7 Oct. 2023 simply made clear and explicit the bestiality of Arab intentions and practices. — tim wood
How is this language, and the poster who posts it, even tolerated on the forum? — boethius
Hamas will be genocided and the world will be better for it. — Moses
At this point Israel has no choice but to go into Rafah. — Moses
Who only puts out 80% of a fire? — Moses
New polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (79-80%) support Israel over Hamas — Moses
During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt the Palestinians fought against the British, hence then you could argue that the ideology was “anti-British”. — ssu
The "stuck in a war it cannot win" is basically because the Netanyahu government hasn't any policy what to do after the military operation. Here what is forgotten is that war is the continuation of policy. Just saying "destroy Hamas" isn't enough when you have no idea, no political objective what to do afterwards. It is as simplistic and stupid as Bush going to Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and then declaring that he won't do anything else and isn't interested in nation building. Well, it didn't go so and it's naive to think that once the IDF declares that it has destroyed the last Hamas battalion, then it can go home and everything is back to normal. — ssu
This isn't an anti-Israeli view. I think who makes this quite clear and obvious is former prime minister Ehud Barak. He states that the military side of might go as now, yet what is lacking is the political side of what to do. Many have stated similar thoughts, but Barak I think gives the most straight forward analysis (even if his English isn't the best). If you have time, you should listen to the former prime minister says here: — ssu
And btw many of your links look at states like Syria (prior Iraq) and their WMD projects. Understandably the objectives of these countries has to do a lot with having some kind of parity and deterrence towards Israeli WMDs. — ssu
Your arguments don’t sound consistent to me: on one side you readily concede that “Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win”, on the other side you seem to refuse to accept the consequences of such logic. — neomac
I'm not seeing anything inconsistent here. Terrorist want that their target governments lash out in anger and thus show how evil they are. That's their thinking.
Or you don't understand how Al Qaeda or ISIS work? Or how fringe terrorist groups of twenty people think they can change things and move millions of people in their favor?
Al Qaeda and ISIS aren't states, even if the latter insists being the Islamic State. They want publicity for their cause and anticipate the crackdown on themselves and hope that the crackdown will create itself support for their cause. They want an Islamic Caliphate to rise allover, hence their objectives are quite messianic (and really out there). It's quite consistent, so I'm not understanding what is so confusing to you.
Hamas and the PLO have the objective of creating an independent Palestine. The PLO has used similar terror tactics, until it choose to attempt the peace process way. Hamas is still using terrorism. — ssu
Well the difference in outcomes is enormous for the EU and Russia. It is important for the balance of power between the U.S. and China because if Russia wins, it will bolster Russia’s position on the world stage and become a serious threat to European security. This would weaken the EU and probably lead to another European war in a decade or so. Where as if Russia loses in Ukraine, it will likely result in Russian collapse, splintering of her client states etc, strengthen and clearly define the EU to include Ukraine. This will likely put the EU on course for superpower status and a strong ally of the U.S. The U.S. and EU working together in coalition through NATO would be a formidable foe for China. — Punshhh
I already answered that question. Russia and the US are the first ones to come to mind. Both may have strong incentives to play divide et impera strategies in Europe to preserve their supremacy.
Nonsense, the U.S. is most powerful working alongside a powerful successful EU. If the U.S. were to go down this line you suggest, it would lead to the break up of the EU, the advance of Russia, and a generation of wars in Europe, which would try to draw the U.S. in many times and which would guarantee China’s hegemony with Russia as her side kick. Regarding Russia, she has been trying to meddle in Europe for a long time, nothing has changed in that. — Punshhh
What act are you talking about? The massacre of October 7 is the act carried out by Hamas. This act can be accused of being genocidal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel . Is such act genocidal or not, to you? If not, what DEMONSTRATES that it is not, to you?
Yes the supporters of Israel and the Jewish lobby etc will naturally claim October 7th as genocide. But if we set the bar so low it will bring thousands of small conflicts around the world into the definition. My bar is very high and I have heard numerous legal specialists on the media casting doubt on what is a genocide in this situation. As I say, for me it is the deliberate starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens, happening as we speak. — Punshhh
It’s like Nazis dying — Moses
. No one says “oh but won’t killing nazis just lead to more nazis??” — Moses
You should be rooting for Israel’s success unless you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail. — Moses
group that has been in an armed conflict that isn’t evil or bad? — Moses
It’s like saying the native Americans occupy America. Makes no sense. — Moses
intentional murder and unintentional death — Moses
All death is not equal and to view it as such reveals a moral blind spot. — Moses
Hey, Israel's doing Gods work! You should be rooting for Israel, or otherwise you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail.Got it. :ok: Brilliant, groundbreaking analysis once again. — Mikie
But it’s not surprising that one thinks this way when one has no real basis on which to draw morality from. — Moses
while attempting to minimize casualties — Moses
And no it wasn’t done out of “desperation” . — Moses
And Palestinians are continuing to fight for independence. But yes, this ought to be obvious that Israel isn't a colonial venture where "the Europeans" can just go home. Algeria had roughly 1,6 million ethnic French many of whom had been born in Algeria, the Pied-Noirs. Yet it wasn't only them fighting the Algerian war. The example of Algeria might have been an example that Palestinians hoped to repeat, but they are not fighting the US.Yes, I would argue that. However, differently from the British empire, Israel is fighting for its own nation state in Palestine, not to preserve an empire. — neomac
The obvious thing here is that there's not just one way to fight a war. There are many ways. Starting from the way you approach the civilian population. I've made the point right from the start in October last year that Israel should approach the fighting just like the US approached it's fight against Al Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq: to take into consideration the civilian population. But it didn't. It went with no political goals, hopes of "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians somewhere else and the creating a famine. This has been a strategic mistake in the long run, but this government isn't thinking in the long run. It's thinking about the next day and it's popularity among the voters.You are making it all about Netanyahu. To me it isn’t. Even though Netanyahu is politically hawkish, and willing to exploit the current conflict for political convenience, STILL he has the support of the Israelis. — neomac
As long as the Arab side seems to be so vulnerable to simply collapse, this is true. Prior it was the influence of Soviet Union that was the reason why the US fervently supported Israel. And when the Cold War ended, Israel thought for a while that they had to go with the peace process because the US was losing interest. Not so, as there are plenty of Christians in the US for whom Israel isn't just a country, but part of their religion and who hence are adamant supporters of Israel. As one PF member who has only prior discussed religious matters in the forum, declared that Israel was dong God's work. So it's not AIPAC and the American jews (who many oppose Netanyahu's administration), it the Bible belt Evangelicals.So my conclusion is that the US may STILL be compelled to support Israel against Hamas because Israel is a strategic ally either for power balance in the Middle East and/or for domestic power balance. — neomac
Iran has here learnt the hard way to use proxies. They learnt it from operation Praying Mantis. Hence the use of proxy forces. It should be noteworthy that to attack the supporter of a proxy is truly an escalation. Just think of it if Russia would act the same to countries that support Ukraine. Just to give weapons and training isn't enough to be a real belligerent in a war.We have seen how Hamas and Houthis managed to upgrade their military threats against Israel and the West, and how they want to have a role in the international arena, so we can’t underestimate how their threat can evolve in future scenarios. — neomac
First, I doubt that it’s the more likely than a frozen conflict scenario where victory and loss remain uncertain, controversial and exploitable at the expense of Russia and/or EU.
Yes, I agree that a long drawn out war is fine for the U.S.Second, the US likely doesn’t want Russia to win (too much), but maybe not to lose (too much) either, because China could profit from Russia's weakness to increase even more its hegemonic influence in Central Asia, at the expense of the US.
The isolationist trend in the US politics which Trump likely aims at representing doesn’t seem to worry much about the fate of the EU and NATO, even less motivated to push European hegemony. In this predicament, Europe can very much turn into an arena for hegemonic conflict. Better to not confuse expectations with wishes about the outcome of this hegemonic race. Meanwhile, France shows some intent or velleity to replace the US in safeguarding/leading the EU, we will see.
even less motivated to push European hegemony.
You are introducing the idea of a race to world domination, or something, we’re not playing a game of Risk here. Why would U.S. “push European hegemony”, more like U.S. would work with EU as a partner and friend.Better to not confuse expectations with wishes about the outcome of this hegemonic race.
You seem to be shouting here, I’ve given my take on this.So bombing and killing more than 30K Palestinians is not a genocide according to your very high bar, but the starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens is, right?
But I really don’t see this talk about the U.S. wanting to keep the EU weak. Or that she would not see the benefit of an alliance with a strong EU? — Punshhh
You are introducing the idea of a race to world domination, or something, we’re not playing a game of Risk here. Why would U.S. “push European hegemony”, more like U.S. would work with EU as a partner and friend. — Punshhh
Trump is an idiot and a populist, so he will certainly destabilise the situation in his personal interest. But if you look at what he said about NATO, it was just him playing hardball to get EU countries to stump up their fair share to NATO funds. This is not an issue now, as these countries will be making these investments, care of Putin. — Punshhh
So bombing and killing more than 30K Palestinians is not a genocide according to your very high bar, but the starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens is, right?
You seem to be shouting here, I’ve given my take on this. — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.