniping civilians, shutting off water, and evicting people from their homes?
Do we fight terrorism with terrorism now?
You know it’s okay to look at a situation like this and just say that everything is shit, right? You don’t need to pick a team, one side might not be the good guys. Life is not an action movie, sometimes both sides are shit, and it’s okay to denounce everyone involved and just feel bad for the people who were just trying to live their lives
I said
In WWII, the British and US performed saturation bombing on Germany. The US nuked Japan. Twice. Are we going to argue the genocidal intent of the Allies?
I absolutely feel bad for everyone suffering in war right now. But for 18 fucking years, the people of Gaza have had opportunity for something different. Instead, for 18 years, a group has remained in power and rather popular that has encouraged the killing of the Jews. Not Israelis. The Jews. And gays. And stated that women should be homemakers. And that peace was not an option. 18 years ago Israel extended an olive branch. I think it clearly was not accepted.
So no. I won’t denounce everyone involved. Because one side is more culpable than the other.
To be honest, if I were in control of the government in Israel, I’m not sure what I would do, entirely. I would order retaliation. I would plan for permanent changes. And in WWII, would I have dropped the second nuke? The first? The saturation bombings?
If Israel succeeds and wipes out Hamas, but peace negotiations start up again after (and especially if they succeed), then how do your value judgements change? How different do you think things might be if instead of the nukes, a ground invasion was used in Japan? I mean some of the saturation bombing in Japan killed more than the nukes. Japan was likely to surrender eventually regardless at that point in the war. But how many people would have died if a different path was chosen? Truman chose the path that he felt was going to be the most likely to end the war quickly. Israel left Gaza 18 years ago. Things have not worked out using half methods. It appears that the Israeli government has decided that wiping out Hamas and altering the situation entirely might yield different results. And what if it does? Will your value judgements change in hindsight? The world isn’t simple and people die. No one asked for it.
General Sherman also did horrible things to convince the confederates to surrender. A lot of people died because of his policies. But suppose he didn’t do those things. How many more died when the confederates waited longer to surrender. Or worse, suppose they won. How many more lives are lost? How much longer would slavery have lasted?
I think you and I both want peace. But I’m not naive enough to go “everyone fighting is just bad. Stop it guys.”
You’re going all the way back to World War 2 and the civil war? Really?
We’ve had a few advancements since those days, if you haven’t seen. Things like robust intelligence networks, spy satellites, and highly trained special forces who’s job is largely training for highly delicate scenarios like mass hostage situations. All of these strategies came out of world war 2, they were kind of in their infancy back them.
Regardless, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. The strategy that worked 70 years ago isn’t necessarily the strategy that will work today. Did no one learn from the 20 years that the US and allied forces spent in the Middle East? Bombing the shit out of civilians to fight terrorists just makes more terrorists.
Intelligence networks are not all knowing. How long did it take to find Osama? Special forces are not super soldiers. They are not trained in order to drop them into a densely populated area where they will be instantly seen and attacked. They really on the enemy not knowing that they will even be there. Spy satellites cannot actually zoom in and see your face.
This is actually a modern military strategy too. It is defined as rapid dominance. It isn’t a new strategy. It has been used in the past.
And rescuing hostages with special forces in a non hostile zone is an incredibly difficult situation. Sending special forces into Gaza would just get them killed before they found the hostages. Look at when the Chechen terrorists took over the Moscow theater.
Israel can, honestly, do very little for those hostages. That’s the problem with hostage situations. They are now trying to make it so no hostages are taken in the future. This is where the general rule of not negotiating with terrorists comes from.
deleted by creator
When the Oslo accords were signed in 1993 there were 5000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Now there are 500,000 settlers. Israel doesn’t want peace. It wants to keep Palestinians in reservations and fool idiots like you that they are the good guys.
If you start with a lie, everything you try to argue from there is bullshit even if some of it is true.
@probablyaCat there are more than two “sides”.
Personally I’m on the side of ordinary civillians, 50% of whom are age 18 and under in Gaza.
I want them to have all their human rights, whether that’s about being LGBTQ+, about free access to drinking water and medical aid, or simply about not being murdered by an army.
Yeah me too. I want people to just get along.
But when people say absurd shit like just getting along is a solution or that Israel is evil, that Israel should just fuck off, that Israel is a genocidal state, that Israel is just doing this because they are cruel, no different than the nazis, I take issue with that. Or that it is israel’s fault that this happened. I take issue with that too.
The situation is fucked. And every war also, unfortunately, involves civilians. But there are currently two groups fighting. One rejects peace, as a basis for their platform. The other is attempting to remove that group from power, which could possibly be better for civilians in both Israel and Gaza. Bad things are happening but both sides are not equal.
Israel sabotaged every single attempt at a peace deal. You’re a fucking liar.
deleted by creator
Awesome contribution. Show me where I lied.
deleted by creator