|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On October 14 2023 03:02 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2023 02:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2. There was no cycle of violence to speak of in this case. There was violence and then there was a violent overwhelming response that cut it off. The plans in question are discussion of what to do after they cut the entire violence off. On October 14 2023 02:12 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? NK shells an island or shoots up a fishing boat from time to time. SK can choose between escalating in a competition where they’re bluffing and everyone knows they’re bluffing or standing down. They choose to stand down because it’s the least bad option. Let’s say NK kill 100 SK civilians. SK strikes back and kills 1,000. NK kills 10,000. You’re the SK leader. You can either keep playing this game until Seoul is destroyed and the NK leadership are dead or you can give up. You’re always going to give up because the destruction of Seoul isn’t victory, even if NK is also destroyed. NK know you’re always going to give up first and so they can escalate each time without consequence. You know you’re always going to give up first. The mistake was striking back and killing 1,000. All you achieved was getting another 10,000 of your own people killed. I agree, killing 1000 is indeed a mistake that does not solve the problem. I won't write out the implication, but i will note that there is no cycle of violence to speak of in this case either. And if you ask me, waiting for the next 100 to die is not exactly an acceptable answer. Is it acceptable to commit genocide in order to save 100 citizens? You can certainly make an argument that trying to minimize the damage an attack can do, and accepting that another 100 (or maybe less) die is the least bad outcome there is. Because every other option seems to involve tens of thousands of dead Palestinians. My argument is that "least bad" choice is guided by practical outcomes, not by ethical concerns. This might come across as really hateful, but make no mistake, it's not hate, just indifference: just like almost nobody in Russia ever cared about people that died in glassing Groznyi after what in hindsight was very sloppy false flag terrorism, very few people in Middle East, Israeli or Arabians will care if tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Palestinians will die in process of cleaning up Hamas in case of hypothetical (?) ground operation. The question everyone there, ironically, would be concerned about are Israel's losses in process. As for genocide question my question in return is: what is price would you be willing to pay to prevent genocide if you had opportunity to make decisions? The price I'd be willing to pay is to accept that the occasional attack will happen and spend my effort working to minimize those attacks (without just randomly bombing Gaza)
Its the price you pay for decades of past choices.
|
On October 14 2023 03:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:
You can certainly make an argument that trying to minimize the damage an attack can do, and accepting that another 100 (or maybe less) die is the least bad outcome there is. Unless Hamas attacks will become more frequent/massive when there's no retaliation to any of them. Can we expect this to not be the case if Israel would stop violence from their side? Please explain how killing a random 100.000 civilians will stop Hamas from attacking.
|
Norway28727 Posts
On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world?
I mean, by definition it does, right?
That's a bit facetious. I don't think there's any sort of parallel to the Palestine/Israel question that really exists, tbh. South vs North Korea is probably the closest, but it differs greatly in the sense that both are capable of seriously hurting the other. Aside from this, throughout history, territorial conflicts between unequal players (for peers, peace through strength has been a viable option) have tended to be resolved either through a) one party realizing that their claim to area x wasn't strong enough to justify the military investment required to keep it (basically every sprawling empire), or b) genocide. Hopefully we've evolved past genocide, and neither party can pack up their bags and leave, so neither of those work.
The thing about this conflict is that Hamas isn't limited by their will, they're limited by their ability. If you don't retaliate, it doesn't mean another attack of this magnitude is going to happen next month - this took a whole lot of planning. If they were able to execute attacks like this more frequently, they would. While that might sound like a reason for swift action, imo, it actually isn't. Aside from the hostage situation, there's probably no real rush, and I'll confidently assert that I don't think the hostages are more likely to make it out alive now than they were last sunday.
This means that Israel's immediate security is not necessarily compromised by attempting to address the underlying reasons. Again - I'm not justifying terror - but there is a reason why Hamas enjoys considerable support in the population. Palestinians are oppressed by Israel. Retaliating - and killing 20x palestinians for every Israeli (those are the numbers since 2008) - is going to hurt Hamas' ability to harm Israel on a short term basis, but it'll also ensure that future support for Hamas, and for terrorist attacks targeting Israel, will remain high. Aside from genocide, which should not be considered a solution, there is no solution that doesn't involve one party choosing not to retaliate. The difference is that the 'peaceful status quo' is tenable for the Israelis, but not for the Palestinians living on the Gaza strip, so we'll never see a complete halt in violence from Palestine unless their situation is drastically improved.
Rationally I genuinely do think this is the best response, also for Israel.
|
On October 14 2023 03:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Please explain how killing a random 100.000 civilians will stop Hamas from attacking. Killing 100.000 civilians will not stop Hamas from attacking.
Killing every Hamas fighter and their leadership might stop it for some (maybe long) time.
Civilian deaths are collateral damage that Israel is ready to inflict as long as it (hopefully) leads to the previous goal.
I'm not saying I agree with Israel methods, but I also think stopping violence from one side only doesn't work unless you can force the other side to stop it too.
And the proposed solution of not retaliating for next 30 years while spending tons of effort/resources on improving lives of hostile people who hate you - and many of them will always hate you - hoping that this will help and there won't be any political/economic events that will undo all/most of this... I don't see Israel taking this chance.
|
I’m not sure you can call it “collateral damage” if the military endeavors being carried out have no plausible objective besides hurting civilians. That’s not collateral damage, it’s targeting noncombatants.
|
On October 14 2023 03:43 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 03:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Please explain how killing a random 100.000 civilians will stop Hamas from attacking. Killing 100.000 civilians will not stop Hamas from attacking. Killing every Hamas fighter and their leadership might stop it for some (maybe long) time. Civilian deaths are collateral damage that Israel is ready to inflict as long as it (hopefully) leads to the previous goal. I'm not saying I agree with Israel methods, but I also think stopping violence from one side only doesn't work unless you can force the other side to stop it too. Except your civilian collateral just feeds new Hamas fighters. Because Israel just bombed their homes, their families, their loved ones.
That's why we say the only way to remove Hamas is to commit genocide. Because if you kill all but 10 Palestinians in Gaza you still have 10 potential future Hamas fighters left.
|
On October 14 2023 03:46 ChristianS wrote:
I’m not sure you can call it “collateral damage” if the military endeavors being carried out have no plausible objective besides hurting civilians. That’s not collateral damage, it’s targeting noncombatants. I think we all here condemn such attacks made only to hurt civilians?
I was talking about possible Israel's justification of killing Hamas fighters with civilians unfortunate deaths as unavoidable in such densely populater area collateral damage.
If it's not the case and the main Israel's goal is to kill a lot of civilians, this is not justified and never will be, by - hopefully - anyone.
But again, as I said
And the proposed solution of not retaliating for next 30 years while spending tons of effort/resurces on improving lives of hostile people who hate you - and many of them will always hate you - hoping that this will help and there won't be any political/economic events that will undo all/most of this... I don't see Israel taking this chance.
|
On October 14 2023 03:50 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 03:46 ChristianS wrote:
I’m not sure you can call it “collateral damage” if the military endeavors being carried out have no plausible objective besides hurting civilians. That’s not collateral damage, it’s targeting noncombatants. I think we all here condemn such attacks made only to hurt civilians? I was talking about possible Israel's justification of killing Hamas fighters with civilians unfortunate deaths as unavoidable in such densely populater area collateral damage.
Yeah, I understand, but it’s pretty clear that’s not what we’re watching. How useful is it to argue about how justified a hypothetical IDF in another universe would be if it was only targeting legitimate military targets?
|
|
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 14 2023 03:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 03:02 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 14 2023 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2023 02:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 14 2023 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? The Allies chose the Marshall Plan over the Morgenthau Plan after WW2. There was no cycle of violence to speak of in this case. There was violence and then there was a violent overwhelming response that cut it off. The plans in question are discussion of what to do after they cut the entire violence off. On October 14 2023 02:12 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? NK shells an island or shoots up a fishing boat from time to time. SK can choose between escalating in a competition where they’re bluffing and everyone knows they’re bluffing or standing down. They choose to stand down because it’s the least bad option. Let’s say NK kill 100 SK civilians. SK strikes back and kills 1,000. NK kills 10,000. You’re the SK leader. You can either keep playing this game until Seoul is destroyed and the NK leadership are dead or you can give up. You’re always going to give up because the destruction of Seoul isn’t victory, even if NK is also destroyed. NK know you’re always going to give up first and so they can escalate each time without consequence. You know you’re always going to give up first. The mistake was striking back and killing 1,000. All you achieved was getting another 10,000 of your own people killed. I agree, killing 1000 is indeed a mistake that does not solve the problem. I won't write out the implication, but i will note that there is no cycle of violence to speak of in this case either. And if you ask me, waiting for the next 100 to die is not exactly an acceptable answer. Is it acceptable to commit genocide in order to save 100 citizens? You can certainly make an argument that trying to minimize the damage an attack can do, and accepting that another 100 (or maybe less) die is the least bad outcome there is. Because every other option seems to involve tens of thousands of dead Palestinians. My argument is that "least bad" choice is guided by practical outcomes, not by ethical concerns. This might come across as really hateful, but make no mistake, it's not hate, just indifference: just like almost nobody in Russia ever cared about people that died in glassing Groznyi after what in hindsight was very sloppy false flag terrorism, very few people in Middle East, Israeli or Arabians will care if tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Palestinians will die in process of cleaning up Hamas in case of hypothetical (?) ground operation. The question everyone there, ironically, would be concerned about are Israel's losses in process. As for genocide question my question in return is: what is price would you be willing to pay to prevent genocide if you had opportunity to make decisions? The price I'd be willing to pay is to accept that the occasional attack will happen and spend my effort working to minimize those attacks (without just randomly bombing Gaza) Its the price you pay for decades of past choices.
Let's just say that i hope you will never have to deal with terrorism in your neighbourhood. Because nobody who did will share your opinion. As in yes, they agree that minimising those attacks is desired outcome. But in general people that did meet terrorism never feel like tying their hands up. I met enough people for that to be a statistic.
On October 14 2023 03:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 02:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 13 2023 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 13 2023 20:22 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 13 2023 19:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ask terrible questions and you'll get terrible answers. Why is the question "what Israel should do right now after this attack, what would be the right thing to do" terrible? This is the situation we have at hand, and people are understandably not happy with Israel's reaction. What reaction would you/they prefer to see? Or what would be a not-terrible question that concerns specifically this situation here and now, and not "how it should have been done 50-60-70 years ago"? I mean, my honest suggestion would be to stop the cycle of violence and not retaliate. There was a two day period after the terrorist attack where support for Israel was at its peak - even leftist groups who have in the past been more critical of Israel than of Hamas were suddenly echoing 'Hamas are abhorrent terrorists' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. With a nonviolent response, they could have succeeded in actually cementing themselves as a force of good and made support of israel ubiquitous. In the real world where hippies like myself yield no influence, they could retaliate without this much indiscriminate bombing, without using white phosporous, without blocking food water and electricity, without ordering 1.1 million people to flee their homes within a day or two. Sorry if that sounds rude, but i am sincerely curious. What gave you the impression that "not retaliating" ever breaks a cycle of violence literally anywhere in the world? I mean, by definition it does, right? That's a bit facetious. I don't think there's any sort of parallel to the Palestine/Israel question that really exists, tbh. South vs North Korea is probably the closest, but it differs greatly in the sense that both are capable of seriously hurting the other. Aside from this, throughout history, territorial conflicts between unequal players (for peers, peace through strength has been a viable option) have tended to be resolved either through a) one party realizing that their claim to area x wasn't strong enough to justify the military investment required to keep it (basically every sprawling empire), or b) genocide. Hopefully we've evolved past genocide, and neither party can pack up their bags and leave, so neither of those work. The thing about this conflict is that Hamas isn't limited by their will, they're limited by their ability. If you don't retaliate, it doesn't mean another attack of this magnitude is going to happen next month - this took a whole lot of planning. If they were able to execute attacks like this more frequently, they would. While that might sound like a reason for swift action, imo, it actually isn't. Aside from the hostage situation, there's probably no real rush, and I'll confidently assert that I don't think the hostages are more likely to make it out alive now than they were last sunday. This means that Israel's immediate security is not necessarily compromised by attempting to address the underlying reasons. Again - I'm not justifying terror - but there is a reason why Hamas enjoys considerable support in the population. Palestinians are oppressed by Israel. Retaliating - and killing 20x palestinians for every Israeli (those are the numbers since 2008) - is going to hurt Hamas' ability to harm Israel on a short term basis, but it'll also ensure that future support for Hamas, and for terrorist attacks targeting Israel, will remain high. Aside from genocide, which should not be considered a solution, there is no solution that doesn't involve one party choosing not to retaliate. The difference is that the 'peaceful status quo' is tenable for the Israelis, but not for the Palestinians living on the Gaza strip, so we'll never see a complete halt in violence from Palestine unless their situation is drastically improved. Rationally I genuinely do think this is the best response, also for Israel.
Hamas is limited by their ability... But Hamas does not exactly run the production chain, it's backers/sponsors do. So I dare say that in counterfactual universe where Israel lets this fly without retaliation, even if we ignore the political outrage (surprise, democracies are object to the whim of voter base and voters don't like ignoring terroristic acts committed against them), Hamas will just do the same thing a year later. Sure, it will not have same success because now 5 miles around Gaza strip will become a minefield denser than Ukrainian front instead of having a peace festival happening there, but when did that stop them?
And yes, you said yourself that being "peaceful" is not an option for Hamas, so absence of retaliation is the same naive dream that leaving Gaza alone by Israel has proved to be.
|
On October 14 2023 03:53 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 03:50 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 14 2023 03:46 ChristianS wrote:
I’m not sure you can call it “collateral damage” if the military endeavors being carried out have no plausible objective besides hurting civilians. That’s not collateral damage, it’s targeting noncombatants. I think we all here condemn such attacks made only to hurt civilians? I was talking about possible Israel's justification of killing Hamas fighters with civilians unfortunate deaths as unavoidable in such densely populater area collateral damage. Yeah, I understand, but it’s pretty clear that’s not what we’re watching. How useful is it to argue about how justified a hypothetical IDF in another universe would be if it was only targeting legitimate military targets?
It's not clear at all since Hamas entire military strategy is based on using civilians and civilian areas for military purposes. We have no way to know how much of it is justified or not untill the dust settles.
|
On October 14 2023 03:53 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, I understand, but it’s pretty clear that’s not what we’re watching. Btw, are there any numbers available on what % of hit targets were obviously exclusively civilian, and what % were military / semi-military?
Because IDF dropped what, 6.000 bombs in 5 days?
If 5.700 bombs did hit military targets and 300 were not precise enough and did hit civilian ones, it's 95% military, 5% civilian.
And we would still see thousands of photos/videos from those 300 "bad" hits and probably think IDF is intentionally hitting civilians. Because 300 bombs is a LOT, but it still would be only 5% - which could be (at least partially) explained by mistakes in targeting.
If it is, say, 60% military and 40% civilians, it's a very different picture with pretty different possible conclusions.
|
On October 14 2023 04:02 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Btw, are there any numbers available on what % of hit targets were obviously exclusively civilian, and what % were military / semi-military?
Because IDF dropped what, 6.000 bombs in 5 days?
If 5.700 bombs did hit military targets and 300 were not precise enough and did hit civilian ones, it's 95% military, 5% civilian.
And we would still see thousands of photos/videos from those 300 "bad" hits and probably think IDF is intentionally hitting civilians. Because 300 bombs is a LOT, but it still would be only 5% - which could be (at least partially) explained by mistakes in targeting.
If it is, say, 60% military and 40% civilians, it's a very different picture with pretty different possible conclusions.
No, and there never will be, because this whole thing relies entirely on the IDF saying “yeah, we had reason to believe, we can’t show you though because it’s classified…”
This is a long-standing problem with classified intelligence systems. In the US you’ve got an alphabet soup of 3-letter agencies with vaguely defined powers that they’re theoretically only supposed to use under the right circumstances, but everything they do is secret. So they drone-strike a wedding in Yemen and everybody complains and the 3-letter agencies say… nothing, because they don’t have to, but we’re meant to infer they had *really good* intelligence that someone *really bad* was at that wedding and they had no choice. They’ll never admit what happened or release any information about how they decided to do what they did.
Israel bombing the AP headquarters a couple years back was a similar deal. We’re just supposed to take on faith that there was a Hamas cell in the basement or something, no effort will ever be made to clarify why they did it. If these militaries ever do internal audits to figure out how “justified” their strikes actually are, we’ll never hear the results, unless it’s a bogus “the IDF investigated its own actions and concluded that in 100% of cases the IDF did nothing wrong” with all details of how they arrived at that conclusion redacted.
In that sense it’s sort of helpful in clarifying the situation when Israel takes totally unambiguous steps like blocking food, water, fuel, and electricity to the entire territory, or ordering fully 1.1 million people to evacuate in 24 hours, or deploying white phosphorus in dense civilian centers. There wasn’t really much ambiguity from the mass bombing anyway (their leaders were openly saying “we’re going to level every building”) but most of this stuff can’t even hide behind saying “that was a legitimate target, actually, just trust us.”
|
United States43348 Posts
Consider 9/11. After 9/11 the US public was determined to strike back. To do something. There wasn’t necessarily a good plan for how to achieve a world without terrorism but action for the sake of action was considered a viable alternative to a plan.
The US spent about $1,600,000,000 per person killed in the WTC on the War on Terror. In addition to the lives of tens of thousands of US servicemen and millions of lives in broader collateral. And at the end of all of that the Taliban rule Afghanistan.
Regardless of whether there exists a right to self defence there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. Israel may have a right to be dumb, but I can’t understand the argument that says they have an obligation to be dumb.
|
On October 14 2023 05:06 KwarK wrote:
there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. But Israel does have a plan, doesn't it?
Make sure that after the invasion there's no Hamas left or at least not with enough power to do anything significant.
Collateral damage is irrelevant.
Israel citizens are happy about both revenge and probable lack of big Hamas (and other radicals) attacks for some time.
In 20 years this problem will surely appear again but it will be a future problem for future government.
|
United States43348 Posts
On October 14 2023 05:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 05:06 KwarK wrote:
there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. But Israel does have a plan, doesn't it? Make sure that after the invasion there's no Hamas left or at least not with enough power to do anything significant. Collateral damage is irrelevant. Israel citizens are happy about both revenge and probable lack of big Hamas (and other radicals) attacks for some time. In 20 years this problem will surely appear again but it will be a future problem for future government.
That’s a goal. A plan has to have steps that get you from where you are to where you want to be.
|
On October 14 2023 05:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 05:06 KwarK wrote:
there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. But Israel does have a plan, doesn't it? Make sure that after the invasion there's no Hamas left or at least not with enough power to do anything significant. Collateral damage is irrelevant. Israel citizens are happy about both revenge and probable lack of big Hamas (and other radicals) attacks for some time. In 20 years this problem will surely appear again but it will be a future problem for future government. Sure, Genocide is a plan.
probably shouldn't be tho.
On October 14 2023 05:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 05:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:On October 14 2023 05:06 KwarK wrote:
there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. But Israel does have a plan, doesn't it? Make sure that after the invasion there's no Hamas left or at least not with enough power to do anything significant. Collateral damage is irrelevant. Israel citizens are happy about both revenge and probable lack of big Hamas (and other radicals) attacks for some time. In 20 years this problem will surely appear again but it will be a future problem for future government. That’s a goal. A plan has to have steps that get you from where you are to where you want to be.
Step A: commit genocide.
There is no step B.
|
On October 14 2023 05:16 KwarK wrote:
That’s a goal. A plan has to have steps that get you from where you are to where you want to be. Steps:
1. Invade Gaza
2. Kill all Hamas fighters and leadership you can find, destroy all military infrastructure
3. Accept any collateral damage as "ok whatever" because you can.
4. Report your great victory to your citizens.
5. Enjoy your status of "strong protector".
On October 14 2023 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Sure, Genocide is a plan.
probably shouldn't be tho.. Did I say it's a good plan?
|
On October 14 2023 05:13 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 05:06 KwarK wrote:
there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. But Israel does have a plan, doesn't it? Make sure that after the invasion there's no Hamas left or at least not with enough power to do anything significant. Collateral damage is irrelevant. Israel citizens are happy about both revenge and probable lack of big Hamas (and other radicals) attacks for some time. In 20 years this problem will surely appear again but it will be a future problem for future government.
Hezbollah has so far mostly sat on the sidelines, but if Hezbollah decides to help out, you suddenly have to deal with attacks out of Lebanon and Syria as well. While I reckon Lebanon is doing their utmost to keep Hezbollah out, because they don't want Beirut to get the Gaza treatment, if Israel actually starts slaughtering Palestinian citizens by the truckload in a "kill everything that moves" ground assault, you can bet that Hezbollah will attack, causing more death and misery for all involved. So how is the current approach a plan rather than acting like a bull in a china shop?
|
On October 14 2023 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Consider 9/11. After 9/11 the US public was determined to strike back. To do something. There wasn’t necessarily a good plan for how to achieve a world without terrorism but action for the sake of action was considered a viable alternative to a plan.
The US spent about $1,600,000,000 per person killed in the WTC on the War on Terror. In addition to the lives of tens of thousands of US servicemen and millions of lives in broader collateral. And at the end of all of that the Taliban rule Afghanistan.
Regardless of whether there exists a right to self defence there is still a basic need to come up with a plan before you start invading places. Israel may have a right to be dumb, but I can’t understand the argument that says they have an obligation to be dumb.
I think this is one of the best arguments I've read regarding this conflict.
On October 14 2023 05:21 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 05:16 KwarK wrote:
That’s a goal. A plan has to have steps that get you from where you are to where you want to be. Steps: 1. Invade Gaza 2. Kill all Hamas fighters and leadership you can find, destroy all military infrastructure 3. Accept any collateral damage as "ok whatever" because you can. 4. Report your great victory to your citizens. 5. Enjoy your status of "strong protector". Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Sure, Genocide is a plan.
probably shouldn't be tho.. Did I say it's a good plan?
This won't work, it's impossible to kill all members of Hamas. Do you remember how long it took to kill Bin Laden? Furthermore, Hamas are not a rock formation that can be pulverized, they're an idea. Ideas can't be destroyed. Hamas grows through recruitment from a very young age, and just a few hundred members are enough to rebuild them from scratch.
Also, if somehow Israel were to kill all current members of Hamas - as impossible as that sounds - that'd require such an extreme level of death and destruction that it'd inspire growing hatred in their enemies. But also the US would harshly condemn Israel's actions or even cut all support. Israel can't afford to lose that support, they're geographically isolated. Countries like Egypt might also once again turn hostile against Israel.
This plan sounds very unrealistic and very bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
