A very depressing video from Gaza

[arthwollipot]

Over the top. Not every Palestinian is Hamas.

A couple of nukes would kill them all whether they are Hamas or not.

[President Bush]

Over the top. Not every Palestinian is Hamas.

A couple of nukes would kill them all whether they are Hamas or not.

yes, one side is gonna have to agree to total obliteration for this to work.

[Admin]

More smart work by Hamas - using ambulances as cover, so Israel vaporises all the ambulances.

Some of them might even contain terrorists, but it sure as hell plays well on the news.

[sparks]

Take off, nuke the good guys and the bad guys from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.



And which one of you knuckleheads threw the baby out with the bath water again?

[Meadmaker]

Take off, nuke the good guys and the bad guys from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

It's the expansion set for the "Is There a God?" game.

"Whose side is He on?"

And they can sit in Heaven or Hell, finally knowing, for sure, which side God wanted to have that Rock.

[Meadmaker]

The more I think about it, the more I think the only possible solution involves annexation of the West Bank, minus Jerusalem, into Jordan, and Gaza into Egypt.


No one wants that now, so it isn't going to happen, but maybe in 50 - 100 years.


Until then, there's plenty of profit to be made for weapns suppliers and undertakers.

[arthwollipot]

Until then, there's plenty of profit to be made for weapns suppliers and undertakers.

War profiteering has a long and splendid history. No way anyone can complain about that.

[Meadmaker]

The media coverage of the most recent situation is kind of weird to me.

It's mostly about Shifa Hospital these days, and the tragedy that is occuring there.

The headlines will talk about Israel having the hospital surrounded.

Buried somewhere in the article will be a line something like "While fighting rages in the vicinity".

So fighting is "raging". Meaning - both sides are shooting at each other.

That isn't what the headline leads you to think.



I've never been an admirer of "fighting to the last man". Whether at Berlin or at Massada, it just seems like a good way to get people killed. When there is no hope of victory, the only excuse to not surrender is if there is no hope of survival for you, and for those under your command, and for civilians. So, Genghis Khan is at the gates, and he made you a surrender offer, which you declined, so you might as well fight to the last man. The Khan's policy was kill everyone in cities who reject surrender offers, except for a bit of rape and slavery. Then, it's ok to resist to the last mane.
Elsewhere, people who keep fighting when obviously beaten otherwise are just adding to the body count. That's what I think of Hamas right now. You lost. Give up the battle. Release the hostages. Put down your weapons. Try to blend in with the civilian population, and come back to fight another day, if we could dignify what you are doing with the word "fighting".

Of course, I don't really think they are worthy of being called soldiers. I think they must be hoping to recruit people via martyrdom or something.

[Admin]

On the other hand, they've seen protests about Palestine grow from a few die-hards to hundreds of thousands.

The more atrocities Israel commits, the more friends Palestine garners. UN, USA and most countries are calling for a ceasefire and Bibi's goose is truly cooked.

Who knows, lasting change may even come of it.

We're only to 15,000 or so dead. When life has no value that's probably a good deal.

[Meadmaker]

But I don't get it.


Israel is committing atrocities, apparently, Such as......?


What I'm seeing is war. Urban war. That's pretty atrocious all by itself, and people who start wars are bad people, in almost every case.

However, what I'm reading in the articles is that fighting is raging. In other words, people are shooting at each other. Key phrase : each other.

It's not that the IDF is shooting at Hamas/Palestinians/Arabs. It's that Hamas/Palestinians are shooting at Israelis, and Israelis are shooting at Hamas. The IDF has more and better weapons, so Hamas is losing, but a lot of folks, including civilians, including children, including babies are going to be caught in the crossfire, and the essentials of urban existence, like electricy and running water, are going to be disrupted, which is going to cause vulnerable people, such as newborn babies, to die.

That really sucks. Maybe "each other" should stop.

Maybe I'm naive or blind to reality here, but I don't see an alternative to what the IDF is doing. Hamas launched a brutal attack against the people of Israel, specifically targetting civilians. In doing so, they forfeited their right to govern. They should be removed from power, so that they can't launch another attack just like the last one they launched. So.....how does that happen? I think how it happens looks like what you are seeing on the news, and it really sucks for the people who are in the way.


In every war, commanders have to make some unfortunate calculalations. How many of our team are we willing to let die in order to minimize casualties among the enemy fighters, and among the civilian population where those fighters are operating? Does it matter if those fighters have the support of those civilians?

Maybe Israel is being cavalier about "collateral damage". However, as much as that phrase can be used to sweep horrors under the rug, that's what it is. I do not believe that the IDF is deliberately maximizing casualties among Gazan civilians. At worst, they might be showing an indifference to such casualties. On the other hand, I think Hamas is very specifically trying to ensure casualties among civilians. I think that's their aim. If not, then what is their aim? What was their aim on October 7? I can't see any other purpose than recruitment via martyrdom.

If they didn't want that, they could stop shooting. Run away. War's over.