The war in Ukraine proves that farm equipment can and will be converted to war machines during times of crisis. Irreparable tractors will leave our boys in the heartland unable to adequately defend themselves in a land war! We need national security arguments for more things. Our overseas presence is strong, but our homeland is a mess.
Well there’s that too. 🤣 But I was referring to a tractor’s primary function, which is growing food. Havimg a harvest rot in the field because some dipshit needs the line to go up is a problem.
I’m just trying to sell the idea to the war fetishists who get to make all too many decisions around here x_x Rural conservatives voting for the party their daddy and grandaddy did will vote to turn their tractors into tanks. Forget the temporarily embarrassed millionaires. We need the temporarily embarrassed generals vote.
I know youre joking but I used to work for an ITAR electronics manucacturer that also made a lot of parts for the ag industry. So we literally did make tractor parts that were mostly ITAR complaint. All we would have really needed to do to make those parts completely compliant is switch up some of the suppliers used for those products.
Bro, you’re thinking too small - this affects the security of all mankind on Earth. With falling yields from Ukraine and other conflict growing around the world, I except agricultural output to dip DRASTICALLY in the coming years. This means it will more than likely fall to the Deer dominated production area to take up the slack and feed humanity.
I wish US regulators would see the importance of agriculture and would stop letting multi-billion dollar companies bully the actual producers of our food chain.
The republicans have a thin majority in the House. Even without whatever other justifications that’s a strong incentive not to bleed any more seats. Particularly when Gaetz and the Arson Caucus keeps setting the place on fire.
Sort of. The US government has created the extraordinary privilege of dollar hegemony, which lets them issue money ad nauseum at the expense of the rest of the world. This privilege ends when the rest of the world stops underwriting this debt, as is slowly happening under the broad name of dedollarization.
One of the Egyptian security sources, who asked not to be identified, said Egypt rejected the idea of safe corridors for civilians to protect “the right of Palestinians to hold on to their cause and their land”.
Pretty sure the 50% of the Gaza population who are children would be better off not being bombed to fuck. That’s ethnic cleansing. Moving down the road a bit while Hamas gets wiped out seems a wise move.
We’ve just witnessed what happens when Hamas puts all of their might into their charter of ethnic cleansing. If Israel had such a charter, what would it look like if Israel put all their might into ethnically cleansing Gaza?
Innocent people always suffer in war, maybe provoking an unwinnable one has consequences for others in your nation. Maybe some country shouldn't invade its neighbor, slaughter and kidnap its civilians to avoid such retribution.
Palestine at this point is a sickly rage-drunk inconsolable angry person at the bar, yelling about how their home got repossessed to build the establishment. In a rage they punch the bouncer in the face, and when the predictable beat-down occurs they plead, "Look what they're doing to me! I'm being unfairly repressed! I have kids who will suffer because of this! This is systemic oppression! They made me do it!"
Except in this case the bouncer shows up the next day in the drunk’s neighborhood and starts shooting up all the homes and kills a bunch of his neighbors and the newspapers call him a hero.
Innocent people always suffer in war, maybe provoking an unwinnable one has consequences for others in your nation. Maybe some country shouldn’t invade its neighbor, slaughter and kidnap its civilians to avoid such retribution.
I honestly couldn’t tell if you were talking about Israel or Palestine here lol.
What really grinds my gears, are people who purposefully immigrated to both Gaza, and as Israeli settlers, just to have as many kids as possible to increase the population, then use their own kids as throwaway tokens in a fully expected conflict.
Having double nationality and now asking “their countries” to avacuate them, is just extra insulting.
Palestinian militants have a history of establishing enclaves and starting civil wars within the countries that host them. Arab countries have an apprehension about allowing too many Palestinians in because of this history.
Would it work for a larger country to fly in refugees, since hopefully they’d be much more resistant to civil wars? It’d be hard to sell your citizens on spending that much on non-citizens though.
Right? We could split them up more, basically make the entire population a refugee diaspora split among various Arab countries, but then that means the Jewish people just did to another people what they claim was bad for them. Plus, isn’t forcing migration is basically genocide? We can’t condemn Stalin for doing the same thing a country we support is doing.
Yeah, that’d be pretty terrible. But letting them be killed would be a lot worse. If there aren’t enough supplies able to get in, and countries don’t want to force Israel, it might be the lesser of two evils.
That is a better solution for those who want to flee or have the means or freedom to flee, or are ok with abandoning their communities and historical ties. However this would only help those refugees. For those who remain the situation will remain untenable until militants stop rising to power within Palestinian territories, and Israel negotiates a two state solution that involves giving up some land.
Palestinian Iranian backed militants have a history of establishing enclaves and starting civil wars within the countries that host them. because of this history.
Yes, Iranian regimes have provided material aid to Palestinian militants towards their goals. That aid is still being provided, hence continuing apprehension.
How would they turn on Hamas? What would that even look like? I’ve heard tons of interviews with Palestinians, and almost all were just as shocked at what happened as Israelis. Many, many already do not support Hamas, but what is there to even do about that when you’re just trying to find enough food and water to keep your family alive?
But the thing is Hamas fucked themselves and the people of Palestine with their recent attack. No one on an international level will bat an eye at what Israel does with the Palestine in the near future. Hamas knew that there would have to be a massive response from Israel but the attack was allowed to take place and no one in Palestine cared enough to stop it. Anyone innocent needs to flee for a border because the laws of physics are just going to play out now.
neither side can do good or will do good until a mixture of being forced to by others and being forced to by internal pressure, and the same is true of every country, including the USA, UK, Australia, etc…
“we’ve” all committed war crimes and genocides. “we” are no different.
That’s what peace accords are: a bunch of people who did terrible things agreeing on a moratorium and changing things going forward.
And rightfully so. The US isn’t the world police and doesn’t have the right to block entire countries just because they feel like it. Just imagine China or Russia doing the same to some random European country. The double standards speak volumes. This is not the way.
The US this year has launched airstrikes in Syria, Somalia and possibly Yemen. That is not somehow better, just because they're not a European country. And even if it were better, another country doing really shitty things is not a good argument for why a separate country can do maybe-less-shitty-but-still-shitty things.
Cuba has been under full trade embargo by the US for over 60 years, after the US Bay of Pigs Invasion failure. Russia only has sanctions and embargoes by the US on some products though, despite invading a European country. How does that happen?
It is actually Americans leading that charge. And that doesn’t mean anything regardless, how do the citizens that live on the island feel about the embargo?
Cuban-Americans are americans. They’re not citizens of Cuba. And just because a minority wants an embargo on another country doesn’t mean you should just play world police. That’s not your place to decide who trades with whom. If you don’t wanna do trade with them, then don’t.
Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t see how two wrongs makes a right. This is some massive whataboutism. Both an embargo on Cuba and Russia bombing other countries are horrendous activities.
First and foremost, that was my comment. Secondly, it still doesn’t make it okay. It’s not a real argument. If the US can pull this shit off, why can’t Russia or China. I’m not excusing their actions, but just look at it from the perspective of someone from one of those countries. They see the US invading countries, putting embargos on others, and a bunch of other crap. Why shouldn’t they do the same? The invasion of Iraq was just as justified as the invasion of Ukraine. Same shit based on bullshit arguments. Yet somehow one is more acceptable than the other. I’d rather not have any of them. And I’m from Eastern Europe just for context :)
It’s not a direct blockade, but the US has in the past threatened to cut off financial aid to any country that trades with Cuba, disallows foreign subsidiaries of US companies to trade, and even threatens sanctions upon foreign companies that do any trade in or with the US that also trade in Cuba.
The UN has cited to condemn it every year for many years, with usually only the US and Israel voting against. They say it is a violation of international law and the UN charter.
It is abhorrent and unjustifiable, and has a real cost in human lives and suffering.
Well the americans here seem to think that if they call one thing legal then it must be legal, because after all they’re playing world police. And then they wonder why two thirds of the world despise their government…
The USA, like any country, has the right to decide who they trade with and the right to suggest the terms under which they are willing to engage in trade. Other nations have the right to accept those terms or not.
I do not support the embargo but it is ignorant to suggest it is illegal.
This is a bad faith argument, they are doing much more than that. They force other countries to do the same through economic pressure.
The legality of it is foggy only because the US literally decides if what it does is legal or illegal. It’s condemned internationally and clearly morally shitty, stop bootlicking.
No this is not a bad faith argument. It is in fact exactly why this situation continues. You might not like the reality if the situation but that does not mean I am arguing in bad faith.
Accusing people of being bootlickers because they do not see things as you do is in bad faith because it is an attempt to write off what people say without any logical reason to do so. It us a form of ad hominem.
The bad faith part is how you pick and choose your words carefully to describe strong arming other nations into your own embargo.
I’m calling you a bootlicker because you have decided all on your own to be the spokesperson for people that are clearly in the wrong who have their boot layed across not only your neck but the necks of most of the world, while saying “I don’t support the embargo”. Well if you don’t, why are you defending it and being part of the problem?
That’s not bad faith. I believe that nations should have the right to determine who they trade with and under what circumstances. I totally get Iran not wanting t trade with people who arm their enemies. I’d get Taiwan deciding to restrict the sale of microchips to nations that would purchase them on China’s behalf. It is an entirely logical way to go about functioning as a nation.
What I do not support is the Cuban embargo since the fall if the USSR as Cuba cannot in any way pose a threat to America without significant military assistance that no one can provide.
There are two different things going on in this discussion and I would respectfully ask you to pay attention that fact and avoid incivility as it is unjustified.
The US is forcing other countries not to trade with Cuba, hence taking away their right to determine who they trade with.
You bring up Taiwan, but its a lot more poignant to flip your example and ask if it would be okay for China to stop all trade with any nations that trades with Taiwan.
I don’t need to be civil with someone that’s arguing in bad faith. You are for the embargo since you are actively defending it. Just your use of Taiwan and China, somehow comparing the US to Taiwan and China to Cuba is a play on emotions. Cuba isn’t Goliath.
No the USA is attempting to get others to restrict trade if they want to trade with the USA.
Yes it would be fair for China to do this and they in fact do raise this from time to time.
Again Im not arguing in bad faith you just keep resorting to that claim because you lack the ability to address my claim. Your lack of reasoning skills does not justify acting rudely.
It is illegal lol. An embargo is not “we don’t trade with you”. An embargo is “no one is allowed to trade with you and we’ll turn their economies and their ships into shambles if they do”.
No it isn not illegal and you’ll have difficulty proving that like others have.
We are embargoing Cuba yet most of the EU trades with them so it really sounds like you don’t know what embargoes are.
For example Havana Club rum is sold throughout Europe and Europeans can spend money in Cuba without reprisal. What they can’t do as per our agreements is sell them arms.
Oh no, did the two huge companies hoarding the rights to the vast majority of popular music in the world while underpaying artists and overcharging everyone else lose some potential revenue?!
The DNC and the American people are once again to blame for the rise of fascism in their own country. They knew Biden was too old to run again, they knew he's senile, they didn't try and find another candidate, didn't rally behind one, didn't bother to vote for anybody younger.
Post-debate poll showed that majority of Democrat voters aren’t even voting for Biden. They are voting for “against Trump.” Democrats had four years to find a candidate that people would actually want to vote for, but instead they pulled out the 2020 playbook thinking it would work the same.
What made them "not serious"? Did they have shit opinions? Did they forget their lines? Or was it just that they weren't popular enough?
I bet you it's the latter. Well who makes people popular? We fucking do. We share their shit on social media. We talk about them on forums, with family, friends, and strangers. We buy their merch and plaster it all over the place. But because the US population was told "Biden's your only chance", they rallied behind him.
Not behind some independent with values, with new proposals, with credentials, with opinions of this age, with the ability to stay awake during a debate. No. The citizens of the USA got behind some old fart they were told to.
There’s a history here. Back with Jimmy Carter, he had a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. Carter won, but only by 51% to 37%. He was already having trouble of course, but it was just one more thing that hurt him and got Reagan in power. We all know how that went. So now the general practice is to clear the field for the incumbent if they choose to run for reelection. Biden hasn’t been given any special out.
Trump is of course an odd case since he’s not an incumbent, but his grip on the Republican Party gives him a position near to that of an incumbent. He was always by far and away the frontrunner, and every other Republican candidate was for the chattering class.
In America we give them lungs full of asbestos and veins full of toxic metals. 100 hour weeks leading to stress death is really more of an asian tradition.
Not to start whataboutism but is it not strange that he gets 25 years (I mean punishment deserved to be clear) but the biggest con artist in modern history is still on free foot ? Even though you maybe cannot compare it (I mean selling top secret stuff is not that harmful /s) it’s a bit of double standards
No, you misunderstand. SBF took rich people’s money and gave them nothing in return. Rich people are giving Trump money because they expect to be rewarded in the form of even less taxes, regulations, and more corrupt judicial appointments.
In other words, SBF stole from the oligarchs, but Trump is an investment (that has paid off once already).
Sure but they know there’s a chance he’ll lose before they donate and while people investing in crypto also know there’s a risk that risk is a lot different. It’d be more like if trump took the money and didn’t even run for the presidency.
Exactly. It’s why the rich all love gambling- when you have enough money to afford any experience you want, the only thing that brings you a thrill is the threat of losing that money.
Listen to the episode of Behind the Bastards about Lord Aspinall where Robert Evans goes into more detail about the rich’s addiction to gambling.
But is Trump really a bigger con man than SBF though? Sam was playing around numbers that Trump can only dream of. On the other hand Trump has run (and imploded) way more cons than SBF, so I guess it’s a question of quality over quantity.
The rise in interest rates and the end of easy VC money has swung the dial back to: Companies actually need to generate profit and not just show user growth to be attractive to investors.
They rise in interest rates and the end of easy VC money has swung the dial back to: Companies actually to generate profit and not just show user growth to be attractive to investors.
Yep, but also, I think spez is done. He’s just cashing out and fuck you etc… etc…
He’ll catch enough to successfully eject and thats that for him. Reddit will die. But we’ll have survived, and the open web will continue.
Of course spez is cashing out. That was the whole point of returning as CEO after Ellen Pao was sacrificed to cleanse the site and make it investor friendly. He just wants to cash out more than the $6 million he got the first time.
I’m not convinced Reddit will die. I think it will continue to limp along in its zombie state. But I kind of wish you were right, just because I’m still a bit mad about it.
Depends, I went from BBSes to slashdot to koro5hin to reddit to kbin and do not feel old.
To me old-age begins when you feel you are past the time when you can learn/experience something new and/or new tech no longer feels exciting/interesting but scary.
I have met people in their 80s who have a younger outlook on life than some people in their 40s.
He’ll only get to buy three yachts instead of 5. Seriously, he’s going to have a s’ton of the highest rank shares, all they have to do is hold the lie together long enough to sell.
all they have to do is hold the lie together long enough to sell.
That last phrase is really doing a lot of heavy lifting. When you own a large chuck of stock in a post IPO company, trying to cash out large ownership stakes has the effect of crashing the price.
My expectation is that what ever the IPO price is, one year from then (the usual minimum time to be able to sell a stake like spez will have) it will be lucky to be 5% of the launch price.
Not just that but the golden era of social media is probably over. With the advent of free access to powerful AI, user content is about to become hot garbage. And with 30% of the Internet using adblockers, I wouldn’t touch reddit with a long stick.
However, under the federal government’s current safety rating system, known as the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), almost every vehicle gets a four- or five-star rating. That’s because the system only takes into account the safety of those within cars, not all the people walking, pushing strollers, biking, or taking transit outside them.
How do you suggest they take out Hamas otherwise? Just saying so doesn’t solve the problem that simultaneously forces Palistinians under leadership they did not vote for and ensures future and sustained terror attacks directed against the civilian population of Israel as they’ve experienced the last 17 years.
Inaction is not a viable option anymore. Urban fighting favors the defender so sending in light infantry is suicide. Sending in light infantry supported by indirect fire is less suicide but worse for the civilians because it is slower and ensures the city is destroyed block by block a la Aleppo or Mosul.
I’m getting really tired of these reactionary responses by people who have never had to plan urban combat before. Literally every army on earth would do the same as Israel right now and it is overall legal.
There’s a disconnect between inevitable military reality and many people’s views of the situation which I don’t understand.
Hamas has to be embedded among the civilian population of Gaza or Israel would have already destroyed them with bombs and artillery. The rockets that Hamas has are purely a terror weapon and they would be completely ineffective in an artillery duel.
Israel has to use bombs and artillery anyway because, as you say, attacking light infantry would be torn apart against an entrenched enemy in an urban environment. Urban warfare always involves large numbers of civilians dead no matter who is fighting whom.
Israel must seek to minimize civilian casualties (and Hamas must not) because unless Iran and Hezbollah decide to get involved after all, the only way this war ends without the destruction of Hamas is if international pressure forces Israel to stop fighting. In this context, the narrative that Israel’s policy is to deliberately target civilians isn’t just false but nonsensical - such a policy would be the most direct way for them to lose the war!
In this context, the narrative that Israel’s policy is to deliberately target civilians isn’t just false but nonsensical - such a policy would be the most direct way for them to lose the war!
Yet they're doing it anyway. There are many examples, but the most egregious has to be literally killing civilians using sniper fire in Al-Shifa hospital and using white phosphorus.
You minimize civilian casualties as much as possible while still ensuring that it has a military purpose to the best of your ability. Beyond the use of specific weapons which causes unnecessary suffering with no military purpose, there is no specific limit. We may not like it but this is war. It comes with the territory because there is no other choice.
What Israel is doing is not leveling entire cities. Look at Allepo or Mosul. Israel is far more targeted but they get blamed every time a building collapses because there was an unsafe tunnel under it.
Israel is systemically eliminating underground tunnels, enemy concentrations, and command structures prior to entering the city when they can clear buildings individually and dismantle the command structure.
They are at war so yes. The bed to take the city and they need to take the tunnels out to take the city. This is not a new problem in war. These aren’t insurance they are dealing with. Israel does not occupy the ground yet.
My perception is that negotiation with hostage takers only encourages them to take more hostages. I’m not smart on this so don’t take my word for it.
So in other words, whatever the number of dead innocents is which might give you pause (and you aren't sure such a number even exists) it's definitely more than are being killed currently.
The goal is to achieve victory while minimizing civilian casualties. Any strategy that prioritizes minimizing civilian casualties over achieving victory inevitably leads to defeat because the enemy can choose to put arbitrarily many civilians at risk. In other words, if there’s some particular number of dead innocents that would give you pause, all the enemy has to do is strap that many innocents to their soldiers, and the enemy has both the ability and the willingness to do that.
So any number is OK as long as they guys giving the orders say it's necessary for victory and give lip service to trying to avoid it. Thank you for confirming.
for this and many other reasons we need autonomous robots with machine guns/grenade launchers/weapons platforms. those boston dynamics robots or something very similar. flood the streets with them - no boots on the ground, no worries. it’s more granular than saturation bombing & platoons of killer robots just sounds badass!
I agree that it could bring about less civilian casualties but I’m mixed on the public perception. Air strikes are impersonal enough when it comes to winning the narrative and they save an order of magnitude more civilian lives in the end. A fully robotic army would turn a lot of folks against you while maybe saving more civilian and military lives. If all war is an extension of politics, perceptions are what win. The perception of who remain anyways.
Even when you do the right thing, it only matters if people know you did it truth or no truth. I’m over trusting that doing the right thing matters anymore in my life. It never did because disinformers will always take advantage of your silence and delay in telling the whole story.
Ever notice how quick Hamas is to have a narrative concerning events and Israel waits until they have evidence and simply provides a policy narrative otherwise? This is how trust is gained.
Soldiers should risk their lives to save children.
Or if that’s too much to ask, maybe negotiate? Try to talk with the people they’ve been blockading since 2007. See how they can make gaza less of a shithole so the people there have better things to do than lash out at the people who keep them there.
It’ll cost lives and they won’t succeed. They’ll fall back on indirect fire talking out entire buildings but now unable to be more selective.
Negotiating was what they were doing and it seemed to be working. All they were doing was use the time to build up resources for their massive terror attack. Prior to 2007 they were on the way to peace and then Hamas was elected.
There is literally no other option to remove Hamas. Prior to the current weapon set armies would simply level the city. That is so very much worse and also legal.
All they were doing was use the time to build up resources for their massive terror attack. Prior to 2007 they were on the way to peace and then Hamas was elected.
This is bullshit. First, Hamas was elected in 2006, not 2007. And second, the blockade started in 2005, not in 2007. There's more, but yeah this is bullshit.
Yes, Israel and Egypt set up borders after they left the occupation of Gaza as they moved towards sovereignty. That’s how international borders work. It’s not an apartheid state unless you don’t defacto recognize Palistinian independence if not statehood.
The Israeli side won’t say as much because they don’t want to legitimate Hamas but it really is that simple to me.
Gaza has never been sovereign. After 2005 the occupation continued in the form of the Gaza blockade. We're not talking just borders here; the blockade extends to the air and sea (Gaza has its own coast on the Mediterranean).
the best thing about history is that you can just pick and choose what you want to happen! :3
but we’re in the present now. Palestine declared war twice (and lost twice), and now Israel has Palestinian land. ooh, mind you, west bank settlement is bad tho
The way you’ve used them in this comment chain absolutely gives off smug “I’m smarter than you vibes” regardless of what you tell yourself to avoid self reflection.
Just figured you should know in case you wonder why the people around you find you so exhausting and insufferable. Have a good one. :-)
Gaza has not been occupied for over 15 years. Please get informed. This is not counter insurgency.
White phosphorous is used for illumination and obscuration and Israel is not signatory to the conventions banning its use wholesale. Nor is Russia or the United States. Offensive use is considered illegal to use in densely populated areas but so far there is only evidence for the offensive use in less dense areas to my knowledge.
Proving intent on deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets is going to be a high bar. Israel urged civilians to go south to avoid the heavy combat operations entering Gaza City. That doesn’t mean they are not going to strike targets in the south and pointing in that general vicinity and shouting “SEE” does not mean they deliberately misled civilians. Their goal is to minimize civilian casualties. They will be taking both the north and the south before the end. That still requires shaping operations as Hamas is moving supplies through that area and still occupies it.
Again, literally every army on earth would do this. Some wouldn’t even warn civilians to move like we saw with Russia in Ukraine.
Gaza has not been occupied for over 15 years. Please get informed. This is not counter insurgency.
Okay, explain why almost all human rights NGOs (including the UN) say that Gaza is still occupied. This is a counter insurgency.
Proving intent on deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets is going to be a high bar. Israel urged civilians to go south to avoid the heavy combat operations entering Gaza City
That's not what I'm talking about. There have been multiple incidents of Israel saying "go to this location to avoid being bombed" then bombing the location they specified. And they did the same with escape routes they specified for Gazans. I can provide links.
They do it a lot before bombing specific targets. It used to be the norm for them, but in this ethnic cleansing war they dropped it as a policy. Like "we'll bomb the area, go to XX square to avoid being bombed". They also announced "safe" routes for fleeing to the south so people don't get bombed, then bombed them.
I’m tired of arguing without a source. I’m still waiting on literally anyone to provide the source for when the IDF cited specific locations to go other than south.
They were told to head south and out of Gaza City. City center is south of Beit Hanoun but not out of Gaza City. This is typical stretching of the truth and not a source that provides what Israel actually said.
This does not meet the burden of proof. Not at all. It is a great example of propaganda through.
Bruh, this has nothing to do with the evacuation order out of Northern Gaza, and actually came before it. I'm not even sure what you're complaining about.
How about they take meaningful action legitimize Palestinian existence within Israel, end the apartheid and work out a plan for restitution? That would evaporate any shreds of support for Hamas nearly overnight and make it significantly easier to locate, and bring the terrorists to justice. Oh, and they could try to not actively promote and fund Hamas. That method would also have the side benefit of a lot fewer dead babies.
I agree on many points but it’s also important to consider that 18% of Israel’s population is Palistinian. If Palistinian statehood is the goal, apartheid implies that they should be fully integrated. I don’t see either side ever fully accepting a minority solution. Inability to come to a full agreement on this situation is the issue. There’s a lot more nuisance in terms of resources and access that definitely lean more to the Palistinian narrative but most of the responses and perverse incentives center around violence.
If Israel attempts to work with Palistinians, they inherently have to work with their government as it is not an occupation. Any funding or humanitarian aid for Palestine is funding for Hamas until they are fully removed. I think the Israel’s agree with you on this one.
Ah yes because bombing thousands of innocent civilians has ALWAYS worked to make the opposing force more secure. It totally has not radicalized even more people and brought about more terrorists.
We have zero evidence of more terrorists being created and an ideology growing stronger from the US fucking about and indiscriminately bombing half the Middle East.
Why would this take Hamas out? Can ideas be murdered by dropping bombs on babies? Last time I checked the Nazis got destroyed. Are you telling me Nazis don’t exist anymore?
Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed by American bombs during WW2, and now Nazis don’t exist anymore as a political or military power. Germany is a liberal democracy and a firm ally of the USA. The same is true about Japan.
More recent efforts at occupation and nation-building in the Middle East have not worked as well, but they have also involved much, much less indiscriminate bombing. Israel is going to face a very difficult challenge once they successfully occupy Gaza and the time comes to build it up into a neighbor that will not be a threat to Israeli security. I don’t know what they’ll need to do in order to succeed, but although I recognize that radicalization is a real phenomenon, I still think the claim that inflicting civilian casualties during war dooms them to failure is not strongly supported by historical precedent.
Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed by American bombs during WW2, and now Nazis don’t exist anymore as a political or military power. Germany is a liberal democracy and a firm ally of the USA. The same is true about Japan.
That's because of post-war reconstruction of those countries. Like hell Israel intends to reconstruct anything in Gaza except Israeli settlements.
I recognize that radicalization is a real phenomenon, I still think the claim that inflicting civilian casualties during war dooms them to failure is not strongly supported by historical precedent.
It does depending on the number of casualties. People with grudges tend to want vengeance, which is how you get more Hamas.
The USA rebuilt West Germany but the Soviet Union subjugated East Germany. In both cases the Germans didn’t resist - their will to fight had been broken. Note that I’m not saying that Gaza will be or ought to be treated the way Germany was, just that a society’s reaction to occupation is complicated and the prediction that casualties lead to vengeance is not always correct.
I guess that's true, but taking other examples like Vietnam, Iraq, North Ireland and Afghanistan, which are all closer to what Israel is doing, definitely led to vengeance. I guess it's the difference between a proper fight, if you get what I mean, and just getting bombed/shot/whatever by a random guy you did nothing to.
Do the Nazis have a power structure anymore? I actually agree with you that the justifications are similar to the Allied coalition against fascism. Go take a look at how many civilians died in that conflict.
Let me put this in perspective for you, if there was a school with an armed gunman holding a bunch of children captive, do you think the best course of action is to bomb the entire school?
What if they bomb you first? Is violence justified in response to violence?
My opinion is that pacifist opinions on violence should be held at the start of conflict and go no further when it comes to the ethics of force progression. It’s just an opinion but don’t expect too much support for your opinion when you are flatly against all war regardless of justification. Hitler loved folks like you.
Ironically, the rocket attacks are not inherently a war crime in the context of the current conflict. It is debatable if they serve a military purpose but literally nobody is focusing on that right now. They are focusing on the blatant attack on over a thousand civilians of multiple nationalities in a face to face fashion and taking of civilian hostages. That is the justification for the current conflict. Prior to that, the conflict was largely contained in spite of the constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks with no military purpose.
Israel left the occupation and Hamas was shortly thereafter elected despite significantly improving living and political conditions. How perverse these incentives and narratives are.
That is the justification for the current conflict. Prior to that, the conflict was largely contained in spite of the constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks with no military purpose.
The conflict was "contained" in the sense that Israelis typically weren't getting killed. It was not contained in any meaningful way for Palestinians. This is an article where an expert talks about your particular misunderstanding of the conflict.
TLDR: Israeli aggression has been a persistent reality in Gaza for the past 18 years, and that in and of itself is violent. Hamas and Gazans didn't respond to peace with violence; the status quo they find themselves in is itself violent.
Israel left the occupation and Hamas was shortly thereafter elected despite significantly improving living and political conditions. How perverse these incentives and narratives are.
You mean when Israel started blockading Gaza (which started in 2005, not 2007), killing its economy, and withheld PA taxes for more than a year?
You’ve certainly provided the single most biased source on this topic consistently from the past twenty years. Do you get all your news from there or just this conflict?
You mean the opposite, right? If so then yeah the fact that Egypt is cooperating with Israel's blockade is beyond disgusting. That said, I'm not sure how it's relevant when we're talking about Israel.
WRONG. you see Hamas has previously attacked Egypt on multiple occasions, stealing aid and supplies, smuggling weapons, and even attempting a coup of their entire government! :3
Egypt has opened up its border again to accept refugees, but it’s a very slow process because they keep finding terrorists pretending to be refugees.
reuters.com
Top