|
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 28 2023 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
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.
Are you just trying to write the most objectionable thing
|
Northern Ireland25510 Posts
On October 28 2023 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Are you just trying to write the most objectionable thing
Apparently, that gaslight line is particularly OTT
|
On October 28 2023 07:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:On October 28 2023 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Are you just trying to write the most objectionable thing Apparently, that gaslight line is particularly OTT
I am sorry if my comment appeared over the top, but please forgive me if I am misunderstanding.
When Hamas encourages all civilians, whether old, young, fighter or non-fighter, to remain in locations that are assumed to be bombed, that is a huge divergence from standard procedure during wars. We can look at many examples in history where people try their best to remain where they are so long as it isn't directly on the front lines, but the front line areas are all encouraged to evacuate so that the military can defend it without civilians in the way and to avoid needless death.
In this instance, Hamas is directly telling people that dying is better than giving up land and that all people, whether fighters or not, should remain in areas that are assumed to be the focus of the conflict. Not even saying "remain in the gaza strip, but seek shelter away from the focal point of conflict", but saying "literally don't move, no matter who you are".
Is that not intended to force Israel to decide whether or not destroying Hamas is important enough to also kill a civilian? It is essentially the same thing as when an environmental right's activist chains themselves to a tree, right? The idea is "if you want to kill this tree, you'll have to kill me as well", and that strategy is being used to preserve Hamas. Am I wrong? Is this not the exact reason Hamas builds military facilities in hospitals and whatnot? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Hamas specifically tries to use civilians as a way of imposing a moral dilemma to weaken their enemy. The idea is that if you have important military stuff in a hospital, you force the enemy to decide whether destroying military stuff is worth the moral implications of also destroying a hospital. Am I just totally misunderstanding? I'm sorry if my post came across wrong, but that is what I have been assuming. My apologies if I misunderstood.
|
On October 28 2023 10:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 07:03 WombaT wrote:On October 28 2023 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:On October 28 2023 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Are you just trying to write the most objectionable thing Apparently, that gaslight line is particularly OTT I am sorry if my comment appeared over the top, but please forgive me if I am misunderstanding. When Hamas encourages all civilians, whether old, young, fighter or non-fighter, to remain in locations that are assumed to be bombed, that is a huge divergence from standard procedure during wars. We can look at many examples in history where people try their best to remain where they are so long as it isn't directly on the front lines, but the front line areas are all encouraged to evacuate so that the military can defend it without civilians in the way and to avoid needless death. In this instance, Hamas is directly telling people that dying is better than giving up land and that all people, whether fighters or not, should remain in areas that are assumed to be the focus of the conflict. Not even saying "remain in the gaza strip, but seek shelter away from the focal point of conflict", but saying "literally don't move, no matter who you are". Is that not intended to force Israel to decide whether or not destroying Hamas is important enough to also kill a civilian? It is essentially the same thing as when an environmental right's activist chains themselves to a tree, right? The idea is "if you want to kill this tree, you'll have to kill me as well", and that strategy is being used to preserve Hamas. Am I wrong? Is this not the exact reason Hamas builds military facilities in hospitals and whatnot? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Hamas specifically tries to use civilians as a way of imposing a moral dilemma to weaken their enemy. The idea is that if you have important military stuff in a hospital, you force the enemy to decide whether destroying military stuff is worth the moral implications of also destroying a hospital. Am I just totally misunderstanding? I'm sorry if my post came across wrong, but that is what I have been assuming. My apologies if I misunderstood.
Well your post was calling gaza a cult as if all the civilians are in on this supposed thing you are talking about, whereas clearly the vast, vast majority of them did move, and are now starving and homeless, so clearly see their lives as way more important than whatever Hamas want.
|
On October 28 2023 12:41 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 10:12 Mohdoo wrote:On October 28 2023 07:03 WombaT wrote:On October 28 2023 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:On October 28 2023 04:49 Mohdoo wrote:
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. Are you just trying to write the most objectionable thing Apparently, that gaslight line is particularly OTT I am sorry if my comment appeared over the top, but please forgive me if I am misunderstanding. When Hamas encourages all civilians, whether old, young, fighter or non-fighter, to remain in locations that are assumed to be bombed, that is a huge divergence from standard procedure during wars. We can look at many examples in history where people try their best to remain where they are so long as it isn't directly on the front lines, but the front line areas are all encouraged to evacuate so that the military can defend it without civilians in the way and to avoid needless death. In this instance, Hamas is directly telling people that dying is better than giving up land and that all people, whether fighters or not, should remain in areas that are assumed to be the focus of the conflict. Not even saying "remain in the gaza strip, but seek shelter away from the focal point of conflict", but saying "literally don't move, no matter who you are". Is that not intended to force Israel to decide whether or not destroying Hamas is important enough to also kill a civilian? It is essentially the same thing as when an environmental right's activist chains themselves to a tree, right? The idea is "if you want to kill this tree, you'll have to kill me as well", and that strategy is being used to preserve Hamas. Am I wrong? Is this not the exact reason Hamas builds military facilities in hospitals and whatnot? I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Hamas specifically tries to use civilians as a way of imposing a moral dilemma to weaken their enemy. The idea is that if you have important military stuff in a hospital, you force the enemy to decide whether destroying military stuff is worth the moral implications of also destroying a hospital. Am I just totally misunderstanding? I'm sorry if my post came across wrong, but that is what I have been assuming. My apologies if I misunderstood. Well your post was calling gaza a cult as if all the civilians are in on this supposed thing you are talking about, whereas clearly the vast, vast majority of them did move, and are now starving and homeless, so clearly see their lives as way more important than whatever Hamas want.
Yeah I suppose my intention is to only describe the folks who stick around, and everyone else is being entirely reasonable.
It’s hard to imagine living under Hamas your whole life and not becoming an antisemite. Like if that’s all you’ve ever known, it’s gotta be fairly pervasive. Similar to how old Korean and Japanese people are profoundly racist towards each other because of the era they grew up in. If you grow up in such a uniquely awful situation as Gaza, with a very convenient boogeyman, and a government assuring you killing all Jews is a utopian ideal, how in the world does someone not end actually brainwashed? An 18 year old antisemite living in Gaza isn’t really a moral failing as much as a tragedy of circumstance.
Maybe I’m just totally misinformed, but my impression is that they aren’t able to leave Gaza even if they want to because all of the neighboring countries closed their borders. So I guess the internet is their only connection to a non-hateful worldview?
Kinda like how many Americans grew up just assuming all communists are evil villains. I specifically remember a teacher of mine reinforcing the idea that communism means no kids are allowed to have toys and nothing belongs to anyone. Like the whole goal was just to take from people. Don’t wanna get people off topic, but just using that as an example of how sometimes a worldview is so reinforced you never even consider the idea of an alternative perspective.
I’m sure many of you have heard the phone call the guy from Gaza made to his family, basically overtaken with joy after killing Jews on October 7th. Family totally stoked for him. If I spent my entire life being told squirrels are the root of all evil, and I killed one, I’d be really happy about it too. That’s the behavior/situation I am describing as a cult. It’s not just some rambunctious whipper snappers getting caught up with a bad crowd.
|
Its not hard to understand the people living in gaza for being how they are. The people of Germany during and before the war were much in the same way. Jojo rabbit is a fantastic analogy on what its like in gaza for those living under hamas.
The important thing to remember is that these people arn't any less than anyone else. Half the population is under 18, and they've lived in a walled off prison with no hope for a better future and hated by everyone around them. Isreal washed its hands of them and refused to solve the problem they've had for the lifetime of the Isreali state. Its not anti semetic to say that Isreal has caused this through their actions. We know that Netanyahu has contributed to the rise of Hamas and a refusal to better the life situation for all those kids growing up in gaza.
Does anyone think that destroying more of that little exists in gaza and killing what members of hamas the IDF can root out during its incursion will make a positive difference in the situation? They're just going to plant the seeds for another decade of conflict afterwords and cement in the minds of every gazian that Hamas was right.
|
So Israel sends out a public message for Palestinians to hear albeit it is in English, and over the internet... while Gaza has no electricity, and no internet as of last night.
|
They've used a variety of ways to inform Gazans to move south from the start. It's not just via the internet.
|
On October 28 2023 15:00 Sermokala wrote:
Its not hard to understand the people living in gaza for being how they are. The people of Germany during and before the war were much in the same way. Jojo rabbit is a fantastic analogy on what its like in gaza for those living under hamas.
The important thing to remember is that these people arn't any less than anyone else. Half the population is under 18, and they've lived in a walled off prison with no hope for a better future and hated by everyone around them. Isreal washed its hands of them and refused to solve the problem they've had for the lifetime of the Isreali state. Its not anti semetic to say that Isreal has caused this through their actions. We know that Netanyahu has contributed to the rise of Hamas and a refusal to better the life situation for all those kids growing up in gaza.
Does anyone think that destroying more of that little exists in gaza and killing what members of hamas the IDF can root out during its incursion will make a positive difference in the situation? They're just going to plant the seeds for another decade of conflict afterwords and cement in the minds of every gazian that Hamas was right.
I think most of this is easy to agree with. i think the only thing we disagree on is our prediction as to how successful Israel will be in wiping out Hamas.
Is it that you think trying to wipe out Hamas is a bad thing to want? You don’t think it’ll work, so they need more support?
It sounds like you’re saying you expect they won’t be successful, and you also seem to label Hamas a bad thing, but you also seem to think Israel is getting rid of Hamas in the wrong way. Is it that Israel should wait until Iran and Qatar are willing to help get rid of Hamas?
I think everyone agrees that running in, blowing a bunch of shit up and killing a lot of innocent people would be a net negative. But I’m honestly having a hard time understanding what you see as the right set of goals here. What should the goals be?
|
your dealing with a large terrorist organisation embedded within a (sympathetic) civilian population living in a large urban enviroment.
Its entirely possible to have a situation where there are no 'right' set of goals.
Either your trying to minimize civilian casualties which results in a lack of effect and an unacceptable risk to friendly troops or your not minimizing civilian casualties and committing a massacre.
And I don't think you can rid of a "freedom fighter" organisation by committing massacres on a civilian population.
|
On October 29 2023 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:
your dealing with a large terrorist organisation embedded within a (sympathetic) civilian population living in a large urban enviroment.
Its entirely possible to have a situation where there are no 'right' set of goals.
Either your trying to minimize civilian casualties which results in a lack of effect and an unacceptable risk to friendly troops or your not minimizing civilian casualties and committing a massacre.
This isn’t accurate and we harm the situation by ignoring Iran and Qatar. Iran and Qatar have an extremely unique ability to dismantle Hamas from within and eliminate Hamas as an issue without a ton of innocent civilians dying.
Without Qatar and Iran joining in to help dismantle Hamas nonviolently, the only 2 options are: allow Hamas to continue killing Israeli civilians or allow Israel to eliminate Hamas, which is only possible if they accept civilians will also be killed as a part of that.
Iran and Qatar are the ones who people should be complaining about. Iran and Qatar are the ones who can dismantle Hamas from within. But they don’t want that. They support this conflict and they want it to happen. Iran and Qatar are the ones creating this extremely morbid moral dilemma
|
On October 29 2023 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2023 03:54 Gorsameth wrote:
your dealing with a large terrorist organisation embedded within a (sympathetic) civilian population living in a large urban enviroment.
Its entirely possible to have a situation where there are no 'right' set of goals.
Either your trying to minimize civilian casualties which results in a lack of effect and an unacceptable risk to friendly troops or your not minimizing civilian casualties and committing a massacre.
This isn’t accurate and we harm the situation by ignoring Iran and Qatar. Iran and Qatar have an extremely unique ability to dismantle Hamas from within and eliminate Hamas as an issue without a ton of innocent civilians dying. Without Qatar and Iran joining in to help dismantle Hamas nonviolently, the only 2 options are: allow Hamas to continue killing Israeli civilians or allow Israel to eliminate Hamas, which is only possible if they accept civilians will also be killed as a part of that. Iran and Qatar are the ones who people should be complaining about. Iran and Qatar are the ones who can dismantle Hamas from within. But they don’t want that. They support this conflict and they want it to happen. Iran and Qatar are the ones creating this extremely morbid moral dilemma
This is so on point. Iran and Qatar sheltering Hamas leadership, bankrolling the organization, and sending them as many weapons as they could ask for makes dislodging them internally (i.e. by Palestinians) impossible. Hamas always has more guns then any other Palestinians in Gaza, so they can kill any political dissidents who might have more peaceful or reasonable goals. They literally did that when they killed all Fatah representatives in Gaza in 2007.
Iran is kind of a pariah state at this point anyways, so they probably wouldn't listen, but the fact that the world isn't pressuring Qatar more is unconscionable.
|
If anyone is still interested in the hospital explosion the BBC did a reasonable summary on it.
www.bbc.com
That said, they ignored the most telling evidence where explosion was rated at roughly 5-10kg worth of TNT when Israel wouldn't have bothered with anything less then 10x that.
|
Looks like Israel is planning some type of DMZ area. That or destroying anything and everything that could potentially be used as a observation post.
|
Man, there is not a whole lot holding those buildings up, is there? Breathe a bit too hard on them and they collapse
|
Norway28675 Posts
|
An average of 20 unique buildings damaged by each strike? Doubtful
|
On October 30 2023 04:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm finding Israel's actions less and less defensible by every update I'm seeing tbh.
It's pretty apparent to me that in the future everyone will "always have been against this".
|
On October 30 2023 04:41 Dan HH wrote:An average of 20 unique buildings damaged by each strike? Doubtful
That depends on what they mean with moderately or lightly damaged. Almost 85% of the damaged buildings fall into that category. Hamas most likely also does not differentiate between the buildings damaged by themselves just as they don't differentiate between Palestinians killed by Israel and the Palestinians that died because of them.
|
Northern Ireland25510 Posts
On October 30 2023 04:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 04:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm finding Israel's actions less and less defensible by every update I'm seeing tbh. It's pretty apparent to me that in the future everyone will "always have been against this".
That tends to be the way of things down the line.
Have there been any protests in your various native lands? There’s a pretty consistent weekly protest in my native Belfast that’s pulling in a pretty decent crowd every week and there were pretty huge numbers out in London yesterday.
Was just curious if there are similar ceasefire/Palestinian solidarity protests of any size in different places?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
