|
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 17 2023 20:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:On October 17 2023 13:22 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 17 2023 09:26 Magic Powers wrote:On October 17 2023 07:12 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 16 2023 12:20 Manit0u wrote:On October 16 2023 11:45 Cerebrate1 wrote:
That's not true. At least not the way you seem to mean it. It is not reasonable or ethical to expect Israel to lower their defenses while there is a terrorist state in their backyard. They have currently have no reasonable options at all. Isn't the reason for that though that Israel is effectively occupying former Palestinian territory? The reason Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centers was similar. The guy had some arguably noble motives. But killing over 1,000 innocent civilians in cold blood is still bad. The issue there was the method he used to achieve his goals. Violence. Ghandi and Martin Luther King made political change with peace. Those are visionaries whom we can follow. If all of the Arab world wanted peace with Israel and Hamas was replaced by a Ghani, I can guarantee Israel would make a deal and give up land. Heck, you can see it in practice when they gave up the whole oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for nothing more than a promise that Egypt would stop attacking. You can agree with a cause and still reject violence as the answer. And you should, if you value a stable society. Now imagine you had hooks in Bin Laden. You were building infrastructure for his community. Wouldn’t it make sense to make that building contingent on him not murdering more people? On October 16 2023 17:55 Magic Powers wrote:On October 16 2023 08:57 Cerebrate1 wrote:On October 16 2023 08:19 Magic Powers wrote:
The argument that Hamas isn't driven by religious fanaticism above all other motives is fairly new to me. I've never heard that claim before and I'd require something far more substantial than someone's opinion on the internet before I consider its validity. Oh that definitely plays a part, at least for the foot soldiers. The people on top are definitely driven by money and power like most corrupt leaders though. The fact that they are all millionaires or billionaires should attest to that. While there are Muslim religious scriptures that support some of their goals, they are clearly cherry picked from hundreds of other things and focused on for political reasons. If you look closely at those political reasons, they align coincidentally closely to situations that allow the Hamas leaders to get rich and/or stay in power. In the meantime, if your concern is that you feel religious fanatics do not have free will, I can assure you as someone who has interacted with very religious people of multiple faiths, that all but the most devout will bend or even brake their rules if it goes too far against their self interest. There are no better examples of the most devout than Hamas. Palestinians by and large are not like Hamas. Only Hamas and a few other extremist groups are like Hamas. They don't fall into regular person territory and therefore our rationale doesn't apply to them. For us, money matters. For Hamas, it doesn't. American presidents also tend to get very rich. That doesn't mean they're in it for the money, they do it for various other reasons first, and money is one of their secondary motives. Donald Trump even lost a lot of money during his presidency. Hamas leaders therefore cannot be assumed to be money driven. Power, yes. But religion first and foremost. The money ranks relatively low on their agenda, at least initially. They come into power because they're radical. I don't know how much time you have spent in the Middle East, but I have spent the better part of a decade there and traveled to several countries in the region. Their mindset is definitely different than Westerners, but they are not so alien as to be irrational. And even if you doubt me, is that a reason not to try? On the chance that you could incentivize peace without spending an extra dollar, why wouldn't you do it? You're somehow never reading my argument correctly. Palestinians are not Hamas. Only Hamas are Hamas. They're not like other Palestinians, they're radical, they're extreme, they're fanatic. Palestinians are largely regular people, some with more radical views than others, but they're not comparable to the fanaticism of Hamas members. So when you think of a typical Palestinian, or a typical Arab, then that's a person who's very unlikely to have extremist views like Hamas do. That means you can't understand Hamas by understanding Arabs. You can only understand Hamas by understanding Hamas. I understand you. I just think you overestimate how different Hamas thinks. Regardless, my last line is my main point, which I'd love to hear your response if you disagree: why not try? Make the amount of aid continent on good behavior. All governments, even authoritarian regimes, need to keep their people happy to rule. People will be more happy with more aid and pissed at Hamas if the aid drops whenever they attack. Your question "why not try?" is just another reason why I think you don't understand Hamas. It shows that you don't understand extreme religious devotion. They will never try to make peace because their ideology is opposite to that. To them, peace equates to destroying Israel and killing all Jews. It's in the text that they adhere to. It's in the speeches of their thought leaders. There is strictly no other valid, less barbaric path for them. Hamas will never show "good behavior". It's strictly impossible. They'll destroy Israel. That's the only way. They don't care how much bloodshed is necessary to accomplish that. They don't care about the death count on any of the sides. They don't care about innocent deaths. It's all for God. You can't reason with such people. Their book says nothing of the kind. However their interpretation of their book might. Then again, Wahabism is no less extremist and the Saudis seem like they shoved their extremist views aside far enough to normalise their relations with Israel. So claiming they can't be reasoned with because they're religious extremists is a false dichotomy. Yes, they are religious extremists and I'm sure there's a particularly crazy faction inside Hamas that cannot be reasoned with (and that faction is no doubt encouraged and funded by Iran who do so for geopolitical reasons far moreso than religion). However I also don't doubt that there are a lot of Hamas who see the religious aspect as a means to an end: driving Israel off the land they want to live on. PLO "went soft", so anybody who believes the solution is to blow Israelis up until they give in or die is going to join Hamas, even if they don't care much about religion.
"When the situation deteriorated Qurayza sent their messenger to negotiate with the Prophet the terms of their surrender. They proposed to surrender and depart leaving behind their land and property and taking with them movable property only, the load of a camel per person. When this proposal was rejected, the messenger returned asking that Qurayza be permitted to depart without any property, taking with them only their families; but this proposal too was rejected and the Prophet insisted that they surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment."
"When all the parties agreed to abide by the judgment of Sa'd he gave his concise verdict: the men shall be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils divided among the Muslims. The Prophet ratified the judgment and stated that Sa-d's decree had been issued as a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens."
Twice Muhammad was offered surrender. First was exile with property. Then with family but without property. Muhammad rejected both offers. He demanded death, slavery and robbery. His judgement was that of God.
http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/banu_qurayza.pdf
Some people might argue that Muhammad's enemies made similar demands, so those were "different times". People were just more violent during those days. Muhammad only responded in kind. Something like that.
But Muhammad is the final voice of God. People commit sins, Muhammad does not. If the Prophet demands it, it cannot be a sin. If Muhammad had the right to slaughter, enslave and rob a defeated enemy, then it must be God's will.
I can also explain why Jerusalem is so important to the Muslims and how this connects to the eradication of Israel and the Jews, but for now this should suffice.
|
Plenty of shit like that in the Old Testament, too, doesn’t mean every Muslim is doctrinally bound to support war crimes any more than Christians or Jews.
|
On October 17 2023 22:17 ChristianS wrote:
Plenty of shit like that in the Old Testament, too, doesn’t mean every Muslim is doctrinally bound to support war crimes any more than Christians or Jews.
Christianity is not free to be practiced in full in western countries. I said it before and I'll say it again, if Christians were free to do whatever they want, our beloved western democracies would turn into a bunch of shitholes very quickly. You don't have to believe me, you only have to look at the policies they want to enact, and have enacted, and the policies they consistently block or try to block.
Islam is fundamentally no less barbaric than Christianity. But Muslims in the ME don't live in secularist societies like we do.
You may also notice that I'm not condemning Muslims. Only Hamas and other extremist groups. They're so powerful because there is no secularist leash on Islam in the ME.
|
It's extremely easy to practice a religion "in full" without being a fundamentalist. You just agree with the fundamentalist interpretation more than you do with the moderate interpretation, and this is a view that has no rational justification. It's a version of fedora atheism that I find annoying but I've been trying not to engage with it too much in this thread because I don't think it's very relevant to Israel/Palestine.
|
Bullshit. Islam was the most peaceful religion for centuries, it was tolerant and enlightened while Christianity was burning witches and murdering the jews. You cannot claim both that all religion wants to genocide because of their book and one in particular because it is not bound by society.
|
I think what the conversation is missing is that Christianity went through the reformations where people rose up and did fight against the church's ways that was resolved in a treaty beginning to allow for religious freedoms. Christianity isn't any cleaner than islam but it has had the door opened to secular societies while still being very religious personally.
Islam has never had a reformation. It has had one warlord or another twisting it to their own whims until it becomes a weapon for the state to use to advance its ends. Almost all nations in islam don't interpret it like that en mass but the denominations of it certainly do exist still.
On October 18 2023 00:24 Broetchenholer wrote:
Bullshit. Islam was the most peaceful religion for centuries, it was tolerant and enlightened while Christianity was burning witches and murdering the jews. You cannot claim both that all religion wants to genocide because of their book and one in particular because it is not bound by society.
When was it "the most peaceful religion"? I'm just genuinely curious when you think this is? Its a religion whos most important development was the schism that happened when its prophet died and most of his supporters decided that they didn't care what he wanted after his death.
|
United States41965 Posts
On October 18 2023 00:28 Sermokala wrote:
I think what the conversation is missing is that Christianity went through the reformations where people rose up and did fight against the church's ways that was resolved in a treaty beginning to allow for religious freedoms. Christianity isn't any cleaner than islam but it has had the door opened to secular societies while still being very religious personally.
Islam has never had a reformation. It has had one warlord or another twisting it to their own whims until it becomes a weapon for the state to use to advance its ends. Almost all nations in islam don't interpret it like that en mass but the denominations of it certainly do exist still.
Eh, bit of a stretch on the reformation. More of an enlightenment thing. Martin Luther hated Jews and Henry VIII just wanted to marry his mistress. And far from rising up, the people have generally been the most conservative element of any given religion. They’re the Russians keeping shrines to the Tsar at home during the Soviet years, the Catholics bitching about the liberal Pope, the congregations railing against Obama, women against women ministers etc.
The general population has, through most of history, been huge fans of the power structures that repress them. They love monarchy, theocracy, castes etc. Basically anything that tells them that there is an order to the world and that everyone has their place in it, even if their place is at the bottom.
Obviously the west is more secular but I think that’s less to do with revolution and the reformation and more to do with the general discrediting and destruction of conservative power structures that took place over the last thousand years in the west. Over the years these institutions failed at the top level and had their power replaced by newer and more effective institutions.
Without the same organic failures over a period of centuries we see a failure of western imposed institutions to uproot the more established ones in the Middle East. You kinda have to behead your own king when the time is right for you, if someone else beheads them for you then you’ll just revert to a new one a few years later.
|
On October 18 2023 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:
It's extremely easy to practice a religion "in full" without being a fundamentalist. You just agree with the fundamentalist interpretation more than you do with the moderate interpretation, and this is a view that has no rational justification. It's a version of fedora atheism that I find annoying but I've been trying not to engage with it too much in this thread because I don't think it's very relevant to Israel/Palestine.
I don't agree with the fundamentalist interpretation. Hamas do.
Christianity is on a leash because of secularism, human rights, etc. That's why our fundamentalist Christians cause little harm compared to those from centuries ago.
There's no secularist leash on Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims grow very powerful because they're supported by governments. Those governments, since not being secularist, have no inhibitions in that regard. Iran, Qatar, etc. are free to fund Hamas as much as they please.
This would never be tolerated in secularist countries. That's the main reason why Christianity is less barbaric today: secularism.
The religion of Christianity is madness. The OT is utterly barbaric. We can never remove the chains from this monstrosity of an ideology or else we'll start growing our own extremist religious groups just like Hamas.
|
On October 18 2023 00:24 Broetchenholer wrote:
Bullshit. Islam was the most peaceful religion for centuries, it was tolerant and enlightened while Christianity was burning witches and murdering the jews. You cannot claim both that all religion wants to genocide because of their book and one in particular because it is not bound by society.
In the same sense that the Roman Republic was peaceful, I guess. lol
|
Reports coming in of another hospital getting hit by Israeli airstrikes killing hundreds.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
From what I see, very likely to be IDF's doing.
Claiming that hundreds were killed in result of it, however, hilariously, makes it likely that said hospital was a cover for a bunch of rockets/other explosive ammo, so responsibility would still be on Hamas.
EDIT: Well, i guess i should predict IDF committing war crimes more often, given that it's freaking Al Jazeera who set out to prove me wrong this time.
|
United States41965 Posts
IDF denies it was them. Probably wise to reserve judgment until more data is available as I’m sure additional footage will start showing up in the next few hours. There’s no pressing need for anyone on TL needs to draw conclusions and act in a matter of minutes.
|
On October 18 2023 00:24 Broetchenholer wrote:
Bullshit. Islam was the most peaceful religion for centuries, it was tolerant and enlightened while Christianity was burning witches and murdering the jews. You cannot claim both that all religion wants to genocide because of their book and one in particular because it is not bound by society.
The whole "no, their religious book doesn't say that!" is a total red herring and doesn't matter at all. If Hamas believes god supports killing Jews and that throwing your life away in pursuit of killing Jews (hiding missiles in hospitals and schools and whatnot) gives you a ticket straight to heaven, that ideology is a problem. In normal wars with normal factions, 100% of ruling governments will encourage women and children to evacuate certain areas while still encouraging able-bodied fighting-age men to stay and fight.
Whether you want to label it as some kinda strict adherence to the Quran or not, it doesn't matter because we can all have 100% confidence Hamas will act in accordance with these beliefs and Hamas will encourage their citizens to operate in accordance with these beliefs.No one actually cares if you label it as "Muslim faith" or "pancakes" or "a red table with a tea kettle on it". The issue is that there is some ideology, whatever we want to call it, that is deeply followed by Hamas. No one gives a shit what the actual Quran says because the problem doesn't require the Quran to say it. Its not like there can only be a problem if we all agree they are interpreting the Quran correctly. Hamas is the problem. We are discussing eliminating Hamas. It is important for Hamas to no longer control and land and to not govern Gaza.
Just to be wildly abundantly clear, Hamas is the problem, and Hamas is not going to be permitted to continue ruling over Gaza. As we have all discussed and aligned on, Hamas has been in power since 2006 and the average age of Gaza is 18. Are we terribly surprised that the group of people who legitimately believe giving up their lives is wonderful so long as it contributes to Jews dying are encouraging people to stick around and add to the body count? Imagine being 16 and living your whole life under a government that tells you dying is totally fantastic so long as you had some kinda impact that negatively impacts Jews as a whole or Israel specifically. I doubt everyone believes this, but it makes sense that Hamas is able to hide missiles and stuff in schools and hospitals when they are oppressive dictators *AND* many people are raised to believe all this stuff is true. So at the very least, it is not possible to prevent Hamas from hiding rockets and military stuff in "civilian buildings" because no one is going to be able to defy Hamas in Gaza.
Therefore, if we accept this gaslighting of "you're bombing hospitals WTF!!!", we are accepting "eliminating Hamas is not an option" as a baseline assumption, which no one is going to agree to. Hamas is toast and its just a matter of how it is achieved. Hamas choosing to hide rockets in hospitals is gonna mean hospitals get bombed.
Are there other options to eliminate Hamas? I wonder if Iran would be able to help with that? Maybe Iran has some influence over Hamas? Maybe other nations could help out? Are there any nations in the region who are making a concentrated effort to remove Hamas from power? And just to make sure I'm 100% clear, the goal is not to create a scenario where 0 people on earth subscribe to Hamas ideology. The goal is to eliminate Hamas as a governing power and for the folks in Gaza to be governed by a different group.
If you disagree with the actions being taken to eliminate Hamas as a governing group, may I ask what your solution is to remove them from power? How do we make sure they do not govern Gaza?
|
On October 18 2023 04:09 KwarK wrote:
IDF denies it was them. Probably wise to reserve judgment until more data is available as I’m sure additional footage will start showing up in the next few hours. There’s no pressing need for anyone on TL needs to draw conclusions and act in a matter of minutes.
Seems like the view the last hour atleast has shifted it to beeing the fault of Islamic Jihad, but wouldnt trust it 100% yet but it seems like missfire from IJ
|
@Mohdoo
As to your question about eliminating Hamas: as I understand it, Iran is one of the main supporters of Hamas. Officially they support Palestinians, but it's known that they fund Hamas. So they won't lift a finger, they'll always condemn Israel and never say one word about Hamas. And none of the other countries supporting Hamas will change course either. It's their collective attack dog, and they use it to further their own agendas.
My guess is that Netanjahu wants to demonstrate to those countries that he can kill their puppy. All that funding and years of secret effort going to waste. If he can accomplish that, it'll secure Israel's position in the ME for many generations. A single country taking on the attack dog of several other countries? Not an easy task.
Blinken has warned Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Ideally the Biden administration would add another warning about not escalating the conflict any further. But perhaps they prefer working on that behind the curtains. The coming days and weeks will be telling.
|
Actually Netanyahu's party has, for years, openly supported Hamas because it prevents a unified Palestinian political front. That and keeps the threats of security at the forefront for them.
But the apparent bombing of a Hospital by the IDF pretty much destroyed any self defense PR israel had going for them.
|
On October 18 2023 05:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Actually Netanyahu's party has, for years, openly supported Hamas because it prevents a unified Palestinian political front. That and keeps the threats of security at the forefront for them.
But the apparent bombing of a Hospital by the IDF pretty much destroyed any self defense PR israel had going for them.
Sadly even if it shows that it was Hamas or IJ that was behind the explosion, the narrative that it was IDFs fault has been set and people wont change their minds
|
On October 18 2023 05:59 Kreuger wrote:
Sadly even if it shows that it was Hamas or IJ that was behind the explosion, the narrative that it was IDFs fault has been set and people wont change their minds Unless there's a super-clear 100% unfallible evidence - and is such thing even possible here? - people will never change their opinion about who it actually was.
You can always say - well, of course they want to show it now as if it wasn't them.
|
IDF is going to need something better than the Shaggy defense to be taken seriously. It does preclude them from plausibly going with the "we were targeting Hamas" line later though.
|
Well Jordan has canceled the meeting Biden was expected to have tomorrow with the King. Lebanese meeting also canceled. Shit basically has hit the fan.
Possibly scenarios now:
Hamas had a rocket misfire which then broke apart and hit the hospital. The problem is with the IDF scenario is that the Iron Dome does not intercept rockets over Gaza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
