Options

The Middle East v5: The Fourth Gulf War

24567100

Posts

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Well if there is one thing the US absolutely hates it's being spied on in any manner at all.

    Yeah bitter irony for the win.

    Also WTF was Kerry thinking. If you are the secretary of state for the United States, you kind of have to assume that you are being monitored. AT ALL TIMES.

    Silly bastard.

    It's possible that he did. We don't know the content of those calls; it might have been the equivalent of deliberately sending messages in the clear, or in a code that you know has been broken.

  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Really? Because it certainly sounds like they're going and doing their stated military objectives during a ceasefire and then complain when the other side resumes their objectives.

    How is the deliberate destruction of the other side's assets not a violation of a ceasefire? Unless you're going to argue that "ceasefire" means "Hamas agrees to shut the fuck up and let us do what we want".

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Really? Because it certainly sounds like they're going and doing their stated military objectives during a ceasefire and then complain when the other side resumes their objectives.

    How is the deliberate destruction of the other side's assets not a violation of a ceasefire? Unless you're going to argue that "ceasefire" means "Hamas agrees to shut the fuck up and let us do what we want".

    Because ceasefires have terms, and these weren't thought through.

  • Options
    DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    The idea that continued military action during a ceasefire is what's expected unless explicitly forbidden is...I just don't even fucking know.

    I really fucking hate this world most days.

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Docshifty wrote: »
    The idea that continued military action during a ceasefire is what's expected unless explicitly forbidden is...I just don't even fucking know.

    I really fucking hate this world most days.

    Amen Brother. A-fucking-men.

  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    Docshifty wrote: »
    The idea that continued military action during a ceasefire is what's expected unless explicitly forbidden is...I just don't even fucking know.

    I really fucking hate this world most days.

    Everyone kinda does that though. The "official" military steps down, but you still have rogue actors, intelligence units, intelligence agencies, black ops, and paramilitary types still going. Also at times "ceasefire" means "no armed combatants shooting at each other", rearming, blowing bridges is totally legit.

    This is why it's best not to start these sorts of things in the first place.

  • Options
    tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    When it involves high explosives, yeah.

    Any time you're having a ceasefire and you get the urge to blow something up, you should take a good long look in the mirror, and then slap yourself.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Sure it is. It's a military operation attacking a Hamas asset. Ceasefire doesn't mean you get to march in and blow up the other side's stuff. Unless Hamas gets to walk up to an IDF building, etc and plant their bombs without expecting to be attacked of course

  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Ceasefire isn't about not shooting.

    It's about cessation of aggressive activity. Blowing up the enemies shit is the very definition of aggressive activity.

    Israel do not have a right to do whatever they want. They broke the faith first. Full stop.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

  • Options
    notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Finishing up on my daily "reading the news" routine. Two videos I wanted to share from Le Monde.

    The first video is the bombing of the Chajaya market by Israel this Wednesday, which killed 17 Palestinians and wounded over a hundred. The attack on the market by the IDF came during a humanitarian ceasefire announced by Israel shortly before. Israel declared an inquiry would be opened on the attack.

    http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/video/2014/07/31/video-du-bombardement-sur-le-marche-de-chajaya_4465464_3218.html

    The second video shows Palestinians heading back to their homes in some north of Gaza neighborhoods after Israel announced on August 2nd it had concluded operations in the area and its inhabitants could return there safely.

    http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/video/2014/08/03/des-habitants-reviennent-dans-des-quartiers-en-ruines-du-nord-de-gaza_4466342_3218.html

    Obviously, there's nothing to return to.

    notdroid on
  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    How can Israel lose this war? Palestine/Hamas can't touch them. They can lose face to the entire world, which is a separate thing. The West is starting to get sick of their hypocritical bullshit, in a few generations if this continues they won't have allies like America letting them do what they want and when that happens all they have to blame for that is themselves.
    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    There are more options then engaging in violence with this. The goals should be peace, and that's never going to happen when Israel thinks Palestine's existence means it needs to retaliate in "self defense." They need to reread the dictionary for that meaning, it isn't what they think it does.
    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Feelings and ideology are important with solving problems like this. Experience and brains count for nothing when it means genociding the opposition, especially ones who aren't that much of a threat. Palestine isn't Iran, it's not even Saddam's Iraq. What this does do is escalate tensions with those countries long term and provides their stronger enemies greater ammunition to do the same to them when they gain the advantage.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Animals have experience and brains.

    Israel are the stronger and dominant power. They have a huge number of options for pursuing their goals. They refuse to use them.

    Instead they air strike civilian populations, fire fletchette bombs into family homes and their ground troups gun down children.

    I'm going to go with the fucking feelings on this one guys. I'm going to go with expecting those who are entirely capable of it to be decent fucking human beings.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    How can Israel lose this war? Palestine/Hamas can't touch them. They can lose face to the entire world, which is a separate thing. The West is starting to get sick of their hypocritical bullshit, in a few generations if this continues they won't have allies like America letting them do what they want and when that happens all they have to blame for that is themselves.
    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    There are more options then engaging in violence with this. The goals should be peace, and that's never going to happen when Israel thinks Palestine's existence means it needs to retaliate in "self defense." They need to reread the dictionary for that meaning, it isn't what they think it does.
    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Feelings and ideology are important with solving problems like this. Experience and brains count for nothing when it means genociding the opposition, especially ones who aren't that much of a threat. Palestine isn't Iran, it's not even Saddam's Iraq. What this does do is escalate tensions with those countries long term and provides their stronger enemies greater ammunition to do the same to them when they gain the advantage.

    Look, this is a battle where one side will be wiped out. There will be no peace till then, that's just how some conflicts are.

    From my ideology and my feelings, fuck Israel for picking on the weak and let them be wiped out. At the same time, I'll take their democracy and women's rights over Hamas, so let the other side be wiped out. Ultimately though I think as a westerner defending Muslims against the wrath of the west is about equal as women's rights... so there is no moral high ground for me to seek so the hell with it, there's nothing to back for values and cause.

    That leaves pragmatism. I'd like the Jewish community to keep voting Democratic so we can win and get the donations, beat the Republicans at nation security, and Israel should be allowed the same leeway and can do this faster. So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce. With 2016 on the horizon and the need for another D in the White House, screw it let the blood flow.

    frenetic_ferret on
  • Options
    JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Does Israel even need to destroy these tunnels? It would seem like knowing where they are would destroy and value they have to Hamas.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

    I'm a combat veteran as well, my experience tells otherwise and that this is exactly what you fucking do.

  • Options
    Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Look, this is a battle that one side will be wiped out. There will be no peace till then, that's just how some conflicts are.

    Not all conflicts end with that. It doesn't have to be that way.
    From my ideology and my feelings, fuck Israel for picking on the weak and let them be wiped out. At the same time, I'll take their democracy and women's rights over Hamas, so let them be wiped out. Ultimately though I think as a westerner defending Muslims against the wrath of the west is about equal as women's rights... so there is no moral high ground for me to seek so the hell with it.

    Both sides are awful. There are no good sides in this. I'm speaking about the governments, not the people in those counties. Muslims not believing in human rights doesn't mean they deserve to exterminated. They're human beings and we have ethical codes and international rules for this type of thing. Which Israel should be following. They're able to get away with it from being protected and supported by America, which America should not be doing. It's worse for Israel since they're meant to be the western democracy and ally to the west which has to mean something otherwise it's a farce.
    That leaves pragmatism. I'd like the Jewish community to keep voting Democratic so we can win and get the donations, and Israel should be allowed the same leeway and can do this faster. So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce.

    You're not giving Israel leeway, you're giving them a pass on committing war crimes and acting like asshole racists to people weaken than they are. There is no "good" Israel is doing right now, all they're doing is proving their enemies right. They should have learnt from what happened with Al Quaeda and Bush's administration, not repeat the process on a higher scale.

  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    From what I've read, the terms of the cease-fire expressly included continuing to destroy those tunnels, which Netanyahu publically stated as Israel's terms.

    http://www.voanews.com/content/israel-calls-up-16000-more-reservists/1968608.html

    If that information is correct, then there's no point in arguing what "should" or "shouldn't" be included in terms of ceasefire. It's what was agreed to.

    So far as if Israel shouldn't take the tunnels out, of course they should. Bomb+Tunnel=Destruction. I have a lot of qualms about how Israel is staging its attack, but taking out tunnels is NOT one of them.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Your lack of empathy and concern for the suffering of other human beings is staggering and appalling.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Both sides want the same land and both sides have been killing each other since before the Catholic Church existed, this isn't going to end. It's either going to be constant carnage, aka the status quo, or one side will have to wipe the other out. So peace isn't on the menu, unless you mean peace once one group is all dead and gone. Normally I'd say "which side has the more liberal values" and then come down on defense of that side, but there are no good actors here. Everyone is a fuckwit. As such there are only two real choices, either walk away and say "fuck it" and then no longer care about it, or say "who can bring those to a close faster in a way that helps my side" and choose them.

    Were it not for the political ramifications for the Democratic party at home I'd say walk away. However there could be, so in that case go Israel.

    Nothing more to it.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

    I'm a combat veteran as well, my experience tells otherwise and that this is exactly what you fucking do.

    You really shouldn't because it's highly dishonorable. If you're not going to adhere to a ceasefire, don't offer one. Though I guess in this case, if Hamas explicitly agreed to those terms, they are partially at fault, for not thinking through the "what will happen when the IDF are about to bury your own troops alive during the ceasefire, and they are right there to stop them?"
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Both sides want the same land and both sides have been killing each other since before the Catholic Church existed, this isn't going to end. It's either going to be constant carnage, aka the status quo, or one side will have to wipe the other out. So peace isn't on the menu, unless you mean peace once one group is all dead and gone. Normally I'd say "which side has the more liberal values" and then come down on defense of that side, but there are no good actors here. Everyone is a fuckwit. As such there are only two real choices, either walk away and say "fuck it" and then no longer care about it, or say "who can bring those to a close faster in a way that helps my side" and choose them.

    Were it not for the political ramifications for the Democratic party at home I'd say walk away. However there could be, so in that case go Israel.

    Nothing more to it.

    This conflict can be entirely traced back to recent history, and the completely fuckup of the British in administering the Mandate, and everything that came after.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

    I'm a combat veteran as well, my experience tells otherwise and that this is exactly what you fucking do.

    You really shouldn't because it's highly dishonorable. If you're not going to adhere to a ceasefire, don't offer one. Though I guess in this case, if Hamas explicitly agreed to those terms, they are partially at fault, for not thinking through the "what will happen when the IDF are about to bury your own troops alive during the ceasefire, and they are right there to stop them?"
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Both sides want the same land and both sides have been killing each other since before the Catholic Church existed, this isn't going to end. It's either going to be constant carnage, aka the status quo, or one side will have to wipe the other out. So peace isn't on the menu, unless you mean peace once one group is all dead and gone. Normally I'd say "which side has the more liberal values" and then come down on defense of that side, but there are no good actors here. Everyone is a fuckwit. As such there are only two real choices, either walk away and say "fuck it" and then no longer care about it, or say "who can bring those to a close faster in a way that helps my side" and choose them.

    Were it not for the political ramifications for the Democratic party at home I'd say walk away. However there could be, so in that case go Israel.

    Nothing more to it.

    This conflict can be entirely traced back to recent history, and the completely fuckup of the British in administering the Mandate, and everything that came after.

    LMAO, not this has been going on since before the WW's. We should have let the Turks keep their brutal regime in place but we didn't.

    As for the ceasefire... you are aware the USN and Polish GROM stormed the offshore fields before we invaded Iraq. It's when the conflict isn't hot that you can really go for the important targets and get them out of the way. That's why you call for a ceasefire and do the real work when the war isn't hot. A vet should know this.

    frenetic_ferret on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Both sides want the same land and both sides have been killing each other since before the Catholic Church existed, this isn't going to end. It's either going to be constant carnage, aka the status quo, or one side will have to wipe the other out. So peace isn't on the menu, unless you mean peace once one group is all dead and gone. Normally I'd say "which side has the more liberal values" and then come down on defense of that side, but there are no good actors here. Everyone is a fuckwit. As such there are only two real choices, either walk away and say "fuck it" and then no longer care about it, or say "who can bring those to a close faster in a way that helps my side" and choose them.

    Were it not for the political ramifications for the Democratic party at home I'd say walk away. However there could be, so in that case go Israel.

    Nothing more to it.

    I'm going to point out something. Bear with me.

    Moral decision making, like all other decision making, requires effort and time spent in order to improve it.

    By your own admission, you turn off your feelings very quickly whenever you encounter a difficult moral problem, therefore negating your ability to put in this time and effort.

    As a result, your moral decision making must necessarily be limited. This is not a judgement I am making. This is a logical extrapolation from your own actions.

    Given this, should you be be relying upon your own moral decision making to determine when you should shut down your feelings? Because the trigger for shutting them down is necessarily limited in its complexity, sophistication and scope, since every time you've encountered a difficult moral problem you've given up on it.

    You clearly don't shut down your morals all the time, but you seem to think there is no systematic problem with shutting them down whenever something gets tricky or difficult.

    Taken to its most logical extreme, as time goes on, your ability to judge when you should shut down your feelings and rely on pragmatism will become seriously impaired. You will become a "moral idiot", unable to comprehend your own ignorance.

    So you should not be implicitly trusting your moral decision making to determine when you should shut down your "feelings" and you should be thinking about moral problems like this more when you have the luxury of not needing to make an immediate decision.
    The very last situation you should be making a pragmatic decision in is one like this, where you are far removed from the conflict.

    Does that make sense?

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    ToonToon Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

    I'm a combat veteran as well, my experience tells otherwise and that this is exactly what you fucking do.

    You really shouldn't because it's highly dishonorable. If you're not going to adhere to a ceasefire, don't offer one. Though I guess in this case, if Hamas explicitly agreed to those terms, they are partially at fault, for not thinking through the "what will happen when the IDF are about to bury your own troops alive during the ceasefire, and they are right there to stop them?"
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Both sides want the same land and both sides have been killing each other since before the Catholic Church existed, this isn't going to end. It's either going to be constant carnage, aka the status quo, or one side will have to wipe the other out. So peace isn't on the menu, unless you mean peace once one group is all dead and gone. Normally I'd say "which side has the more liberal values" and then come down on defense of that side, but there are no good actors here. Everyone is a fuckwit. As such there are only two real choices, either walk away and say "fuck it" and then no longer care about it, or say "who can bring those to a close faster in a way that helps my side" and choose them.

    Were it not for the political ramifications for the Democratic party at home I'd say walk away. However there could be, so in that case go Israel.

    Nothing more to it.

    This conflict can be entirely traced back to recent history, and the completely fuckup of the British in administering the Mandate, and everything that came after.

    LMAO, not this has been going on since before the WW's. We should have let the Turks keep their brutal regime in place but we didn't.

    Well, the Turks and their "brutal regime" did not turn the Middle East into the hellhole it is today. In fact, the 1517 conquests paved the way to some three centuries of stability.

    And, well, there's no nice way of saying this: you're absolutely, emphatically WRONG about this "before the Catholic Church existed". The Palestinian/Israeli question is younger than sonar.

  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    From The Economist

    QYNbudg.jpg[/img]

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

    I'm a combat veteran as well, my experience tells otherwise and that this is exactly what you fucking do.

    What is your definition of a ceasefire?

  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

    Right. But that's the only option Palestinians are going to get. You can't lose a war and expect better terms than when you started. That's not how it works. I doubt, seriously, that the Israeli people would stand for that.

    Israel will eventually have peace for its citizens. Israel tried the Two State method, and it failed. Terribly. I get the impression that the ruling elite in Israel has decided that plan B is just to slowly annex the West Bank until it's Israel in all but name, while brutally putting down any attacks while it happens.

    "Fighting Back" on the wrong geographical side of Israel is just entrenching Israeli population further in a non-compromising direction. If there is a path to a lasting peace that doesn't involve Israel absorbing the West Bank, please let me know what it might be. Something realistic. Reverting to 1967 borders with land swaps is not going to happen under current circumstances.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    frenetic_ferretfrenetic_ferret wildest weasel East Coast is Best CoastRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Your lack of empathy and concern is staggering and appalling.

    If there was a liberal high ground to pick I would, but there isn't. And every one of my past jobs and entire career has been based off emotionally detaching yourself from a situation and making the most pragmatic choice, even though in some of my past positions meant people could die because of it. The world is a nasty place. At times there are no good solutions, let alone perfect, all you can do is throw out your emotions and values and make the most pragmatic and cold blooded call you can.

    That's not psychopathic, unless you think the entire military, intelligence, and foreign service community is psychopathic.

    Your logic is also flawed though. You don't know that peace is impossible. You are only assuming it based on your experience. You haven't experienced every possible outcome in the world and you cannot predict the future. So you are choosing a fatalistic option and declaring that anything else is impossible.

    And then using that flawed logic to declare that one group of people should murder another.

    You'll excuse me if I decide your idea is kinda shitty? I reject the pragmatic logic it is based on and I reject the solution even if I agreed with the pragmatic logic.

    I personally think your job has left scars on you. Because you should not be viewing this situation in the way you are. It is affecting your decision making.

    Both sides want the same land and both sides have been killing each other since before the Catholic Church existed, this isn't going to end. It's either going to be constant carnage, aka the status quo, or one side will have to wipe the other out. So peace isn't on the menu, unless you mean peace once one group is all dead and gone. Normally I'd say "which side has the more liberal values" and then come down on defense of that side, but there are no good actors here. Everyone is a fuckwit. As such there are only two real choices, either walk away and say "fuck it" and then no longer care about it, or say "who can bring those to a close faster in a way that helps my side" and choose them.

    Were it not for the political ramifications for the Democratic party at home I'd say walk away. However there could be, so in that case go Israel.

    Nothing more to it.

    I'm going to point out something. Bear with me.

    Moral decision making, like all other decision making, requires effort and time spent in order to improve it.

    By your own admission, you turn off your feelings very quickly whenever you encounter a difficult moral problem, therefore negating your ability to put in this time and effort.

    As a result, your moral decision making must necessarily be limited. This is not a judgement I am making. This is a logical extrapolation from your own actions.

    Given this, should you be be relying upon your own moral decision making to determine when you should shut down your feelings? Because the trigger for shutting them down is necessarily limited in its complexity, sophistication and scope, since every time you've encountered a difficult moral problem you've given up on it.

    You clearly don't shut down your morals all the time, but you seem to think there is no systematic problem with shutting them down whenever something gets tricky or difficult.

    Taken to its most logical extreme, as time goes on, your ability to judge when you should shut down your feelings and rely on pragmatism will become seriously impaired. You will become a "moral idiot", unable to comprehend your own ignorance.

    So you should not be implicitly trusting your moral decision making to determine when you should shut down your "feelings" and you should be thinking about moral problems like this more when you have the luxury of not needing to make an immediate decision.
    The very last situation you should be making a pragmatic decision in is one like this, where you are far removed from the conflict.

    Does that make sense?

    You're reading me wrong. If there was a clear good side and a clear bad side then I think morality should be of the utmost important, but in this case there isn't one. And FYI one of my old firms has an office in Gaza, I'm well aware of the risks they are in, and I'm well aware of what the risks the offices in Israel are. They aren't the same, but they knew the risks when they went there. This is "close" to me in a sense, but my taking that into account would only cloud my decision
    Phyphor wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Ah, speaking from my brain and experience as a combat veteran, I wouldn't demolish occupied enemy structures during a ceasefire, or at the very least, wouldn't pretend it wasn't completely untruthful to do so. I have no problem with forces cleaning their weapons and restocking their magazines during a ceasefire, or similar activities that are of a military nature, but do not project power, or harm others. But as soon as you are conducting armed, offensive operations against enemy forces, materials, or installations, that is, by definition, not a ceasefire.

    I'm a combat veteran as well, my experience tells otherwise and that this is exactly what you fucking do.

    What is your definition of a ceasefire?

    The real one. Active uniformed mainline combatants stop shooting at each other, everyone else does their job double time in the down time for easy shots. That's what a ceasefire means in real world application. Not the bullshit fantasy that everyone stops, that's always been a lie and fantasy sold to the rubes to make things look good. That's when the best units go to work.

    Let me guess, you also believe military advice and intelligence support means no boots on the ground. It's bullshit as well.

    frenetic_ferret on
  • Options
    BubbyBubby Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Sure it is. It's a military operation attacking a Hamas asset. Ceasefire doesn't mean you get to march in and blow up the other side's stuff. Unless Hamas gets to walk up to an IDF building, etc and plant their bombs without expecting to be attacked of course

    Fuck Hamas. They weren't killing or kidnapping anyone, they were destroying tunnels built specifically to cause harm. The continued existence of said tunnels should be a violation of the ceasefire, it shouldn't have even begun until they were all destroyed.

  • Options
    IskraIskra Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    Using a truck to resupply your troops during a ceasefire is OK, but blowing up the enemies trucks during a ceasefire is not?

    People who are confused by why blowing up tunnels during a ceasefire is seen as wrong have really odd definitions of ceasefire. Like, I'm honestly curious, for the posters who think that its valid for one side to blow up what they have themselves admitted is enemy military infrastructure during a ceasefire, what exactly does a ceasefire mean to you?

    That said, if the terms that were agreed to explicitly allow it, then I suppose its valid. I just can't wrap my mind around why you would sign a ceasefire with terms that amount to "stand around and let the enemy accomplish their objectives".

  • Options
    IskraIskra Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    How can Israel lose this war? Palestine/Hamas can't touch them. They can lose face to the entire world, which is a separate thing. The West is starting to get sick of their hypocritical bullshit, in a few generations if this continues they won't have allies like America letting them do what they want and when that happens all they have to blame for that is themselves.
    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    There are more options then engaging in violence with this. The goals should be peace, and that's never going to happen when Israel thinks Palestine's existence means it needs to retaliate in "self defense." They need to reread the dictionary for that meaning, it isn't what they think it does.
    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Feelings and ideology are important with solving problems like this. Experience and brains count for nothing when it means genociding the opposition, especially ones who aren't that much of a threat. Palestine isn't Iran, it's not even Saddam's Iraq. What this does do is escalate tensions with those countries long term and provides their stronger enemies greater ammunition to do the same to them when they gain the advantage.

    Look, this is a battle where one side will be wiped out. There will be no peace till then, that's just how some conflicts are.

    From my ideology and my feelings, fuck Israel for picking on the weak and let them be wiped out. At the same time, I'll take their democracy and women's rights over Hamas, so let the other side be wiped out. Ultimately though I think as a westerner defending Muslims against the wrath of the west is about equal as women's rights... so there is no moral high ground for me to seek so the hell with it, there's nothing to back for values and cause.

    That leaves pragmatism. I'd like the Jewish community to keep voting Democratic so we can win and get the donations, beat the Republicans at nation security, and Israel should be allowed the same leeway and can do this faster. So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce. With 2016 on the horizon and the need for another D in the White House, screw it let the blood flow.

    Just so we're clear, this post is literally advocating genocide. It starts with an unfounded assumption that "one side will be wiped out", then does some insulting song and dance about political values and what's best for the political climate in the US, and ends with "let the blood flow".

    If you are a combat veteran, I'm glad you no longer are in a position of power or in a combat theater because you are literally rationalizing the extermination of an ethnic group because "its easier" and "well it benefits me".

  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited August 2014

    Look, this is a battle where one side will be wiped out. There will be no peace till then, that's just how some conflicts are.

    ......

    So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce. With 2016 on the horizon and the need for another D in the White House, screw it let the blood flow.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    This is some dark ass satire, yeah? Not your actual stance on the issue?

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I was tempted to put a Hail Hydra on @frenetic_ferret‌ posts for sounding like a goddamn HYDRA villain, but that seemed in even poorer taste then the posts themselves.

    Like, Jesus fuck, how the hell does anyone see genocide as the best solution to a problem?

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    LucidLucid Registered User regular
    Iskra wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    How can Israel lose this war? Palestine/Hamas can't touch them. They can lose face to the entire world, which is a separate thing. The West is starting to get sick of their hypocritical bullshit, in a few generations if this continues they won't have allies like America letting them do what they want and when that happens all they have to blame for that is themselves.
    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    There are more options then engaging in violence with this. The goals should be peace, and that's never going to happen when Israel thinks Palestine's existence means it needs to retaliate in "self defense." They need to reread the dictionary for that meaning, it isn't what they think it does.
    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Feelings and ideology are important with solving problems like this. Experience and brains count for nothing when it means genociding the opposition, especially ones who aren't that much of a threat. Palestine isn't Iran, it's not even Saddam's Iraq. What this does do is escalate tensions with those countries long term and provides their stronger enemies greater ammunition to do the same to them when they gain the advantage.

    Look, this is a battle where one side will be wiped out. There will be no peace till then, that's just how some conflicts are.

    From my ideology and my feelings, fuck Israel for picking on the weak and let them be wiped out. At the same time, I'll take their democracy and women's rights over Hamas, so let the other side be wiped out. Ultimately though I think as a westerner defending Muslims against the wrath of the west is about equal as women's rights... so there is no moral high ground for me to seek so the hell with it, there's nothing to back for values and cause.

    That leaves pragmatism. I'd like the Jewish community to keep voting Democratic so we can win and get the donations, beat the Republicans at nation security, and Israel should be allowed the same leeway and can do this faster. So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce. With 2016 on the horizon and the need for another D in the White House, screw it let the blood flow.

    Just so we're clear, this post is literally advocating genocide. It starts with an unfounded assumption that "one side will be wiped out", then does some insulting song and dance about political values and what's best for the political climate in the US, and ends with "let the blood flow".

    If you are a combat veteran, I'm glad you no longer are in a position of power or in a combat theater because you are literally rationalizing the extermination of an ethnic group because "its easier" and "well it benefits me".

    From what I'm following here, and I think Morninglord is getting at something, it doesn't seem Frenetic Ferret can participate in rational discourse here.

Sign In or Register to comment.