Utopia Talk / Politics / Utinam Gazanses unam cervicem haberet!

Rugian Member	Tue Oct 10 16:17:17 Caligula was Malcolm McDowell's best movie...change my mind. Link to previous: http://uto...hread=92223&time=1696968714862
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 10 16:19:27 Is that the one where Caligula fucks his mom?
Rugian Member	Tue Oct 10 16:20:37 Don't be such a degenerate. He fucks his sister, not his mom. He also rapes a young bride on her wedding night...good stuff
LazyCommunist Member	Tue Oct 10 16:41:06 Crypto is freeeeedom http://www...hamas-cryptocurrency-accounts/ The cyber branch of the Israel Police’s Lahav 433 unit freezes cryptocurrency accounts belonging to Hamas, the police says in a statement. Hamas had been using accounts to raise money on social media since Saturday, according to the police spokesperson’s unit. Lahav 433 is working with the Defense Ministry, Shin Bet, and other intelligence agencies in the effort to shut down cryptocurrency channels that terrorist groups are using. The cryptocurrency exchange Binance cooperated with Israel in locating and shutting down the accounts. Lahav 433 also worked with the UK police to freeze an account in Barclays bank.
Asgard Member	Tue Oct 10 16:44:56 Allow me to make an observation on the Israeli state of mind now. People from the right, center, left, as even far lefts that would make AOC look like a fascist in comparison, are so deeply and utterly disgusted, frustrated, be weird, and plainly sad, that they all want to see Gaza be erased from the face of the earth, no matter what. After this, there will never be peace, unless the Gazans are ruled by the Palestinian Authority again or by an even calmer entity. And that means destroying Hamas by whatever means necessary. The shift is tectonic, the rift is irreparable
Asgard Member	Tue Oct 10 16:46:13 Bewildered *
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 10 16:47:28 I believe the big change after this is anyone operating with hamas anywhere in the world is going to be a guns free target for mossad/western intelligence agencies. Operating out of Qatar is not going to be a safe option for them anymore. Not sure of we can or want to treat turkey the same. At some point we are going to have to accept they are in league with Iran and we need to approach them with the same level of disdain and distrust.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 10 16:57:14 Asgard In practice, that would mean physical occupation with all the responsibilities that entails until such a time when calmer entities are likely to win elections in Gaza. Your Government tried something novel and wierd with its long distance occupation thing. It is more in keeping with international law that Israel reassert physical control over the enclave. Seeing as the other way did not work. I am not sure it will. There are costs to that. I will still stick with my 10k dead estimate for Palestine. That is actually quite a few dead people.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 10 17:02:05 Rugian: what about If or Clockwork orange? Asgard: No shit. I told you the whole "unilateral withdrawal but also forever siege" wouldn't work when Sharon did it.
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 10 19:30:31 Israeli woman decided today wasn't her day. Leads defense against hamas thugs. Kills 5 herself. Her ragtag group kills another 20. http://www...eberman-kibbutz-Nir-Hamas.html Gal Gadot will play her in the movie released summer 2025.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 10 19:39:18 http://x.com/GNNANOW/status/1711900189223530925?s=20 Hamas social media is telling all their human shields to stay and not flee. Gonna be a rough few months for those human shields.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 10 20:30:26 So what does this mean for iran? We cant possibly let the get a nuke. Can we topple that government? Or do we have to hit them.
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 10 20:51:49 A ground war in Iran is off the table. Bombing Iran to rubble is only going to give us a problem 20 years from now. We need to start working on the ground covertly with Iranian dissidents. According to nim there are a lot of them. Arm and train them and prepare to back them when they revolt. Don't bail on them like we did with the bay of pigs.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 10 21:12:59 Russia could just lend Iran a few dozen nukes anyway (like Turkey or belarus have borrowed nukes).. A non-hostile regime in Iran is important to Russian national security. Start working? You have been working with MEK for decades. It just is not working too well.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 10 21:22:51 How about europe gets off its lazy ass and convinces iranian kids to stand up. They are more likely to listen to you anyway.
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 10 21:36:06 Jergul is correct. Russia needs Iran as an ally and they would never allow the west to overtly supply and train Iranian dissidents to overthrow a friendly theocracy. So Russia now becomes part of the equation.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 10 21:43:31 Nuke russia.
obaminated Member	Tue Oct 10 21:45:43 I hope Russian strategists follow jerguls logic. He just made it very clear that the west needs to keep funding Ukraine to keep Russia busy.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 10 22:19:15 Obam I think Israel and the US know that Iran is not only nuclear threshold, but that it could also easily fall under a nuclear umbrella. Cascading effects would see unassailable muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey go nuclear in rather short order. Semi friendly for now. But who knows who might lead the house of Saud in the future? You know, OBLs family. Or Turkey. Wow, what a country. Status quo is status quo for a reason. Its no like the US or Israel have been happy with Iran since 2003 or before (2003 is when we lost Saddam as containment for Iran). Same logic applies for Gaza really. Sure, Israel could physically reoccupy it instead of this wierd hands off display of occupation power it has tried out for a while, but it really would not make much difference. Security incidents would just be common, weekly affairs inside gaza instead of larger ones every number of years.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 10 22:23:02 You are not so much keeping Russia busy, but incentivising it to modernise its military. Only 50 fully upgraded Russian tanks have been destroyed. It is quite rapidly replacing the old with the new. Often by way of Ukraine turning the old one into scrap metal, but does it really matter where old tanks are turned into scrap metal?
jergul large member	Tue Oct 10 22:23:33 (according to oryx btw).
Asgard Member	Wed Oct 11 00:58:58 Latest numbers 1200 Israelis dead, adding which are about 180 IDF soldiers and policemen I agree with Jergul that there will be approximately 10,000 Palestinians dead when this file thing is over The only question are: Hora many more Israelis will die How many other people will die (we already have 3 labenese Hizballah dead) A few facts: 1 - Israel’s ground offensive, if and when, does not have a clear end-goal (occupation? And if ccupation, to what goals? ; destroy and ruin as much as possible? To what end and to what extent? ) 2 - following Biden’s 2nd and long speech years, and following other leaders backing of Israel - Israel has a rare window of free reign in which it can do basically whatever it wants, but that window has a short lifespan, a week, maybe two weeks, before they snap out of it and say “woah, that’s too much, if you don’t stop now and reach a cease fire we’re not going to support you morally and militarily” 3 - god help us. You all have no idea how scary this whole thing is. Not just because people don’t go out, no hugging, no shopping, no recreational activities, out of fear some gunman can pop out anywhere and everywhere, but also because it can deteriorate to such a magnitude that thousands of lives will be lost (a regional war, for even a world war)
Asgard Member	Wed Oct 11 01:00:40 Among* which, not adding which File* thing = whole thing
Asgard Member	Wed Oct 11 01:02:08 No Hugging* = no jogging
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 01:17:00 Asgard Stay safe. The goal of any occupation is to excert full physical control over an area. In the case of Gaza, then end game would have to be a form of deradicalization followed by elections. The end game may be far away, so the choice is either long term physical occupation, or a return to the normal cycle that sees hamas (or whatever follows hamas) engage in operations at irregular intervals. Physical occupation will localize incidents better and is more in keeping with international law as occupying power duties are better defined. The hands off occupation Israel tried out seems to be inherently risky.
Dukhat Member	Wed Oct 11 01:36:23 Israel has been doing this crap for a long time. You know how pointless and dragged out a war of occupation is. The siege was a way to minimize Israeli casualties. If Israel goes into Gaza, they give up their advantages in training and equipment just like the US did in Iran and Afghanistan. Yeah you'll kill thousands of terrorists along with massive collateral damage in civilians killed. But you'll also lose hundreds of Israeli soldiers and injure thousands more as well. Behead Hamas, do better in containing Iran in the region, and pre-emptively shut down any other radical communications in the area. Oh yeah, give palestinians in occupied territories a chance at a better life so that they don't feel they have to become militants. The last part doesn't happen until Bibi is gone and the fucking far-right in Israel is defeated in elecitons though. The fact that those assholes get to not be part of mandatory conscription in the IDF while determining policy that sends Israelis to their deaths is a fucking joke. Democracy doesn't work with multiple classes of citizens.
Asgard Member	Wed Oct 11 02:46:14 Dukhat, 100% spot on
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 11 02:49:56 "We need to start working on the ground covertly with Iranian dissidents. According to nim there are a lot of them." lel what? There are no organized dissident groups in Iran save a rag tag of kurds, maybe some baloch and a shadow of some arab. They are all weak and lack support. What I have said is that due to Iran's geography it is almost impossible to sustain an insurgency in Iran. You can look at the past 100 years when it was attempted. The only realistic way the Islamic republic will fall is from within their own ranks. Those cracks have already appeared. Just have to wait now. I watched an interview the other day, one of their own mouth pieces was saying, that people (regime loyalists) had come to him and asked (regarding the Hamas attack) "are we suppose to support this?". Even the brown shirt Islamists, despite their generic hatred for Israel and love of jihad, are hesitant. As the scale of atrocities have emerged as systematic, I am unsure, what level Iran, if at all, was involved in this. Giving rockets and AK 47 and general training is one thing, planning a indiscriminate massacre like this, not what the IRGC has profiled itself as. They market themselves as the organizer of disciplined militias and fancy drones and missiles.
Paramount Member	Wed Oct 11 03:36:39 Israel has now occupied a church and is harrassing a Christian, and says that the Christian is a theif and that Jews can do whatever they want: http://youtube.com/shorts/ewlfBaCNkaI
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 05:44:47 Hamas seems to have gone full ISIS. Whether that was the commanders intent from the top or the 20 somethings just lost discipline isn't clear. The assumption for Israel has to be the former rather than the latter, given Hamas long standing refusal to moderate it's position on accepting the idea of a Jewish state. At this point the best thing for Palestinians hope for freedom is a swift Israeli victory and reoccupation and transition to PA control.
Daemon Member	Wed Oct 11 05:44:58 "now", Paramount, the video is more than 2 months old.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 06:09:33 Seb The former IDF spokesperson for Scandinavia said that Hamas had not planned for success. Commanders and foot soldiers were as stunned as anyone by the mulitple breakthroughs in strength. There was no plan for that. His take is that Israel was lucky Hamas underestimated itself. Better planning could have seen 1000nds of hostages taken.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 07:09:23 I don't know if that is intended to be a reply or just drawing my attention to something interesting. If a reply, I think the cold blooded, intentional murder of civilians - particularly children - can be explained away as a failure to plan for success and local troops losing discipline as a result. The net result is that instead of leverage, Hamas have put itself into a position where there is no option but to destroy it.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 07:29:34 Seb I think Hamas cleared building using weapons and explosives with total disregard for civilian casualties. These are not unarmed settlements. Rooting out armed settlers or security is not by definition a crime. The total disregard part makes it crimes. Which is a war crime. Or rather a series of war crimes as it happened in several locations. This was compounded by what is likely to be a double digit number of incidents where civilians were gunned down. These are also warcrimes. It is consistent to me with not having planned for success. Destroying Hamas means full and permanent ground occupation. The organization is far more than a militant groups. All civic functions are also firmly intertwined with the organization. A vaccuum will simply mean something worse than Hamas will emerge from the ruins. I don't think any of us doubt more Palestinian civilians and children will die than Israeli. There is no reason to think Gazans will be more stoic about that than their Israeli counterparts were. This will fuel the rebuilding of Hamas, or the rebirth of an organization that is hamas in everything but name. So the choice is punitive + back to that wierd status quo of hands off occupation. Or full and permanent physical reoccupation. Genocide is of course not on the table.
Rugian Member	Wed Oct 11 07:34:58 ^ I'd just like to clarify that at this stage these last few posts are largely baseless speculation, supported only by the flimsiest of evidence. I feel a need to say this given how certain posters here tend to treat as established facts and gospel truth whatever harebrained theory they came up with in the spur of the moment.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 07:39:52 jergul, there are videos of them walking up to stopped civilian cars and shooting the occupants dead. Contriving strange examples of how they accidentally cleared rooms without sufficient regard to the occupants is entirely unnecessary. There is multiple examples of them shooting unarmed civilians deliberately, with intent, not due to recklessly endangering them while conducting military activities.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 07:40:06 Ruggy The presumption of innocence is actually a pretty powerful contraint. You are correct. Perhaps the number of warcrimes is far less than I suspect. Time will show as investigations proceed.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 07:41:25 Jergul: "Destroying Hamas means full and permanent ground occupation. The organization is far more than a militant groups. All civic functions are also firmly intertwined with the organization." Yes, and I think that is where Israel is going to end up. Alternatively, it can try and kill as much of the members as possible and withdraw, but I don't see how that works for them either.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 07:42:28 As I said: "At this point the best thing for Palestinians hope for freedom is a swift Israeli victory and reoccupation and transition to PA control."
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 07:48:11 Seb Lern2read? "This was compounded by what is likely to be a double digit number of incidents where civilians were gunned down. These are also warcrimes." Accidentally? I would think they tried to clear building as systematically as they could. We have seen it often enough in footage from Ukraine. Create ingress, toss in grenades, follow through with prefiring as assaulting soldiers breech. I am sure Hamas troops have trained on that often enough. The problem of course is civilians. People live there.
Rugian Member	Wed Oct 11 07:49:02 ^ and away we go
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 07:49:55 Lern2reed?*
Rugian Member	Wed Oct 11 07:51:59 Quick, now tell me to touch grass.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 07:58:10 Ruggy I am not sure what you think Hamas was supposed to do at the kibbutzes. Of course it tried to clear buildings and of course there was both passive (doors barred, people using shelters and saferooms) and active resistance in settlements with a long history of fearing Palestinian attacks. The fear on the one side saved many lives, on the other, it prevented many from being taken hostage (In Ukraine, civilians hung out white flags to indicate their status. That did not happen much if at all in Israel).
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 07:59:02 Ruggy You seem grounded enough. Its been like days since you have professed to being a genocide afficiendo.
Rugian Member	Wed Oct 11 08:01:07 "buildings" * people's homes Hamas knew exactly what they were assaulting.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 08:04:38 Seb The best thing Gazans can look forward to is permanent occupation until a permanent settlement between the PA and Israel is reached. The first vote there should be on ratification. Then Gaza can transition to civic control.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 08:10:29 Ruggy Indeed they did. They were assaulting a collective (for that is what a kibbutz is) with its normal mix of armed and unarmed civilians. Some of whom are deployable members of the IDF. They were not very successful at it. Local security measures worked quite well. Busloads of civilians were not driven to Gaza.
Rugian Member	Wed Oct 11 08:12:13 I sincerely pray that every last Palestinian currently in the Holy Land is either killed or forced to relocate as a refugee to Europe. Ideally Tromso. I'd be curious to see how your views on mass migration evolve once your own community runs up against the sexual proclivities of young Arab males. I just don't believe Israel will go quite that far. Doesn't stop a boy from dreaming though.
Paramount Member	Wed Oct 11 08:13:45 Seb, ” there are videos of them walking up to stopped civilian cars and shooting the occupants dead. ” What’s wrong with that? The US and probably the UK too did this in Iraq, and probably elsewhere too. Perhaps Hamas thought that people in the car were armed. Most if not all settlers are armed. They are a part or Israel’s occupying force. They are illegal combatants and are not protected in the laws or war. So Hamas had to engage them. The US calls it Standard operating procedure. If an unarmed civilian is killed, they call it Collateral damage. Israel also shot and kill civilian Palestinians like this. So don’t come here and try to say it is a war crime. It is not. Killing civilians has become legitimate because neither the US, UK or Israel has never been held accountable for doing it.
Paramount Member	Wed Oct 11 08:14:10 *laws of war
murder Member	Wed Oct 11 08:54:15 "I think Israel and the US know that Iran is not only nuclear threshold, but that it could also easily fall under a nuclear umbrella." lol @ nuclear umbrella. There's no such thing.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 09:07:12 Murder You seem to think Ukraine is under one. Otherwise, it would be completely impossible for Ukraine to achieve its objectives. But, as the context showed you. Iran could be given nukes in relatively short order. See nuclear armed belarus for details. It just means that the current status quo exists for a reason. Its a situation everyone can live with that is better than all other alternatives.
murder Member	Wed Oct 11 09:07:16 "1 - Israel’s ground offensive, if and when, does not have a clear end-goal (occupation? And if ccupation, to what goals? ; destroy and ruin as much as possible? To what end and to what extent? )" Search and destroy. Hamas, any other militant, armed wing/political wing/chicken wing, anyone with a firearm or rocket. Evacuate women and children to the west bank. The men can either surrender and evacuate to the west bank or die defending what is left of Gaza. Annex the now vacant Gaza Strip.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 09:11:15 So now the West Bank is Gaza. Good plan.
murder Member	Wed Oct 11 09:11:20 "You seem to think Ukraine is under one." No I don't seem to think that Ukraine is under one. "But, as the context showed you. Iran could be given nukes in relatively short order. See nuclear armed belarus for details." Yes, the Trident II could give Iran nukes in a matter of minutes.
murder Member	Wed Oct 11 09:12:33 "So now the West Bank is Gaza. Good plan." Minus all the militants and all the idiots who chose to fight and die.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 11 10:30:05 Breaking. Lebanon is attacking israel.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 11 10:48:46 Largest attack from Lebanon yet, unknown exactly how big, unclear if hamas faction or hezbollah.
obaminated Member	Wed Oct 11 11:36:58 Link?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 11:49:14 Jergul: So we are they were systematically murdering civilians, but your point is maybe some civilians weren't systematically murdered but unintentionally killed when Hamas terrorists were clearing structures of any potential assumed resistance to their systematic murder and kidnapping? I mean if that's your point in not sure it was worth making.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 11 11:52:53 Paramount: Examples of US shooting command dead when they are in stationary vehicles and complying with instructions; of there are that's a war crime and likely to have been followed up on by the US military forces as soldiers acting outside rules of engagement. ", UK or Israel has never been held accountable for doing it." Except of course, the US and the UK has a track record of prosecuting soldiers that intentionally kill civilians. For example we are currently trying 35 SAS for doing exactly that.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 11 11:54:24 The lebanon "attack" looks more and more like a minor border skirmish. Israels air raid sirens could use more precision.
murder Member	Wed Oct 11 12:08:19 I don't think Hezbollah is going to get involved with a US carrier group just sitting there waiting for an excuse.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 12:39:51 Seb Systematic is a pretty strong word. Even the worst hit settlement lost 10% of the population. It goes back to planning. Systematic murder would have seen the widespread use of arson and fire accelerants. Systematic kidnapping would have seen shuttlebuses. We saw neither. I think the former IDF spokesman is correct. Hamas did not plan for success at all.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 13:31:27 Ultimately though, I am not sure it matters. Hamas is a terrorist organization (even though it has many other roles), the incursion into Israeli held territory is justification enough, with or without warcrimes, to re-establish physical occupation. And many warcrimes did happen. In this case I am sure they will be fully investigated as Israel has the means, motive and opportunity to do so.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 11 14:16:05 "I don't think Hezbollah is going to get involved with a US carrier group just sitting there waiting for an excuse." I mean that would be the logical response. But these muslim terror groups are not very logical.
obaminated Member	Wed Oct 11 14:22:22 Lol. Jergul goes back to "it's not as bad as it seems" It's interesting to see arguments like this in real time
obaminated Member	Wed Oct 11 14:26:34 Also "did not plan for success" is such bullshit. Hamas is not a professional army and the best defense for its actions are beyond jergul and Paramount. I don't think the leadership of hamas ordered the kidnapping of civilians. Every video I've seen where they are abducting civilians is a video of people yelling and stopping vehicles over and over. It seems like some part of hamas got it in their mind to take civilians.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 11 15:02:29 It is unlikely that it was not part of the plan, given that they took 150 hostages. Islamic State did this frequently, the tactics of Jihad have evolved.
obaminated Member	Wed Oct 11 15:19:31 Okay. Let's say hamas leadership said take high value targets as hostages. They didn't want to take grandmother's. And now they have a ton of hostages that only pissed Israelis off and they are held by loosely connected gangs and have zero control over what those gangs do to those hostages.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 15:39:45 Obam Oh, I definitely think grabbing hostages/POWs (IDF terminology) was part of the plan. It just did not plan on nabbing busloads of hostages. Hostages are the way to negotiations that hamas and israel will eventually want.
obaminated Member	Wed Oct 11 16:00:42 I think it makes sense for them to want to do a massive grab of hostages at once to force negotiations. But that was not the intention of the attack. As I said over the weekend when it happened, you don't slaughter people and make off with innocents with the intention to have negotiations. There is a reason there are plenty of videos circulating of these hostages getting murdered. Whatever control hamas leadership has over the terrorist cells is tenuous at best.
Rugian Member	Wed Oct 11 16:33:22 Hey remember when room clearing involved the murder of children? I don't.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 11 16:36:29 Obaminated In no other realm would signing your own death warrant and giving thousands of your own civilians a death sentence be considered a victory, but in this conflict this was a spectacular victory for Hamas. You are trying to apply reason and logic on something that is void of reason and logic.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 11 17:10:30 Ruggy Think Waco for a general idea. Thankfully settlement active and passive defences were very good, or the toll would have been higher. At least something worked. Obam The intent is mostly "something must be done, this is something, therefore we will do it" Hamas was obviously not happy with the status quo. Will it succeed in changing the status quo for the better? Well, perhaps not better for Hamas, but there is a very real chance Israel will normalize its occupation with physical control inside Gaza. It may not seem like much, but is perhaps a way forward with Gaza eventually given the right to vote on a settlement referendum negotiated between Israel and the West Bank PA + emigree communities abroad (for example in Jordan).
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 11 21:33:17 A palestinian tries tocut off the head of a neutral nepali cutizen with a rusty hoe. http://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1712281874444210304?s=20 Mountme and jergul should watch this.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 12 02:32:12 Do I feel sorry for Palestian children, whose parents voted for these Animals on a charter of genocide and Islamic state? I do. But not as much as I feel sorry for those children and parents they murdered.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 03:59:17 Nim: "Do I feel sorry for Palestian children, whose parents voted for these Animals on a charter of genocide and Islamic state? I do" 1. There hasn't been elections in Gaza for 17 years. 2. Isn't this very close to the argument that Bin Laden used for attacking American civilians? That America had committed crimes against Muslims (it almost certainly has at various points in some way or form) - and that guilt flows to the electorate and makes them in some way culpable? We need to be careful in framing this. Intentionally attacking civilians is wrong, and a crime. Collective punishment is wrong is wrong, and a crime. Recklessly killing civilians by failing to use disproportionate means is wrong, and a crime.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 12 04:16:34 Seb There have been polls as recently as this year. And the framing is that Hamas was elected on the platform of dismantling democracy, comiting genocide and establishing an Islamic state on the bloody ruins of Israel. One of the most atrocious ideological platforms in human history, top 5. The problem with Bin Laden, was not for correctly pointing out that US policy was a result of US voters. It was his ideological platform. I don’t think Israel intentionally kills civilians. I think Israel takes great care to not kill civilians, but they are going to die anyway.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 04:29:21 I disagree, the issue for me is the deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve political ends. It doesn't matter whether it's done for correct ideological ends. It is wrong in itself. There's no political cause or action pursued by the US govt that would justify flying airliners into the twin towers in the basis the occupants were US voters. "I don’t think Israel intentionally kills civilians" I think it is often needlessly unintentionally kills and injures civilians through reckless use of force or disproportionate to military aims, and it definitely uses collective punishment in the form of blockades or attacks on infrastructure that put civilian lives at risk. I don't think any of that justifies what Hamas did, in the same way I don't think those policies are justified by what Palestinian terrorists have done.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 04:41:35 Nimi Everyone recognizes Hamas is a terrorist organization. The problem is that it is much more than a terrorist organization. The term does not give a constructive perspective on the conflict. You are framing it as a life or death struggle when we all know Hamas can never defeat Israel. Ultimately, there are only two choices for the future. A two state solution with full sovereignity for the Palestinian state, or a one state solution with full democratic rights for Palestinian citizens within Greater Israel. This is the core issue. The core problem now is millions of people with nothing to lose. So of course many support an organization with an outlandish party programme, but does at least provide some prospects locally like jobs or charitable support. Israel is currently keeping people trapped in a context where their only hope for the short, medium and long term future rests with Hamas or Hamas' successor. Israel is definitely doing that intentionally.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 04:44:28 Now is the time and place. Civilian dead has reached parity.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 12 05:12:19 Seb ”I disagree” “There's no political cause or action pursued by the US govt that would justify flying airliners into the twin towers in the basis the occupants were US voters.” You missed the point. It is a non-sequitur for Bin Laden to excuse his attacks on civilians by pointing to US election process. His platform has fallen apart at a far more fundamental level, making the point you raised completely irrelevant, not something that has to be dealt with. Also it is a failure of imagination to think nothing would justify attacking civilians (US or otherwise), but it is not an idea worth pursuing here, because nothing in these conflict has reached such levels. But you can imagine an existential level situation or close to it, where such desperate measures would be completely rational. For some extreme philosophies e.g certain Christian sects and Buddhist, this isn’t the case, they rather die than to kill. “I think it is often needlessly unintentionally kills and injures civilians through reckless use of force or disproportionate to military aims, and it definitely uses collective punishment in the form of blockades or attacks on infrastructure that put civilian lives at risk.” There is always room for improvement, sure. But realistically and taken as a whole: Do I feel sorry for Palestinian children, whose parents voted for these animals on a charter of genocide and Islamic state? I do. But not as much as I feel sorry for those children and parents they murdered. It is disingenuous to not take into account the behavior of the enemy Israel is facing when constructing these two different metrics. Israel is doing infinitely more than Hamas to not kill civilians. Hamas is ranking as the bottom 5 murderous ideologies and regimes ever wandering this earth. This isn't at all confusing to me. The Muslims bear the overwhelming majority of the blame.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 05:12:35 Nim: RE Hamas platform in 2006 - they stood under the "Change and Reform List" and their manifesto did not include "a platform of dismantling democracy, comiting genocide and establishing an Islamic state". On the contrary it called for a reconciliation with the PLO and PA (which implies continued democracy); emphasised protection of minorities, and while it advocated certain "Islamic" elements into law, enumerated them as bits that secular democrats could get behind. All lies of course, compared to what they actually did. But it is not the case to say what someone voting for the "change and reform" list voted for was what they got.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 05:31:32 Nim: "You missed the point." No, you did. I do not object to OBL because he has horrible ideologies. What ideologies he espouses, or even puts into practice, I do not advocate use of force against him until he: * starts committing crimes against humanity * starts organising terrorist attacks against civilians "It is a non-sequitur for Bin Laden to excuse his attacks on civilians by pointing to US election process." You are going to have to explain to me why you think that is a non-sequitur. For me it follows directly: OBL thinks that it is ok to attack civilians if he had legitimate grievances with US policy. He did have some legitimate grievances with US policy. But I do not think he had a right to attack American civilians. It sounds like you are trying to say this point is irrelevant because you object to the ideology, so that the issue of his attacking civilians doesn't arise. I don't agree. It does arise, because he explicitly attacked civilians on the basis they voted for a govt that had killed Muslim civilians and supported Israeli annexation of the west bank (which I also think is wrong). "Also it is a failure of imagination to think nothing would justify attacking civilians (US or otherwise)," "where such desperate measures would be completely rational" It's completely *rational* to attack civilians in an attempt to secure political change. The issue isn't rationality. It is whether it is ever acceptable to do so. It is wrong, and it is a crime. As for situations where you might intentionally attack population centres (strategic nuclear war etc.) I'm pretty sure we can all agree it would be wrong and a crime. The issue in such a situation is we are intentionally abandoning the whole concept of laws and right and wrong and engaging in wanton saveragery. For situations like, e.g. strategic bombing in WW2 we are talking about a situation where you are attacking civilians as industrial workers in a fully mobilised economy engaged in industrial conflict. The situation is borderline. "Do I feel sorry for Palestinian children, whose parents voted for these animals on a charter of genocide and Islamic state? I do. But not as much as I feel sorry for those children and parents they murdered." How would you feel about the similar statement by a hypothetical Gazan Nimatzo: "Do I feel sorry for the children of the parents that voted for these animals on a charter of colonialism and starvation? I do. But not as much as I feel sorry for the children and parents killed by the bombs they drop on us." This is the fundamental problem with moral relativism. "Israel is doing infinitely more than Hamas to not kill civilians." Nevertheless, in the wider context it has adopted explicitly for the last 20 years a colonial policy (and arguably for much longer) - and the fact they take pains to avoid directly killing civilians with military means; they enforce this blatantly illegal and unjust policy against civilians with military means. Their attempt to avoid killing people while doing so does not make it just or acceptable. I am not contrasting that as better or worse than Hamas. They are two separate issues. The one does not justify the other (in either direction). Right now, the most pressing problem is getting rid of Hamas. Israel is fully entitled to do that and whatever the equation for future peace, they cannot be part of it. Thereafter, we return to the question of Israel's occupation and deliberate policy of sabotaging the two state solution, pursued ever since the Camp David talks collapsed over their fundamental rejection of a contiguous Palestinian state. If the two state solution is dead, what is their proposal for a one state solution that grants full rights to Palestinians? And if as (I believe) that is impossible, then we must turn again to the plan for a two state solution.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 12 05:35:11 You should read their 1988 charter that was still valid during that election.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 05:56:50 You are letting party programmes to a lot of heavy lifting. We do not generally do that in Norway and see the programmes as outdated aspirational documents if we think about them at all. According to wiki, changing the Hamas charter is difficult for fragmentation reasons, but many in Hamas find it rather embarrassing. It was not the platform Hamas ran on in 2006.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 12 06:02:39 Jergul "Ultimately, there are only two choices for the future. A two state solution with full sovereignity for the Palestinian state, or a one state solution with full democratic rights for Palestinian citizens within Greater Israel." This is just another way of saying that you're a partisan for the Palestinians. So long as the Palestinians remain an inherently terroristic people, neither of these choices would work *at all* for Israel. Adopting either one would represent a complete capitulation of Israeli interests, which is why Israel hasn't chosen either of them. Israel is clearly the dominant party in this situation and the status quo is the best outcome for them. If the Palestinians want to convince Israel to change the status quo, then it's on them to make massive concessions in order to achieve that goal. You still have a 1999-era mentality on this subject jergul. Grow up.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 06:09:21 Nim: Yup. However, it's two different thing to say: "Hamas never changed its charter so voters were foolish at best to believe their manifesto" And "People voting for the Change and Reform list were voting for a manifesto of genocide, islamic law and dismantling of democracy" The first is arguable but weak to connect those that voted for Hamas as morally culpable in any way for their actions. The second is simply incorrect. Hamas stood on a platform opposite to what you claim, under a different name, and as I recall made hand-wavey arguments that their 1988 charter should be interpreted as far more moderate, was difficult/impossible to change, which is why they were campaign under this new brand (subtext: we are moderates and leaving the nutters behind). It might even have been true for a point in time for all I know but the leadership (or at least in practical terms) now are clearly hardliners and have no place in any future peace. One more charitably assume that most of the electorate expected Hamas to govern in line with their manifesto as the Change and Reform party not as an extreme religious, authoritarian and anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic force.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 12 06:12:49 Rugian: "So long as the Palestinians remain an inherently terroristic people" They aren't an inherently terroristic people. They are a population under permanent colonial occupation and historically this breeds terrorist groups. It certainly bred Jewish terrorist groups,as well as Indian, Pakistani and African ones. "which is why Israel hasn't chosen either of them." If Israel's policy was purely about security, it would not be colonising the territory and expropriating its natural resources.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 12 06:16:54 “I do not object to OBL because he has horrible ideologies.” This is a very vague statement, but you regularly on this very forum object to people who have horrible ideas, this thread series and the posters in it included. The ideas people have in their heads is a good indication of how they may act in the future. “OBL thinks that it is ok to attack civilians if he had legitimate grievances with US policy.” Mhm, and it is the “legitimate grievances” that is the issue, I have no idea if you are part of some extremists religious group that would rather die than to kill “innocent” people, but I am not. I can think of a rational for doing just that. OBLs grievances were not that kind that required killing civilians. “It sounds like you are trying to say this point is irrelevant because you object to the ideology, so that the issue of his attacking civilians doesn't arise.” His grievances are inseparable from the Islamic ideology. And those that were not clearly religious in nature, most of them of them were so entangled with Islam, it is hard to separate them. And perhaps more importantly his response to those grievances (religious or other wise) follows a cookie cutter Islamic response, going all the way back to his prophet. These are not discrete little units seb, you can’t read these things one paragraph at a time unrelated from the rest, you have to read the entire books as books in the same story. “It's completely *rational* to attack civilians in an attempt to secure political change.” Only if you do not pay attention to the track record. Especially for Islamic terrorism. So, no. “It is whether it is ever acceptable to do so. It is wrong, and it is a crime.” There is some terminology confusion, but again you are having a failure of imagination if you think “wrong” and “crime” have any practical meaning if you are facing annihilation. I agree with you, that these circumstances are not desirable, but legal and wrong have no meaning. Heinous things can be justified even for moral people, because the other choice would be annihilation. Imagine if Jews during the 1940’s took German children as hostages to get their children out extermination camps, executed some even. Horrible, but justified. I would do it too, a thousand German children to get my children back. No, Paramount, there is no comparison to the Palestinian youth criminals in Israel jails. “(strategic nuclear war etc.) I'm pretty sure we can all agree it would be wrong and a crime.” Too little information for me to decide. “whole concept of laws and right and wrong” Would have collapsed in every meaningful sense in the scenarios I am thinking of. I told you this isn’t something worth pursuing, because none of these conflicts have reached such levels. I just objected to what you said, in principle, it needed to be established as my baseline. “How would you feel about the similar statement by a hypothetical Gazan Nimatzo” I have heard a thousand such statements. You already have my answer. “Nevertheless, in the wider context it has adopted explicitly for the last 20 years a colonial policy” And these are areas I would blame Israel for. I have even mentioned some of them as a parallel example to why Swedish nuclear power was dismantled by a fringe zealous green party, just like Israeli policy and progress on the Palestinian issue and settlers has been scorched by a zealous fringe party. Yes Israel has a significant blame, like 20%. It’s just not nearly enough to “both-sides” this or juxtapose and relatives single items void of the sum total. “Right now, the most pressing problem is getting rid of Hamas.” I don't think otherwise, and I will add that unlike Jergul, I have issues with Israel shutting off water, electricity and food as “legitimate” was his words. I understand Israelis are angry and traumatized, but they are strong and they have the support of the civilized world, Hamas atrocities has even shaken the faith of those among Israel's enemies. They don't need to do this.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 06:18:32 Ruggy Funny. Israel does not feel comfortable with the status quo at all. In fact, it seems rather upset. I don't think the hands-off occupation is viable, so believe the correct policy choice for Israel is to permanently re-occupy Gaza. With all the obligations, costs and nuisance attacks that incurs. The alternative is risking border incursions every so often, and most certainly running into huge difficulty with those new-fangled drones we have heard so much about in Ukraine.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 12 06:22:32 "They aren't an inherently terroristic people. " Left to their own devices, they would happily blow up Israelis in cafes and markets, demolish Jewish synagogues, massacre Jewish crowds, kidnap Israeli grandmothers, and decapitate Jewish babies. Fuck it Seb. They've only been doing this shit for as long as I've been alive. How much more evidence do you need here? "They are a population under permanent colonial occupation" Nope. They are a defeated enemy that refuses to accept their position and instead runs a decades-long campaign of terrorism against Israel, which requires Israel to implement reasonable security programme in response. "If Israel's policy was purely about security, it would not be colonising the territory and expropriating its natural resources." Palestinians had their chance to prevent this in 2000. They opted to murder Jews instead. Fuck them. The only actual solution to this conflict is to relocate the Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 06:23:36 Seb You were on such a roll. Cutting off critical supplies over the short term has been established as a legitimate means of waging war. Sadly, but true. The problem arises not when civilians are discomforted by it, but when they start dying in significant numbers. A sliding measure, but does not dip into warcrime genocidal catagories for a couple weeks at least.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 12 06:25:50 "Funny. Israel does not feel comfortable with the status quo at all. In fact, it seems rather upset." Hamas did what they did from a walled-off ghetto, as you would put it. How many more resources could they bring to bear towards massacring Jewish people if they held sovereign powers (two-state solution) or had unrestricted access to Jewish communities (one-state solution)? To act like either is acceptable to Israel is nuts.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 06:26:08 Ruggy Relocating Palestinians assumes Jordan and Egypt are willing and able to deal with the security connetations Israel did not want to deal with. Otherwise, all you are doing is relocating missile, incursion and drone attacks to a different place.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 12 06:29:22 “Yup. However, it's two different thing to say:” Sigh… You keep chopping up things that necessarily must be read in the context of one and other, and then insist everyone else interpret the world like this? Charter, election platform, actions. All these things must be read together. These are not “different things”, they are different parts of the same whole. The seeming moderation of Hamas election platform is directly connected to aid money from the EU!!! And then you look at their actions since that election, right? How there have been no more elections and this recent atrocity and you are seriously standing here and trying to tell me how certain words and sentences on their 2006 election platform is somehow meaningful? And use them as counter arguments when I say they wanted to dismantle democracy, kill the jews and found an Islamic state? lol get off it.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 12 06:31:31 Jergul Jordan happily annexed the West Bank and Egypt was totally cool with governing Gaza back before Israel took both. They have therefore demonstrated that theyre willing to deal with the Palestinians.
jergul large member	Thu Oct 12 06:32:48 Starting locations of those things against Israel* It could very well be that Gaza has to remain under military occupation for a while even under a 1 state solution. With martial law and all that. The first step towards a one-state solution is obviously re-establishing physical occupation of Gaza, then engaging in talks with the PA. Gazans can vote in a referendum on the outcome. The actual security situation in Gaza is independent of formally annexing both the West Bank and Gaza.
	show deleted posts