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 26 2023 00:15 KwarK wrote: It’s surprisingly common for countries to accidentally fire at each other.
Especially when they are indiscriminately trying to level a place.
Israel has nukes. If it was trying to level Gaza with no other concerns it would have leveled it by now. Let’s try to keep our rhetoric realistic. They are clearly not trying to level the place indiscriminately.
I didn't say they had no other concerns. International opinion has meaning for them. Have you seen any pictures of Gaza? What do you think goes in to the decision of where to fire rockets? Are they trying to see which houses have children in them before they fire a rocket at it, to kill as many as possible? If not, and I assume they aren't, it seems pretty indiscriminate to me, either that or their 'precision accuracy' isn't quite as accurate as we're led to believe.
If I was in a room with a man with a gun and he kept that gun holstered the entire time I would not be credible if I hysterically yelled that he was trying to kill me. Even if he punched me in the face.
I’m not saying Israel is a good guy, I’m saying that “indiscriminately trying to level the place” is hysterically excessive rhetoric.
On October 26 2023 00:15 KwarK wrote: It’s surprisingly common for countries to accidentally fire at each other.
Especially when they are indiscriminately trying to level a place.
Israel has nukes. If it was trying to level Gaza with no other concerns it would have leveled it by now. Let’s try to keep our rhetoric realistic. They are clearly not trying to level the place indiscriminately.
I didn't say they had no other concerns. International opinion has meaning for them. Have you seen any pictures of Gaza? What do you think goes in to the decision of where to fire rockets? Are they trying to see which houses have children in them before they fire a rocket at it, to kill as many as possible? If not, and I assume they aren't, it seems pretty indiscriminate to me, either that or their 'precision accuracy' isn't quite as accurate as we're led to believe.
If I was in a room with a man with a gun and he kept that gun holstered the entire time I would not be credible if I hysterically yelled that he was trying to kill me. Even if he punched me in the face.
I’m not saying Israel is a good guy, I’m saying that “indiscriminately trying to level the place” is hysterically excessive rhetoric.
Your analogies need work dude
The gun is to killing a person as the nuke is to leveling a place. I thought that was clear. They’re both tools that can be used to achieve outcomes. The decision not to use the tool undermines the assertion that the specific outcome is the goal.
On October 26 2023 00:15 KwarK wrote: It’s surprisingly common for countries to accidentally fire at each other.
Especially when they are indiscriminately trying to level a place.
Israel has nukes. If it was trying to level Gaza with no other concerns it would have leveled it by now. Let’s try to keep our rhetoric realistic. They are clearly not trying to level the place indiscriminately.
I didn't say they had no other concerns. International opinion has meaning for them. Have you seen any pictures of Gaza? What do you think goes in to the decision of where to fire rockets? Are they trying to see which houses have children in them before they fire a rocket at it, to kill as many as possible? If not, and I assume they aren't, it seems pretty indiscriminate to me, either that or their 'precision accuracy' isn't quite as accurate as we're led to believe.
If I was in a room with a man with a gun and he kept that gun holstered the entire time I would not be credible if I hysterically yelled that he was trying to kill me. Even if he punched me in the face.
I’m not saying Israel is a good guy, I’m saying that “indiscriminately trying to level the place” is hysterically excessive rhetoric.
Your analogies need work dude
The gun is to killing a person as the nuke is to leveling a place. I thought that was clear. They’re both tools that can be used to achieve outcomes. The decision not to use the tool undermines the assertion that the specific outcome is the goal.
It was pretty clear that although you quoted my post you ignored it favour of the analogy! Like I said before international opinion means something to Israel. Clearly they aren't just going to nuke the place.
On October 26 2023 00:15 KwarK wrote: It’s surprisingly common for countries to accidentally fire at each other.
Especially when they are indiscriminately trying to level a place.
Israel has nukes. If it was trying to level Gaza with no other concerns it would have leveled it by now. Let’s try to keep our rhetoric realistic. They are clearly not trying to level the place indiscriminately.
I didn't say they had no other concerns. International opinion has meaning for them. Have you seen any pictures of Gaza? What do you think goes in to the decision of where to fire rockets? Are they trying to see which houses have children in them before they fire a rocket at it, to kill as many as possible? If not, and I assume they aren't, it seems pretty indiscriminate to me, either that or their 'precision accuracy' isn't quite as accurate as we're led to believe.
If I was in a room with a man with a gun and he kept that gun holstered the entire time I would not be credible if I hysterically yelled that he was trying to kill me. Even if he punched me in the face.
I’m not saying Israel is a good guy, I’m saying that “indiscriminately trying to level the place” is hysterically excessive rhetoric.
Your analogies need work dude
The gun is to killing a person as the nuke is to leveling a place. I thought that was clear. They’re both tools that can be used to achieve outcomes. The decision not to use the tool undermines the assertion that the specific outcome is the goal.
It was pretty clear that although you quoted my post you ignored it favour of the analogy! Like I said before international opinion means something to Israel. Clearly they aren't just going to nuke the place.
They aren’t going to because they don’t want to indiscriminately level the place.
If Israel uses nukes against Gaza, they'll lose all international support in an instant, because there is no ambiguity in the nuclear option. It has only one aim. So if, hypothetically speaking, Israel's intent was to destroy Gaza, but without losing international support, then they could resort to other methods like continuous bombardment of the area. This way they could gauge how far they can go before support would start to dry up. Therefore it cannot be strictly argued that we know what Israel's intent it. The goal of destroying Gaza might well be on their agenda. We can't prove otherwise, and their nuclear arsenal is not a definitive argument to the contrary.
On October 26 2023 02:23 Magic Powers wrote: If Israel uses nukes against Gaza, they'll lose all international support in an instant, because there is no ambiguity in the nuclear option. It has only one aim. So if, hypothetically speaking, Israel's intent was to destroy Gaza, but without losing international support, then they could resort to other methods like continuous bombardment of the area. This way they could gauge how far they can go before support would start to dry up. Therefore it cannot be strictly argued that we know what Israel's intent it. The goal of destroying Gaza might well be on their agenda. We can't prove otherwise, and their nuclear arsenal is not a definitive argument to the contrary.
They aren't going to destroy Gaza at the current pace. And if they were it would look something like this.
Funny, I remember kwark saying the use of a nuke is not to use it. It is deterrence and as such you only use it when someone else is using it against you. Guess that was Ukraine vs Russia kwark though. 😁
On October 26 2023 05:37 Broetchenholer wrote: Funny, I remember kwark saying the use of a nuke is not to use it. It is deterrence and as such you only use it when someone else is using it against you. Guess that was Ukraine vs Russia kwark though. 😁
You’re misrepresenting my point. A sane actor wouldn’t engage in a genocidal nuclear first strike, that is not the rational use of nukes.
He is asserting that Israel has the irrational and insane objective of leveling Gaza. They have precisely the irrational and insane tool for the job. I therefore challenged him to reconcile the failure to use that tool with the scenario he put forth.
I don’t believe that it would be sane for the real Israel in the real world to use a nuke because the real Israel in the real world doesn’t want to level Gaza. He asserted that his imagined Israel is insane with insane goals. The question of why that imagined insane Israel doesn’t use nuclear weapons in insane ways is fair.
I’m not arguing that a sane actor would use nukes that way. I’m accepting the premise of his argument, a genocidal insane Israel that plans to level Gaza, and demonstrating that it does not align with observable evidence. His argument fails after we accept the premise, therefore the premise must be false.
My points regarding Ukraine and Russia were based in reality, not fantasy. My argument here is that if we accept the fantastical premise posited then the argument falls apart. I am not proposing the fantastical premise, I am arguing against it by assuming it is true and showing that it falls apart. You bringing up that I have previously argued against the same premise isn’t really a gotcha.
On October 26 2023 05:37 Broetchenholer wrote: Funny, I remember kwark saying the use of a nuke is not to use it. It is deterrence and as such you only use it when someone else is using it against you. Guess that was Ukraine vs Russia kwark though. 😁
You’re misrepresenting my point. A sane actor wouldn’t engage in a genocidal nuclear first strike, that is not the rational use of nukes.
He is asserting that Israel has the irrational and insane objective of leveling Gaza. They have precisely the irrational and insane tool for the job. I therefore challenged him to reconcile the failure to use that tool with the scenario he put forth.
I don’t believe that it would be sane for the real Israel in the real world to use a nuke because the real Israel in the real world doesn’t want to level Gaza. He asserted that his imagined Israel is insane with insane goals. The question of why that imagined insane Israel doesn’t use nuclear weapons in insane ways is fair.
I’m not arguing that a sane actor would use nukes that way. I’m accepting the premise of his argument, a genocidal insane Israel that plans to level Gaza, and demonstrating that it does not align with observable evidence.
And yet you somehow keep ignoring the obvious answer that you've been given 3 times by different people. Oh well. I guess if you just ignore the other side of the discussion you always get proven right in the end!
edit: I'll admit I may have been exaggerating slightly in my original post. I do have an actual hatred of this Israeli government. They have just deliberately displaced over a million people and are in the process of starving them to death, having let through enough aid for about 200,000 people for a few days. Although Hamas are obviously bloodthirsty psychopathic terrorists intent on chaos, the decision makers in Israel currently aren't really acting much better tbh, and they are the ones with their finger on the genocide button they've engineered for themselves. So I might exaggerate because I'm quite angry at them.
On October 26 2023 05:37 Broetchenholer wrote: Funny, I remember kwark saying the use of a nuke is not to use it. It is deterrence and as such you only use it when someone else is using it against you. Guess that was Ukraine vs Russia kwark though. 😁
You’re misrepresenting my point. A sane actor wouldn’t engage in a genocidal nuclear first strike, that is not the rational use of nukes.
He is asserting that Israel has the irrational and insane objective of leveling Gaza. They have precisely the irrational and insane tool for the job. I therefore challenged him to reconcile the failure to use that tool with the scenario he put forth.
I don’t believe that it would be sane for the real Israel in the real world to use a nuke because the real Israel in the real world doesn’t want to level Gaza. He asserted that his imagined Israel is insane with insane goals. The question of why that imagined insane Israel doesn’t use nuclear weapons in insane ways is fair.
I’m not arguing that a sane actor would use nukes that way. I’m accepting the premise of his argument, a genocidal insane Israel that plans to level Gaza, and demonstrating that it does not align with observable evidence.
And yet you somehow keep ignoring the obvious answer that you've been given 3 times by different people. Oh well. I guess if you just ignore the other side of the discussion you always get proven right in the end!
As opposed to your stance where you’re proven right by them holding back?
Israel levels Gaza, proof of the intent to indiscriminately level the place. Israel holds back from leveling Gaza, also somehow proof of the intent to indiscriminately level the place.
Your argument is apparently unfalsifiable. Must be nice. Saves you a lot of work when you can just skip to the conclusion.
On October 26 2023 05:37 Broetchenholer wrote: Funny, I remember kwark saying the use of a nuke is not to use it. It is deterrence and as such you only use it when someone else is using it against you. Guess that was Ukraine vs Russia kwark though. 😁
You’re misrepresenting my point. A sane actor wouldn’t engage in a genocidal nuclear first strike, that is not the rational use of nukes.
He is asserting that Israel has the irrational and insane objective of leveling Gaza. They have precisely the irrational and insane tool for the job. I therefore challenged him to reconcile the failure to use that tool with the scenario he put forth.
I don’t believe that it would be sane for the real Israel in the real world to use a nuke because the real Israel in the real world doesn’t want to level Gaza. He asserted that his imagined Israel is insane with insane goals. The question of why that imagined insane Israel doesn’t use nuclear weapons in insane ways is fair.
I’m not arguing that a sane actor would use nukes that way. I’m accepting the premise of his argument, a genocidal insane Israel that plans to level Gaza, and demonstrating that it does not align with observable evidence.
And yet you somehow keep ignoring the obvious answer that you've been given 3 times by different people. Oh well. I guess if you just ignore the other side of the discussion you always get proven right in the end!
As opposed to your stance where you’re proven right by them holding back?
Israel levels Gaza, proof of the intent to indiscriminately level the place. Israel holds back from leveling Gaza, also somehow proof of the intent to indiscriminately level the place.
Your argument is apparently unfalsifiable. Must be nice. Saves you a lot of work when you can just skip to the conclusion.
edit: see above.
I'm ending this here, no more replies from me. I usually agree with you KwarK but you are incredibly obnoxious to argue against, and its probably boring for everyone else.
Your usual pattern of agreeing with me is apparently unchanged here. I’ve also been consistently critical of the current Israeli government and Zionism, I suspect we’re basically aligned. All I was saying was that your rhetoric was excessive compared to reality. This was a silly argument to have and while I’m not sure why you picked it I appreciate you standing down.
On October 26 2023 01:55 KwarK wrote: I’m not saying Israel is a good guy, I’m saying that “indiscriminately trying to level the place” is hysterically excessive rhetoric.
On October 26 2023 05:57 Jockmcplop wrote: I'll admit I may have been exaggerating slightly in my original post. I do have an actual hatred of this Israeli government.
Heavy bombardments and internet cut off in Gaza now. Apparently they cut off the internet before big operations but nothing confirmed yet. Might also be a large raid or something.
The Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip says "most of the internet" has been cut in the territory, the AFP news agency quotes it as saying.
The internet monitoring service Netblocks has posted on X to say there's been a "collapse in connectivity" in Gaza.
A BBC team in Ashkelon in southern Israel, which is six miles (10km) from Gaza, says it can hear the thud of explosions.
The team say it's heavier than previous evenings and describe it as "a heavy bombardment and mostly by air".
On October 28 2023 02:29 JimmiC wrote: Does anyone know if there is a way to destroy the tunnel system? Or would that wreck everything above ground? How many tunnels are there? Is like in towns that are built over old coal mines?
Here's an article from the BBC. It's a very extensive network of 100s of kilometers. To clear them out you either go in or you can bomb. But afaik the bombing isn't always effective and clearing it by going in will be incredibly difficult.
On October 28 2023 02:29 JimmiC wrote: Does anyone know if there is a way to destroy the tunnel system? Or would that wreck everything above ground? How many tunnels are there? Is like in towns that are built over old coal mines?
Its obviously not public knowedge to the extent of them but it does get reported that its an extensive series of them that travel across the territory with hardlines for phones so they can communicate and travel without isreal seeing what they're up to. Part of why Hamas hordes fuel supplies is to power the network of fans needed to keep it ventilated. People have been accuseing Isreal of planning to flood the tunnels with nerve gas before a large scale assault happens.
This will be an interesting and hopefully not morbid measurement of how successful Has has been in convincing civilians their lives are less important than land. With Hamas being in power since 2006 and the average age being 18, we can reasonably assume Gaza is essentially an extremely large version of your standard cult compound. For the enormous majority of non-combatants who have only ever known the Hamas philosophy, it’s possible the whole idea of “use your lives to gaslight the world into allowing us to kill Jews without consequence” might not sound crazy.
Right now we know that the culture of Gaza and the militant dictatorship nature of Hamas allows Hamas to freely use sympathy-inducing buildings for military operations for the gaslighting purposes I described above, but it’s unclear how many ”civilians” will actually go through with standing their ground and forcing Israel to kill an enormous amount of people.
I hope they haven’t drank the koolaid, but it’s possible they have. It’s a weird strategy, but it’s worked so far. This will be a test how firm of a grip Hamas has on the actual worldviews and philosophies of the inhabitants of Gaza. If it really is true that Gaza is a dystopian cult compound, it will highlight the fact that western definitions of “civilian” don’t apply well to Gaza. But it’s unclear what effect that will have.
I would call Gaza the worlds largest concentration camp rather than a cult compound.The inhabitants are 'radicalised' after decades of brutality and slow seizure of land by Israel.Everyone has seen the maps dating back to 1948 showing the gradual decay of Palestinian territory.
Basically the west is helping fund Israels ethnic cleansing programs.Egypt does not want the Palestinian refugees, many will likely end up in Europe.So EU countries pay Israel money to cleanse people they have radicalised and then pay to support them when they arrive in Europe.This seems to only benefit the zionists, certainly not Europe.
EPT
