Lol. Please, keep them coming. This is great. — Mikie

Thanks. I will

This conflict is over a territory, not any kind of generalised eastern vs western values thing. If it's east v west at all it is only because western colonial powers decided to confiscate and divvy up foreign countries again, cunts that we are. — bert1

Yes you are correct. But it is a window into what the fuck are you talking about Dr. Woke?

It is a living example of non-Western values clashing with Western values. — Merkwurdichliebe

What the everloving fuck are you talking about?

What the everloving fuck are you talking about? — frank

:lol: Just showing how the values of Hamas differ from the values of Israel, and that the values of Israel fall closer in line with Western Liberal values than the values of Hamas do. How in the everfucking love could you disagree with that?

Just showing how the values of Hamas differ from the values of Israel, and that the values of Israel fall closer in line with Western Liberal values than the values of Hamas do. How in the everfucking love could you disagree with that? — Merkwurdichliebe

Which part of Hamas' attack represents something Westerners never do?

This conflict is over a territory, not any kind of generalised eastern vs western values thing. If it's east v west at all it is only because western colonial powers decided to confiscate and divvy up foreign countries again, cunts that we are. — bert1

Ok, ok, I'll make a real response. First of all, the contrast is Western vs non-Western, not East vs West. And in this case, if we are getting specific, the non-Western happens to be of the radical Islamist genre.

Which part of Hamas' attack represents something Westerners never do? — frank

All of it. The real question is: which part does not represent everything that is condemned by Western standards?

The real question is: which part does not represent everything that is condemned by Western standards? — Merkwurdichliebe

Westerners attack shit all the time. In fact, it's just something humans do.

Westerners attack shit all the time. In fact, it's just something humans do. — frank

Yes, but there are general rules that the West expects players to observe when conducting warfare. It goes back to an event most people have never heard of called world war 2. Hamas does not give two Allah-fucking-damns about those rules. Israel does, and the entirety of Western civilization is watching them with the absolute expectation that they will comply.

How many civilian hostages did Hamas deliberately take from Israel on the 7th? Since then, how many civilian hostages has Israel taken from Gaza?

You're handing me a bucket of bullshit to sort through. No thanks.

You're handing me a bucket of bullshit to sort through. No thanks. — frank

Getting ornery there, that is a typical veiled antisemitic response that I wouldn't expect from you. Easy big feller.

Superior Western intellects are truly on display here, demonstrating just how superior they really are as they find ways to justify the killing of thousands of babies. To wonder why the rest of the world might not agree with this value judgement… — Mikie

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? Clearly the allies should have never used air power. I say, if even one poor, innocent German or Japanese child died by allied weapons it would turn us into monsters. Best to be pacifists and let the Germans have their way. I'm no child killer.

Getting ornery there, that is a typical veiled antisemitic response that I wouldn't expect from you. Easy big feller. — Merkwurdichliebe

You know me, they guy with the swastika tattooed on my forehead. I usually wear a veil.

Indeed. But it does get into the differences at stake here. Jewish identity has tried to have been stamped out. — schopenhauer1

In my view cultural assimilation stamps out identity, but pogroms or discrimination in general don't. On the contrary, even if you wouldn't otherwise care about it, you are quite "well informed" about your identity of being of a lower dubious status when you are a target of a pogrom or discrimination. And the memory of that discrimination just comes to be your heritage, part of your identity.

I usually wear a veil. — frank

Not a niqab, predecessor to the Covid mask?

Not a niqab, predecessor to the Covid mask? — Merkwurdichliebe

You see? It's all one global culture.

an ugly woman's paradise

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? Clearly the allies should have never used air power. — BitconnectCarlos

No, air power does work. Tactical air power works. Even strategic bombing can work. Yet the pre-war ideas of bombing civilian targets to quicken the ending of the war or make the home front collapse don't work. Have been tried on several occasions.

Bombing civilians can give political success when people cry for revenge. Yet this kind of revenge doesn't work as it just hardens the will to fight in many cases as it shows how cruel the enemy is and how existential the war is.

Just take the following hypothetical:

Assume that Hitler would have had an "Ural-bomber" that could have reached from France the US and would have been to bomb the East Coast of the US in 1943 or 1944. Question: would you think that bombing New York, Boston and Washington DC with few of such bombers would have made a real difference? Would Americans would have demanded immediate cessation of the war and would have made calls for peace with Germany once some New Yorkers would have died?

Of course not!

It simply would have strengthened the cause and made everybody to see that Hitler genuinely was a threat to the US. And naturally just like the British after the Blitz, Americans would have wanted more payback.

On the other hand: would it have bolstered German fighting spirits?

Yes. Or at least Hitler would have believed that it would. Goebbels would have been ecstatic and could have talked how demolishing all of America is just around the corner. Yet the real dent, just like with the actual 'Revenge'-weapons that Germany fielded and used, was basically to tie down for a while for the allied bombers to bomb the V-sites. More slave workers were killed producing the V-2 than the rockets killed people in the UK or Belgium. Hence attacking US cities in the east coast with German "Superbombers" would just made the USAAF to bomb those airfields that the bombers used, the plants that produce them and to have few fighter squadrons in defense of mainland USA. And of course we would have endless amounts of Hollywood films depicting these bombings, when American cities came together and showed the strength of the ordinary American.

Bombing civilians can give political success when people cry for revenge. Yet this kind of revenge doesn't work as it just hardens the will to fight in many cases as it shows how cruel the enemy is and how existential the war is. — ssu

There were strategic reasons for the air campaign, even after it was obvious it wasn't slowing German production down all that much and wasn't breaking their will to resist. Germany had to devote precious resources to defending their skies and that, of course, came at the expense of their forces on the Eastern Front.

So this war is becoming larger. In a peculiar way.

Among other (10) nations, Norway is getting abroad to the fight.

The Norwegian government is sending naval officers to the Red Sea, to help secure civilian merchant navigation after another Norwegian ship was attacked on Monday. The attack brings Israel’s war on the radical Palestinian organization Hamas in Gaza closer to home, after a string of demonstrations in Oslo against it.

----

Members of the Houthi militia in Yemen, which supports the Palestinians, have been launching drone attacks on ships believed to be tied to Israel. The Bergen-based owner of the tanker MV Swan Atlantic claimed the militia was wrong, however, in reportedly believing its vessel was operated by a firm with ties to Israel.

“We have no connections to Israel, neither on the ownership- nor operating side,” Øystein Elgan of Inventor Chemical Tankers told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) after the vessel was struck Monday morning. “The vessel wasn’t heading for Israel either.”

Inventor Chemical Tankers is owned by the Norwegian investment firm Rieber & Søn AS in Bergen and was carrying a cargo of biodiesel when a Houthi drone rammed a water tank and punched a hole in the vessel. Elgan said no crew members on board the vessel were killed or injured, and it was being escorted to the closest safe harbour by an American naval vessel.

A Houthi spokesman, meanwhile, insisted to NRK that the Swan Atlantic was bound for Israel, and stood by its information “100 percent.”

It’s the second Norwegian ship to be attacked off Yemen, after the chemical tanker Strinda was hit on December 12. The Strinda is also owned by a Bergen-based firm, J Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi, and the Norwegian Shipowners Association is sounding the alarms since around 40 Norwegian-owned vessels are in the area. Several other shipping firms, including Mærsk of Denmark, have also been hit including also a British vessel on Monday, the MCS Clara. Reuters reported that none of its crew was hurt either, but that doesn’t console the shipowners or their crews.

“The attacks underscore the ever-more serious situation in the Red Sea,” said Harald Solberg, leader of the shipowners’ organization, Rederiforbundet. He said more shipowners and operators will choose to avoid the Red Sea and Suez Canal, now that the situation there is so tense. That in turn will disrupt international trade, since the only alternative is to sail around Africa.

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes indeed.

Clearly the allies should have never used air power. — BitconnectCarlos

By all means use air power. Just don't use air power to kill innocent women or children. German, Japanese, or otherwise.

Best to be pacifists and let the Germans have their way. I'm no child killer. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not a pacifist.

So Hamas had every right to deliberately kill innocent people on October 7th, since the innocents' government maintains concentration camps and conducts terrorist campaigns? Yeah, I don't accept that. Innocent people shouldn't be killed -- even if Hamas can give a better reason than Likud can.

Germany had to devote precious resources to defending their skies and that, of course, came at the expense of their forces on the Eastern Front. — RogueAI

Well, some estimates put the B-29 program to have been even more costly than the Manhattan project, so how much would a transatlantic bomber project or a von Braun's rocket that would have been the first intercontinental missile used up those precious warfighting resources Germany had? Hitler surely would have used them, if given the option. Just look at how the superb Me 262 was made into being a fighter bomber!

By all means use air power. Just don't use air power to kill innocent women or children. German, Japanese, or otherwise. — Mikie

If a bombing campaign is to be undertaken, civilians will die. It is just a matter of how many. Our militaries do not have the ability to save all innocents.

Innocent people shouldn't be killed, but they will be. Regardless of method. Some methods result in more civilian deaths than others, but none result in zero.

If a bombing campaign is to be undertaken, civilians will die. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not necessarily true.

Some methods result in more civilian deaths than others, but none result in zero. — BitconnectCarlos

Plenty result in zero. True, you can't drop a nuclear bomb on a city and have no civilian deaths -- but that's a reason for not doing it.

Yes, I do support the use of air power during WWII by the allies. I was making a point to Mikie's logic and extrapolating.

I agree with your analysis. And I'm sure you know by now that in Gaza the line between civilian and military is essentially nil. Hamas does not wear uniforms. Their deaths are counted among the civilian deaths. They use schools and hospitals to store and fire weaponry.

Question: would you think that bombing New York, Boston and Washington DC with few of such bombers would have made a real difference? — ssu

It would have strengthened our resolve. Just as the country rallied together after Pearl Harbor. Henry Kissinger argued in "Diplomacy" that even after Pearl Harbor Hitler declaring war on the US was one of his big mistakes. He says war with Germany was not inevitable after that -- only war with Japan was.

Here's where nuance comes in, for me at least. There's a difference, for example, between a targeted missile strike on an apartment that kills an enemy militant and also an innocent civilian from the apartment next door and simply bombing the apartment block and killing 100 innocent civilians and the militant. Every option in between could also be explored ethically but the former shows some respect for civilian life and the latter doesn't. This idea of respecting and protecting civilian life is expressed in the Geneva conventions as follows:

"In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects in the war-zone; the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.[6] Although ratified by 173 countries, the only countries that are currently not signatories to Protocol I are the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty#:~:text=International%20law,-Following%20the%20Second&text=In%201977%2C%20Protocol%20I%20was,and%20civilian%20objects%20as%20possible.

It's expressed there because it reflects the appropriate, in my view, moral intuition that civilians should not be indiscriminately or unnecessarily punished during war. It's telling that the U.S. and Israel are two of only six countries that haven't signed up to this (although others have signed and simply ignore it).

And I'm sure you know by now that in Gaza the line between civilian and military is essentially nil. Hamas does not wear uniforms. — BitconnectCarlos

No, it's not. Civilians are civilians and militants are miltiants regardless of their fashion choices. You have to consider the logic of the alternative. If the line is really literally nil for you and you also support eliminating the military then you would be saying you support elimintaing 1.5 million people, only roughly 40,000 (less than 3%) of whom are actual militants, 50% of whom are children. I don't believe you do, but again, words have consequences and this idea that everyone in Gaza is Hamas is used to justify killing civilians and should not be so used. It's that simple. Talk about being civilized. The first rule should be "protect the innocent", no? Incidentally, Hamas have used a similar argument, that Israeli civilians are indistinguishable from the military due to their compulsory military service. This is again just an excuse to dehumanize innocent civilians so they may be attacked with impunity.

There's a difference, for example, between a targeted missile strike on an apartment that kills an enemy militant and also an innocent civilian from the apartment next door and simply bombing the apartment block and killing 100 innocent civilians and the militant. — Baden

Oh absolutely, proportionality is certainly a legitimate concern. But we also need to be honest that neither of us are in the IDF operations room and have a clear idea of Israel's proportionality policy. We just don't know the exact terrorist to civilian death ratio. Israel claims a 2:1 ratio but that truth may very well be stretched. We'll never know.

But I can tell you that Israel could certainly be more brutal than it's being now. It sends its young soldiers to die to reduce the number of palestinian casualties.

Hamas have used a similar argument — Baden

It's not a similar argument. Israel is not raping Palestinian women to death. They're not beheading babies. They made some men kneel down in their underwear and everyone lost their shit. They're fighting a cowardly enemy hiding among civilians and still trying to limit civilian casualties. If Hamas would engage in a stand-up fight against Israeli soldiers, the war would be over quick, without many civilian casualties. But they're a bunch of murdering pussies, so Israel has to root them out and people are getting killed in the process. As I've said many times, what did Palestinians think would happen when they put Hamas in charge? Did they think it would end well?

If the line is really literally nil for you and you also support eliminating the military then you would be saying you support elimintaing 1.5 million people — Baden

Of course there is a meaningful difference between civilian and militant; innocent and guilty. I wish to make that clear. However, on the ground if Israel is operating in an area where they've told, e.g. all males to evacuate and is known to be a Hamas stronghold then virtually all military-aged males are suspect and will likely be rounded up and interrogated. Hamas's policy of not using uniforms and luring IDF soldiers into traps with the sounds of crying babies endangers the entire Palestinian population.

I heard another disheartening statistic lately. According to one poll, 75% of the palestinian population supported the 10/7 attacks. I am now sympathetic to the view that the society now needs to be fundamentally restructured.