|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On December 14 2024 20:04 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2024 00:51 stilt wrote:On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground. The weird thing is while the article is explaining why mount hermon is a strategic place, it never endorses israel's position by stating they need it. The israeli defenders are always so contradictories : on hand israel is destroying all the "major" weapons of syria within 48 hours while having bombing the country without repercussion since the last 10 years and on another they state they need a new buffer zone to their previous buffer zone because of their safety. Billyboy is very curious, the sources he's using are great, un rapport, middleasteye but then he twist them, for example, they're rather picturing israel as a extremely agressive neighbour. That said, contrary to what a previous poster thought, I am pretty sure he is not jimmyc, that guy was just about ragebait. The article is informative. It gives no position on the matter. Using that to support an argument is not weird. There's also no contradiction. There's a power vacuum that will probably be filled by Jihadist rebels that have already attacked the UN buffer zone on multiple occasions. The destruction of strategic weapons from the collapsed Syrian state does not mean that potential enemies can not do significant damage. Underestimating an opponent like that is what led to 7/10.
At least you quote the time of israel, it corresponds better to your views, I particulary like the posts in their blog, especially the one which stated israel's need of a lebensraum. Sadly it was taken out as the centrists don't like to be caught acting like nazis but the fortunate thing is their far right has way less shame !
Regardless, the article still doesn't state israel needs this new buffer zone contrary to what billyboy or you seem to imply.
For your second sentence : the logic is : "I destroy their weapons while taking their lands because these people are dangerous" as I said it is illogical. You can't destroy the main arsenals of a whole nation in 2 days and then claim you need their land because there are dangerous, every single supremacism political entity used this kind of survivalist argument in order to justify their various crimes even when they were vastly superior to their "opponents".
As for 07/10, yes sure, the superfortified golan plateau who was supposed to be a buffer zone until israel said otherwise is gonna be overun by htc with a sneak attack on a plateau. What a load of irrational shits, what's next ? Rock throwing children at a tank are a threat to israel safety and needs to be shot at ? Oops, we're already there alongside rape and torture.
So here's a few questions : why a impoverish and vulnerable nation without any major weapon is a threat ? Why not commenting on the fact the golan height is not israeli territory to begin with and is already a fortified buffer zone by the first military in the region ? Why needing a second buffer zone if you're destroying their weapons with so much ease ? And what about the pro colonialist governement of israel ? Netanyahu himself or his defense minister katz or smotrich, eliyahu, ben gvir, all of them are pro colonization and for the expansion or israel why do you trust them so much against any kind of rationality ?
So many question without answers provided other than the security bs.
The answer is most likely about your perception of arabs. There is too much verbiage while most of the things are centered around pre conceived ideologies anyway. A guy who don't believe or support the shoah is a nazi, for the armenian genocide, we're calling it a turkish supremacist, very weird that people who justify every action of israel are not called for what they are, racists.
You shoudn't read middleasteye, it's super "ideological" as it gives arab perspective and testimonies.
|
On December 13 2024 21:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 11:42 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:40 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 06:37 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 06:26 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:
If I'm entirely honest the reason why I don't believe you is because you've pulled this before, you had those Venezuelans that happened to agree with everything you believe and now you have those Syrians that happen to agree with everything you believe. Kind of sus in my opinion. So go talk to the real deal yourself, it is really easy. If you help people and just listen they will share all sorts of things with you. If I wanted to know about Venezuela I would talk to Venezuelans. Then I go to news sources various facts and even opinion pieces to come to my world view. But it is always changing because as I learn more I adjust my view to my new knowledge. I don't understand those that are so proud of how static their view is, and I can't understand why someone with access to people from the actual area would not go talk to them, would not help them? Just think of all the actual indepth knowledge you could gather to win the internet arguments you love to have! What are some examples of positions that you used to have and you no longer do? Why would I have this conversation here? And why would I have it with you given how you treat me? You are not looking for understanding, you are looking for ammunition. "Why would you talk to me" is a question I've asked myself many times over many years, let me know if you find an answer one day. And yes you're right about what I'm doing. Thank you for confirming that your discussions with me are purely bad faith, while obvious to me others did not always agree! That's a weird use of the word bad faith, I obviously believe the things I say. For example I genuinely believe that I haven't seen you change your mind on anything in the decade plus that we've interacted, so I did find it funny that you championed fluidity of thought just there.
It is not strange at all,
Arguing in bad faith" means to engage in a debate with dishonest intentions, often by deliberately misrepresenting facts, using misleading information, or not genuinely seeking to understand the opposing viewpoint, with the primary goal of winning the argument rather than reaching a truthful conclusion.
If you notice what follows right after the "or" I could continue with the personal attacks and strawman's you love, but given as you have admitted to the one right in the definition there is really no need to go any further.
With you and your populist mind set there is only two positions yours and theirs. I don't live in a us and "them/they" world. So I could see how you could honestly see a persons not position change, even if it had changed a bunch but still did not agree with you. But if you were arguing with someone about whether or not Maduro was good for Venezuelans, or whether or not Venezuelans like him and in 2024 almost 2025 you are still pro Maduro. You really need to leave your basement, talk to some actual people, or at least go into incognito mode and get a little fresh news. You will be able to find plenty of Syrians who mostly agree with you (on how bad Israel is, it will just likely shock you that most think Iran is worse. It shouldn't shock you because Iran killed a whole hell of a lot more of them than Israel, hell they killed a hell of a lot more more Syrians than Israel killed Palestinians).The Venezuelan one is an absolute slam dunk.
On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2024 05:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2024 05:33 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 05:24 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Not sure why you called me Doodsmack, I'm actually Nebuchad. I haven't talked to any Syrians. When they said that they "would prefer if their army could get a hold of them", which army was that? HTS, but like I said Dood, they are very unsure if they will be for Syrians or another evil dictatorships. You should go talk to some Syrians, there are far more in France than here and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to volunteer. I would be flabbergasted if you ever agreed with me, but I would be shocked if what they had to say at all resembled your news feed. I guess it depends how you ask, but if you actually went to them to learn about them, instead of to teach them about all this great stuff you know, you might get some real interesting insights. I'm not following. Didn't HTS have a hold of those weapons already? Why would they tell you that they would prefer if HTS could get a hold of them? I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel. But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable. There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something. I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground.
I don't think Israel cares about moral highground, most of the world hates them regardless. They do care deeply about security and IMO this is a huge grab. Because their current or future enemies can't pound their cities with artillery, can't set up their radars and so on.
Long term if Syria stabilizes and gets a government that is not openly bent on wiping out Israel, I suspect Israel will give it back for for some sort of security guarantees. Even more likely if the new government is against Iran. I hope to see if my guess is right and Syria gets a stable government that is free and fair.
Israel has started to bomb the Russia bases, some of those explosions are crazy, I heard one registered a 3 on the Richter scale. I am happy about that, any Russian arms going boom is a win to me.
|
On December 14 2024 23:53 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2024 20:04 RvB wrote:On December 14 2024 00:51 stilt wrote:On December 13 2024 23:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 16:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 15:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 11:46 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 13 2024 06:35 Billyboy wrote:On December 13 2024 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I think basically all scenarios for Israel are better with less weapons in the hands of Syria. Weakening the negotiation power of whoever becomes dominant, whatever that even means in Syria, is likely strictly good for Israel.
But it still kind of begs the question: What group in Syria would be reasonably more stable than Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran? It all feels very premature for people to decide HTS is some kinda stable government of Syria. The whole point is that its such a huge mix of deeply opposing factions that there isn't really a good way to maintain stability. There are multiple puppet groups all going bananas on each other and that map I posted highlights why the idea of a stable Syria feels unreasonable.
There are a few good videos on youtube highlighting how the territorial maps that were drawn up after WW1 were deeply problematic and Syria is just another example of borders not reflecting ideology or identity. Makes me wonder if Syria is a good candidate for just being split up into a few different countries or something.
I agree. If you look at what Israel took it was Mt Hermon and the road to it. This is a terrible place to settle, but an absolutely amazing place for Israel's defense against everyone who wants to destroy it. being able to take it without killing anyone or having any of your troops die is a huge victory. From there your ability to see low flying jets and Drones has increased massively. Your artillery can hit both of Hezbollah's strongholds as well the routes to get weapons into Lebanon from Iran. Now, it also would be a great place to take if you planned to conquer Syria or parts of it. But now is also the best time to do so since basically no one could stop Israel from taking huge swaths of very settleable land. For some reason they are not, my guess is because they are actually doing what they say they are doing and this is not part of some grand conspiracy to take over the entire middle east. Time will tell. The Russian base deal, if it goes through, will blunt my optimism mightily. If that happens I doubt Iran stays out and you just have a 4 way civil war going for who knows how long. Either way I am celebrating that Israel took out Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles, manufacturing and means of delivering them. Civil wars are brutal enough without chemical weapons. Destroying basically the entire Syrian army with airstrikes is something even Syrians seem to be ambivalent on. On one hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which could be bad because they can't unify the country as effectively. On the other hand it prevents the new government from having a big stick to deal with other factions and outside influence which is good because now they have to do it diplomatically. They don't really need a stick at the moment anyway because SNA is plenty of stick against the SDF. And the SNA itself is basically Turkey so you have to deal with them diplomatically regardless. I do think it might have affected the possible deal with Russia however. Israel occupying new land is totally different. Their buffer zone already had a buffer zone (because they settled the first buffer zone). Now their buffer zones buffer zone has its own buffer zone. Something Israel absolutely doesn't need because their original buffer zone was already completely safe from whatever Syria could muster even before they blew any kind of slightly credible weapon system to bits. Which means it looks, smells and sounds like a blatant land grab. Which you know, might be why there are a lot of people and countries protesting it. I dont disagree, but I think many of those countries publicly protesting it will privately acknowledge that given the strategic defensive importance of the mountain and ease that they captured it, that they would have done the same thing in Israel's place. Not only can they make it WAY harder for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah but they will be much in a much better position to protect their civilians from drones and rockets (jets too, but those have not really been used against them). It is also a huge bargaining chip with whoever ends up taking power in Syria. Assuming Syria exists by the end of this, which is very much up in the air. Can't search a truck from a mountain and you don't have a better view from a drone either. Plus you know, if you don't physically search things you have to track stuff from the Iran border to the Lebanese one. So you need the drone either way. Holding the mountain won't do shit for weapon smuggling that's just Israeli copium. A unified Syrian government who hates Hezb will. Also in no way does Israel need the additional buffer zone to defend anything. They just wiped out the entire SAA in 48h you honestly think they need the highground. Only chance for an attack getting through is if Israel wants that. As for unifying Syria. Negotiations with the SDF seems to be going well and the SNA will do exactly as Turkey says. Smaller rebel councils are joining the HTS. I'm cautiously optimistic that it can be done. Everything I'm reading says it matters. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mount-hermon-why-control-syria-highest-peak-matters#:~:text=Mount Hermon, which lies near,for observation across the region. Analysts have also said that Israeli radar systems had previously a significant blind spot, allowing low-flying drones from Iran to enter undetected.
Were radars placed on Mount Hermon, Israel could now monitor a much broader area.
"The mountains also provide the perfect cover for Israel's special forces and spies, who can now enter Syria more freely, conducting missions under the cover of darkness," wrote former Israeli air force pilot Naftali Hazony on X.
Yes, putting a radar on a mountain is good since the higher up you are the easier you detect low flying objects. You know what is also high up with a radar? An aircraft. Conveniently the same thing Israel would use to shoot down a Shaheed drone. Which BTW moves at the speed of a car so it takes hours to go from Iran to Israel over two countries. A pickup truck with an HMG seems to be decent AA against it. So I don't care what some ex airforce Israeli psyops says to try to justify the landgrab, Israel does not need 3 buffer zones to defend themselves, two are more than enough. I can buy wanting to be able to take covert offensive actions at will on the territory of other countries. But that's breaking even more international laws so it's not really a justification that gives them any moral highground. The weird thing is while the article is explaining why mount hermon is a strategic place, it never endorses israel's position by stating they need it. The israeli defenders are always so contradictories : on hand israel is destroying all the "major" weapons of syria within 48 hours while having bombing the country without repercussion since the last 10 years and on another they state they need a new buffer zone to their previous buffer zone because of their safety. Billyboy is very curious, the sources he's using are great, un rapport, middleasteye but then he twist them, for example, they're rather picturing israel as a extremely agressive neighbour. That said, contrary to what a previous poster thought, I am pretty sure he is not jimmyc, that guy was just about ragebait. The article is informative. It gives no position on the matter. Using that to support an argument is not weird. There's also no contradiction. There's a power vacuum that will probably be filled by Jihadist rebels that have already attacked the UN buffer zone on multiple occasions. The destruction of strategic weapons from the collapsed Syrian state does not mean that potential enemies can not do significant damage. Underestimating an opponent like that is what led to 7/10. At least you quote the time of israel, it corresponds better to your views, I particulary like the posts in their blog, especially the one which stated israel's need of a lebensraum. Sadly it was taken out as the centrists don't like to be caught acting like nazis but the fortunate thing is their far right has way less shame !
ToI is a reliable source. It was also widely reported. If you think they're a nazi newspaper then provide the evidence instead of posting unverifiable accusations.
Regardless, the article still doesn't state israel needs this new buffer zone contrary to what billyboy or you seem to imply.
There's no such implication. States and individuals can take actions that make sense without there being an absolute need for it.
For your second sentence : the logic is : "I destroy their weapons while taking their lands because these people are dangerous" as I said it is illogical. You can't destroy the main arsenals of a whole nation in 2 days and then claim you need their land because there are dangerous, every single supremacism political entity used this kind of survivalist argument in order to justify their various crimes even when they were vastly superior to their "opponents".
Israel destroyed the strategic weapon stockpile of an army that collapsed. The SAA does not exist anymore. You can quite easily argue that you destroyed the strategic weapon stockpiles of the losing army while at the same time increasing the size of a buffer zone to defend from the victorious army.
As for 07/10, yes sure, the superfortified golan plateau who was supposed to be a buffer zone until israel said otherwise is gonna be overun by htc with a sneak attack on a plateau. What a load of irrational shits, what's next ? Rock throwing children at a tank are a threat to israel safety and needs to be shot at ? Oops, we're already there alongside rape and torture.
They don't just throw rocks. They use slingshots and catapults. They're deadly weapons.
You miss the point. The Hamas attack on 7/10, Hezbollah's decimation, the direct confrontation between Iran and Israel, and the collapse of Assad's regime in a matter of two weeks were all very unlikely events. Who even predicted one of those before 7/10? That you cannot forsee how a certain event occurs does not mean it's irrational to try to reduce the risk of it occurring.
So here's a few questions : why a impoverish and vulnerable nation without any major weapon is a threat ? Why not commenting on the fact the golan height is not israeli territory to begin with and is already a fortified buffer zone by the first military in the region ? Why needing a second buffer zone if you're destroying their weapons with so much ease ? And what about the pro colonialist governement of israel ? Netanyahu himself or his defense minister katz or smotrich, eliyahu, ben gvir, all of them are pro colonization and for the expansion or israel why do you trust them so much against any kind of rationality ?
So many question without answers provided other than the security bs.
1. Hamas and Hezbollah are from impoverished nations. HTS is also capable.
2. It makes no difference that they illegally annexed the golan heights. The land they've taken recently can improve their defensive positions regardless.
3. I've already explained this.
4. What about it? There are already settlements on the fertile parts of the heights. The land they took is not exactly prime real estate for settlement.
The answer is most likely about your perception of arabs. There is too much verbiage while most of the things are centered around pre conceived ideologies anyway. A guy who don't believe or support the shoah is a nazi, for the armenian genocide, we're calling it a turkish supremacist, very weird that people who justify every action of israel are not called for what they are, racists.
You shoudn't read middleasteye, it's super "ideological" as it gives arab perspective and testimonies.
The classic 'you disagree with me so you're a racist' defense. I've justified nothing. I've pointed out that their reasoning is not contradictory. Nowhere do I give my opinion on their conduct. Neither will I since I'm not interested in talking to clowns that resort to ad hominems in their first response.
|
On December 17 2024 04:37 Billyboy wrote:
It is not strange at all,
Oh, ok.
I guess the definition is a little larger than I thought, you're right.
On December 14 2024 23:53 stilt wrote:
The answer is most likely about your perception of arabs. There is too much verbiage while most of the things are centered around pre conceived ideologies anyway. A guy who don't believe or support the shoah is a nazi, for the armenian genocide, we're calling it a turkish supremacist, very weird that people who justify every action of israel are not called for what they are, racists.
Strongly agree with this. I think it's a little easier for us to make that connexion because of Enthoven / Fourest, like I don't know that there's an english equivalent for this type of personality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
