Hamas does it from hatred, sadism. — RogueAI

And Israeli’s killing 8000 children out of love and compassion.

As long as good invisible intentions are there, one can kill with impunity.

Hamas does it from hatred, sadism.
— RogueAI — Mikie

That's a misquote. Bitconnect said that. I don't entirely agree with what he said,

:up:

What's causing the religious extremism? — frank

That's a very good question. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think it's had as much time to mellow. Also, the actions of colonial powers and the U.S. involvement in the region are a factor in pushing people towards extremism. The U.S. involvement has been nakedly self-serving, dishonest, and destructive. That would cause a lot of rage.

And Israeli’s killing 8000 children out of love and compassion.

As long as good invisible intentions are there, one can kill with impunity. — Mikie

Waging war on the Axis made the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Axis children an inevitability. Much more than 8k. Such is war. The blood lies on the instigator.

Hamas uses 14-18 year olds as combatants. Hamas allows children as young as 14 to carry explosives.

That's a very good question. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think it's had as much time to mellow — RogueAI

Islam does have a fair amount of ideological ease with militancy because its central figure was a military leader. I'm having a hard time drawing a line between what Hamas just did and Islam, though. There's a missing piece of the puzzle. I don't know if we'll ever know what actually happened.

The U.S. involvement has been nakedly self-serving, dishonest, and destructive. — RogueAI

I've spent quite a bit of time over the decades criticizing and denouncing US policy. However, "states" -- be the United States, Germany, Iran, Thailand... pick a state, any state... are and should be self serving. States do not have morals, friends, etc. What they have are "interests" and they are intended to pursue those interests on behalf of their ["most valuable"] citizen groups.

How well states pursue their interests varies. States don't have to be honest with everybody else, but they need to be honest within their core -- else they come to believe their own bullshit, which is a universal big mistake. Destructive? States can be very destructive in pursuit of their interests.

None of that is intended as blanket immunity. Germany was severely punished for a criminal overreach in pursuit of its self interests (lebensraum). Germany was also punished for elevating social prejudice against Jews to a lethal state policy. And more, besides. Had Germany won the war, the Allies wouldn't have been able to punish Germany.

So who do we blame for what states do? Start with their leaders, of course, and not just the 1 or 2 leaders at the tip of the power pyramid. The war in Vietnam involved many more leaders than John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon. Blame corporate interests (somebody's always making a lot of money manufacturing war materiel). Blame wishy-washy civil and religious institutions. Blame the electorate. And, of course, blame other states who pursue their interests contrary to our interests.

All that said, I don't know to what extent loyal support of Israel really is in the American state's interest. I'm predisposed by personal history to prefer Israel over Syria, say, or Israel over Iran. Apart from personal history, it isn't obvious to me that the leadership of Israel (an assortment of of people I probably don't agree with on much) is pursuing Israel's long-germ interests.

The blood lies on the instigator. — BitconnectCarlos

So Hamas was justified? No thank you. I don’t buy that.

Hamas uses 14-18 year olds as combatants. — BitconnectCarlos

And Israel kills them — of all ages, in fact. Approaching the tens of thousands.

But at least they do it without hatred in their hearts.

Islam does have a fair amount of ideological ease with militancy because its central figure was a military leader. — frank

I don't know. Could be. Christianity (at an early stage under Constantine) became Romanized. The Empire was a very multilingual, multiethnic, multi-creedal operation, and the Romanized Christian Church required a millennium to stabilize its various creeds and heresies. Islam's history seems to be quite different.

Islam began as fast paced military/religious conquest; outside of the empire, it took the Christian Church quite some time for the Christian Church to achieve maximum distribution.

Is "stress" the force behind Islamic militancy?

I suppose; it depends. If social/political/economic stresses don't kill people, they probably make them more militant. Very comfortable people usually don't become hard core revolutionaries. Not never, but usually not.

So I guess we should send the Palestinians back to Saudi Arabia or whichever surrounding Arabic nation they came from. — BitconnectCarlos

Just asking: Why is it so hard not to demand ethnic cleansing?

Waging war on the Axis made the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Axis children an inevitability. Much more than 8k. Such is war. The blood lies on the instigator. — BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians aren't even remotely close to Axis powers of the WW2.

Terror bombing and killing civilians isn't an inevitability. If you have good civil defense (bomb shelters), safety of civilians is important and the evacuation of civilians from the battlefield is possible, then a huge war can go without huge losses on civilians. And if the intent isn't to kill civilians. My country (with population of 3,7 million people) lost about 95 000 soldiers killed in WW2, yet only two thousand civilians were killed in WW2.

And "such is war" is one of the most stupid reasoning ever I've heard. Believe me, there really are very different ways of fighting a war. The Roman doctrine of "Get peace by making an artificial desert" or the Mongol doctrine of "Kill every human being and make the country grazing ground for our horses" is quite different from how the Western allies fought and occupied Germany and Japan. Or for that matter how usually wars are fought.

So let's put this death toll from Gaza into context:

In the US invasion of Iraq, according to Iraqi Body Count Project, the fatalities were the following:

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Men accounted for over 80% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?
30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

What was the most lethal weaponry?
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

It should be noted that afterwards the actual Civil War in Iraq killed quite a lot of Iraqis and hence the minority of the 180 000 - 205 000 fatalities 2003-2008 (according to IBCP, but others are similar) were killed by US troops. Now we are reaching in Gaza the numbers that in the Iraqi war were killed in two years (24 000). And Iraq is quite more bigger than Gaza, Saddam's army was quite more bigger than Hamas and there was far more US and allied forces in Iraq than now in Gaza.

Whether or not you see a shred of legitimacy in Israel's defensive war, you are probably aware that war generally results in quite a bit of indiscriminate killing. Bombing Berlin or Tokyo; invading the USSR; seizing large swaths of China; grabbing chunks of the Dutch and British Empires, etc. involves mass death. Whether the war is just or not doesn't make much difference.

A house-by-house, room-by-room, tunnel-by-tunnel rooting out of Hamas would result in many fewer collateral deaths. Israel doesn't have enough population to mount and sustain so personnel-intensive approach. Dropping bombs and shelling buildings is a more efficient use of resources, with ghastlier side effects. There's no such thing as a bomb smart enough to blow up only the right people. Bombs and shells are equal opportunity death-dealing devices.

That there is a hell, or hades--a gruesome realm opposite a heaven--where anybody is tortured is enough to turn one off on all three Abrahamic religions. That a glorious heaven awaits those who suffer here is anodyne, but is likewise a turnoff. Suffering here is a dead certainty; a fluffy, cotton candy heaven, not so much, — BC

I like to watch NDEs, and some people recount going through a "life review" where the they feel the impact their presence had on others and its true consequences. If they caused others pain, that pain will come back to them. It's shame they feel, not physical torture. The good and the bad are both magnified and felt by the subject.

I'm not one to harp on the afterlife. It's left open in Judaism and there are various ideas but it's not a focus for us like it is in other religions. I read the Bible because it enriches my life. I do hope there is something after death because I'm a stickler for fairness and I like the idea that the soul would be able to reflect on the life it just had and learn from it. I do not believe in eternal punishment as I don't believe a just God would allow it. In any case, if one studies religious literature, one sees that themes like the end times or heaven and hell appear later along the biblical timeline -- the bulk of the Hebrew Bible has other topics to cover.

And if it all just goes to black at the end, for everybody, does it really even matter who was right and who was wrong?

A house-by-house, room-by-room, tunnel-by-tunnel rooting out of Hamas would result in many fewer collateral deaths. Israel doesn't have enough population to mount and sustain so personnel-intensive approach. — BC

Or the will. Just to give an example where a country treated insurgents as criminals and their supporters still as citizens is "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland: there more British soldiers and policeman died than IRA terrorists and the tho IRA perpetrators of the worst attack against the British army got off free as the court didn't find enough evidence for it. (The other later was killed when he was fixing a bomb, but I guess the other one lived free.)

The politics in Israel is going into a very worrisome direction. Many people are talking about transferring people out of Gaza, even building there new colonies.

Dropping bombs and shelling buildings is a more efficient use of resources, with ghastlier side effects. There's no such thing as a bomb smart enough to blow up only the right people. Bombs and shells are equal opportunity death-dealing devices. — BC

Destroying all buildings and infrastructure is an ominous issue here. Here again a totally different style of warfare compared to the US (for example in Iraq).

The level of destruction in Gaza is very troubling. There are no intact buildings in large swaths of the territory. Water/sewer service is wrecked. Gaza doesn't have the wherewithal to generate a lot of revenue for this purpose, and in any case, they aren't free agents. They still have 2.3 million people to rehouse. Israel isn't going to mount a Marshall Plan for Gaza, just guessing,

Didn't Netanyahu say this would go on for the rest of 2024?

Even granting that Israel was entirely justified in attacking Hamas in the way they have, there is a Humpty Dumpty problem here: All Israel's horses and all Israel's men almost certainly have no intention of putting Gaza back together again. So, then what? A much more intensive immiseration of the Palestinians in Gaza and a much more intensive radical reaction -- sooner or later -- probably sooner.

I don't think Netanyahu ever intended for Gaza to go back to the way it was. I think he wants the refugees to leave Israel. Or die.

States do not have morals, friends, etc. What they have are "interests" and they are intended to pursue those interests on behalf of their ["most valuable"] citizen groups. — BC

I used to believe this, but I don't think it's true anymore. A state is just a collection of people, and peoples have morals, friends, allegiances, etc. Take America and Britain, for example. The two peoples have a lot of shared history, they've helped each other throughout the centuries, and they feel a lot of good will towards each other. That's going to influence the policies of the countries. In practical terms, if America pursues a nakedly self-serving policy and screws over Britain in some matter, causing it to be harmed, the American people (and politicians) would be unhappy with that, and the policy might have to change.

I think he wants the refugees to leave Israel. Or die. — frank

You are probably right. Neither "kill them all" nor "expel them all" has been sayable. Instead, "defeat Hamas"; "render Gaza ungovernable". Substitute "unlivable" for "ungovernable". First Gaza then the West Bank?

Roughly 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian--about 1.600.000. Who is going to accept 1.600,000 people?

If they have a choice, displaced people tend to go where there are already communities of their people.

The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:

Jordan 3,240,000
Syria 630,000
Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).
Lebanon 402,582
Saudi Arabia 280,245
Egypt 270,245
United States 255,000 (the largest concentrations in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles)`
Honduras 250,000
Guatemala est. 200,000
Mexico 120,000
Qatar 100,000

True. States are abstractions which do not have human qualities.

I think what "nations have interests" means is that when people assume the roles of state policy and control, they tend to pursue the state's interests. Certainly, even large groups of people (nation-state sized) have friends and enemies, and this is represented in the state's interests. States belonging to the "axis of evil" (defined from the American perspective) are our enemies. Russia's interests are not our interests. From the opposite perspective, the US, UK, and EU might be defined as the axis of evil.

The people in control of a state can be blind to this or that hazard or interest. two generations of US leaders have viewed Cuba as a threat or an embarrassment. Embarrassment it might be, but alone it can't be much of a threat. The US has viewed Taiwan as an interest rather than a hazard. I'm not sure where our interest really lies there. Does it lie with the PRC? That's not altogether clear either.

I first heard this idea about 15 years ago. It seemed like a nifty phrase and I think it has some validity, but maybe I'll stop repeating it. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

Yep. Time to pack up and leave.

Yea, that's probably true. Christianity is the king of all death cults, though. Nobody does dark and gruesome like Christians. — frank

Yes, but at the center of Christianity you have Jesus while at the center of Islam you have Muhammad, a successful warlord with a child bride. Jesus sees an adultress about to be stoned and says "let he who is without sin casts the first stone." Muhammad when faced with the same situation says to stone the woman. These figures are not the same.

Well at least you've narrowed your condemnation from all Muslims down to Hamas. We're making progress. :up:

I am of course against Islamic fundamentalism but I cannot call these groups theologically incorrect -- nor has the Muslim world really spoke out against them. On the contrary, if martyrdom for the Islamic cause assures one a spot in heaven then groups like Hamas are good actors and have brought 20,000 muslim souls a place in paradise.

The 20,000 Gazans die martyrs and we should be cheering if we are honest muslims.

Yes, but at the center of Christianity you have Jesus while at the center of Islam you have Muhammad, a successful warlord with a child bride. Jesus sees an adultress about to be stoned and says "let he who is without sin casts the first stone." Muhammad when faced with the same situation says to stone the woman. These figures are not the same. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. I made the same point earlier. Islam has greater ideological ease with militancy than other Abrahamic religions do. Can't really form this into a condemnation of Islam, though. Christians, with their pacificist central figure, have kicked more ass than anyone.

I am of course against Islamic fundamentalism but I cannot call these groups theologically incorrect -- nor has the Muslim world really spoke out against them. — BitconnectCarlos

Muslim leaders condemn extremism on the regular.

My knowledge is limited, but you used Ukraine as an example of the bad deeds of Russia, which couldn't be further off the mark. NATO is America's puppet, and Ukraine is America's proxy for making war on Russia. In America's desire for world domination Russia and China, the BRICS and I hope soon the entire Eastern hemisphere is what stands in America's way. America has already usurped the sovereignty of the countries of Europe when they placed nuclear warheads on their soils, American nuclear warheads. America is, and has been the only superpower for some time, and has been a brutal and cruel master globally. The Eastern hemisphere, basically the history of European colonies, are tired of being kept poor, and brutalized in the process. They desire to see a multipolar world, not one governed by colonialists of the West. Colonialism did not die with the British Empire; it just changed hands, and became an American tradition, more brutal than their British predecessors. If this is what you are rooting for, you are on the wrong side of history. All the while America has been using its awesome military to intimidate and crush weaker countries by making economic warfare on them, these countries have been preparing to meet the challenge of their brutal master, and today is the day. American propaganda is masterly, particularly effective on its own population, but the world at large knows America for the beast it is in its blood-drenched history. So again, you are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of a better world.

A drone strike in Lebanon possibly pulling in Hezbollah into the conflict. Dumb decision.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/03/israeli-public-figures-accuse-judiciary-of-ignoring-incitement-to-genocide-in-gaza

It's been going on much longer and has been mainstream with Likud since its inception but I guess people waking up to this incitement is a win.

My knowledge is limited, — boagie

Indeed it is, so at least you are honest. :up:

but you used Ukraine as an example of the bad deeds of Russia, which couldn't be further off the mark. — boagie

Obviously you don't know the history starting from the collapse of the Soviet Union and all the ways that Russia has intervened in Ukraine and it's near abroad starting from the 1990's. And this might not be the correct thread to go (again) this. Anyway, a long story short, Russia's behaviour in it's "Near Abroad" and in former Soviet Republics is similar if not worse as US actions in Central America and the Caribbean.

America has already usurped the sovereignty of the countries of Europe when they placed nuclear warheads on their soils, American nuclear warheads. — boagie

Really?

It might be hard to fathom, but actually Europeans are happy with the defense treaty organization, just as they are happy with their European integration process, especially after the UK showed the example just how utterly bad is the idea of separating from the union. But if you think that these countries are mere puppets, I don't think we can have an insightful discussion.

The Eastern hemisphere, basically the history of European colonies, are tired of being kept poor, and brutalized in the process. — boagie

Are Taiwan, South Korea, the Gulf States poor? Here again the idea of the poor Third World of the 1960's and 1970's is different from the present.

All the while America has been using its awesome military to intimidate and crush weaker countries by making economic warfare on them, these countries have been preparing to meet the challenge of their brutal master, and today is the day. — boagie

The US has never been a brutal master of either China or Russia, or of India!

So again, you are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of a better world. — boagie

How do you think Putin and Communist China will make the world better? Being critical about the US is fine, I am critical especially about their Mid-East policies. But then thinking that those opposing the US have to be great is illogical. Enemy of my enemy isn't my friend. There is much to improve in this World, I agree with you, but I don't think those guys will make it better.

And I assume you never saw Soviet Union, or lived when it was still around. Sorry, but I'm for democracy, human rights, and having this kind of forums where you can openly say what you want...even about your own countries politics. So just remember when you cheer for Russia or China, remember what kind of states they actually are.

In fact a forum like this would be the first place that would at least get the administrator into trouble in Russia or China.

A drone strike in Lebanon possibly pulling in Hezbollah into the conflict. Dumb decision. — Benkei

Hezbollah is already active, if engaged in a limited brawl with Israel. Other factions in Lebanon are a different matter.

Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati issued a statement late Tuesday condemning an explosion in the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut, calling it a "new Israeli crime."

A more thorough report about the Houthi attacks on the Bab el Mandeb and where now things are going. In the international sea trade the links between military and political developments and their direct impact on the global economy. Also it seems that ships that the Houthis have attacked have simply visited Israeli ports at some time, not actually coming from or going to Israel.

Also what is explained why containerships are the more precious vessels here.

Really? :brow: — Tzeentch

If we're going with your statement that

a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

then it's a question of who is the occupier/colonizer and Jewish kingdoms were there well before the arrival of Arab muslims. One cannot "occupy" the land to which one is indigenous to. Jews are indigenous to Israel; Islam spread from Mecca. Israeli Jews are in no sense foreign occupiers.

And Israel kills them — of all ages, in fact. Approaching the tens of thousands.

But at least they do it without hatred in their hearts. — Mikie

Just curious, do you think the US was justified in launching strikes against Afghanistan post 9/11? Or permitted to attack the Japanese mainland after Pearl Harbor?

Do you see any difference at all between a) a willing perpetrator of genocide who intentionally murders members of a certain group because they are members of that group and b) a soldier in the opposing army who, in attacking that group, accidentally kills civilians of that group.

Are these two people the same to you? How about their governments?

Israeli Jews are in no sense foreign occupiers. — BitconnectCarlos

What can I say? The UN Security Council disagrees and has disagreed since 1967.

I agree. "Realist" international relations theory doesn't seem to actually explain history very well, and so relies on all sorts of ad hoc additions like "chain ganging," etc. For example, Mearshimer's "offensive realism," would predict that the United States should have annexed Canada (and Mexico) at any point since the Civil War, when it clearly became capable of doing so. It doesn't, because no one in America wants that, regardless of if it would improve national security, which it obviously would have during the early Cold War when Canada waffled on how many US assets could be placed in the arctic to defend against the Soviets.

American support of Israel is a particularly stark example of where cultural ties have outweighed strategic value. Another example would be Hungary joining the Axis due to a shared experience of WWI and resentment over how the war was concluded, rather than the actual strategic merits.




There are way more than 1.6 million Palestinians that live in Israel. The 20% figure is for Arab-Israelis, who live within Israel's 1948 borders and have full citizenship (2 million). A further 4.5 million live in the occupied territories. This is relevant in that it makes the one state solution fatal to the idea of a "Jewish state." In a one state solution, just under half the population would be non-Jews and, due to disparate birth rates (the OTs has one of the highest birth rates in the world), non-Jews would very quickly outnumber Jews.

The question is, should there be a "Jewish state?" which is much the same problem as "should there be a Kurdish state?" Should Iran be ostensibly a "Persian state?" when minorities make up half the population and want to leave? Should Afghanistan ostensibly be a Pashtun state? Should China be a "Han state," when it has hundreds of millions of people who aren't/don't want to be "Han." I don't think there is always a good answer here, as independence movements are extremely plentiful, and it's unclear if "a Flanders for the Flemish," or "one island, one Ireland," really resolve the root issues.

Anyhow, while I am sure fringe figures have advocated for expelling the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Muslims, this is a fringe position. Removing a whole fifth of Israel's population, people integrated into the economy and with full citizenship rights, is a different question.