Middle East Conflict | Netanyahu orders strikes on Gaza (p1161)

Vialli98 said:
Well I’m on the side of let’s not bomb innocent civilians into oblivion. 1.2 million Iraqi people died in the Iraq war. Do you think that’s an acceptable sacrifice to rid the world of ISIS? Because I think slaughtering that staggering number of people is infinitely worse than whatever barbarity and brutality ISIS could ever hope to inflict on the world.
Click to expand...
You are conflating two different things.
1. Is the war in Iraq.

2. The War against ISIL. No need to complete the numbers.


By most estimates about 23 to 25 thousand Civilians were killed by US or otherç Coalition forces in the push to neutralize ISIL. ISiL on the other hand killed between 44 to 48 thousand Civilians.

While I admit it's horrible the number of Civilians that got caught in this war, the alternative was always far worse.

Like I said, thete aren't many solutions, just tradeoffs.
 

Dax777 said:
You are conflating two different things.
1. Is the war in Iraq.

2. The War against ISIL. No need to complete the numbers.


By most estimates about 23 to 25 thousand Civilians were killed by US or otherç Coalition forces in the push to neutralize ISIL. ISiL on the other hand killed between 44 to 48 thousand Civilians.

While I admit it's horrible the number of Civilians that got caught in this war, the alternative was always far worse.

Like I said, thete aren't many solutions, just tradeoffs.
Click to expand...

My only concern (actually, one of my many concerns) with the "reduce the effectiveness" argument, and I do get what you are saying, is that it isn't a solution at all. At best, it's a temporary non-solution and the next iteration of the ideological movement always seems to be more extreme, I suppose quite understandably, the number of civilians you kill.

The fact nothing has replaced IS yet doesn't fill me with confidence that something worse won't rise up, unless the underlying causes are being addressed sensibly and in a "civilised" fashion. If anything we should be taking the "IS sabbatical" to do just that. Yet here we are.

The "victors" in a war should show some compassion and understanding of the enemy's position to prevent the same happening again. I don't see any of that happening here. It's just destroy, destroy and destroy again and shame about innocent deaths. The world's "leaders" need to be better than that.

All imho, of course.
 
Bluemoon_420 said:
No chance of that happening mate, when they’ve gotten away with 75 years of war crimes and every attempt by the UN to prosecute them has been shut down by the US.

While they have US and European backing the sociopaths in charge of this European colonial settler movement are essentially untouchable.

The hypocrisy and double standards of western politicians is frankly disgusting and every single one of the cunts that “stands with Israel” are complicit in the genocide we see unfolding in front of us.
Click to expand...

Interesting question. If the Israelis are accused of war crimes, and western countries who are party to the Rome Statute are supplying them with arms, and those arms are used in the war crimes (stay with me), can the leaders of those western powers be charged by the ICC?

Clearly, there is no ICC jurisdiction over the US and Israel, as neither signed up as a party to it (I wonder why?), but the UK, France and others did, of course.

Just interested, no more than that.
 
meltonblue said:
Not sure if on purpose is the right phrase there, do you mean directly? It’s on purpose in that they know by going after Hamas the way they are, they will knowingly kill plenty of innocent civilians too.
Click to expand...
They know they will kill civilians in very large numbers. To my mind, ‘intention to do X’ = ‘deliberately and consciously doing something whose consequences include X.’ Exactly how happy they are about the civilian deaths is a seperate conversation, although the public pronouncements of Israeli politicians and military in the last few weeks show they aren’t exactly wringing their hands.
 
meltonblue said:
Not sure if on purpose is the right phrase there, do you mean directly? It’s on purpose in that they know by going after Hamas the way they are, they will knowingly kill plenty of innocent civilians too.
Click to expand...
I would suggest the correct word to deploy is reckless. Israel is reckless to the loss of innocent life in their anger fuelled campaign of vengeance against Hamas.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
Click to expand...

I wonder if these people demanding a ceasefire have even spared a thought for the poor American arms dealers and what that would mean to them. How on earth are they supposed to make a profit if these anti Semites had their way. Surely at this point they understand the only way to prevent the loss of innocent lives is through aerial bombardment, starvation and the prevention of essential aid getting through. How would a ceasefire help with that. And look not even a single half and half anti Hamas / IDF Ceasefire scarf or flag to be seen, that proves they have an agenda
 
Last edited:
dublinblue12 said:
I wonder if these people demanding a ceasefire have even spared a thought for the poor American arms dealers and what that would mean to them. How on earth are they supposed to make a profit if these anti Semites had their way. Surely at this point they understand the only way to prevent the loss of innocent lives is through aerial bombardment, starvation and the prevention of essential aid getting through. How would a ceasefire help with that.
Click to expand...
Agreed. American arms manufacturers will be making “a killing”. At least Starmer has been forced to move a little in his opinion although he disagrees with a ceasefire. He’s in a difficult situation politically.

The latest protests in London were led by Jewish people wanting a ceasefire. That may well be a minority of Jewish Londoners wanting a ceasefire but it must infuriate the knuckle draggers on social media. No doubt the paid shills will still be out in force though.

Some Jewish Londoners are genuinely in fear about the pro Palestine protests but it doesn't help when Braverman and co misrepresent largely peaceful protests.

There has to be saner ways of taking out the leadership of Hamas than bombing refugee camps packed with civilians.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
Agreed. American arms manufacturers will be making “a killing”. At least Starmer has been forced to move a little in his opinion although he disagrees with a ceasefire. He’s in a difficult situation politically.

The latest protests in London were led by Jewish people wanting a ceasefire. That may well be a minority of Jewish Londoners wanting a ceasefire but it must infuriate the knuckle draggers on social media. No doubt the paid shills will still be out in force though.

Some Jewish Londoners are genuinely in fear about the pro Palestine protests but it doesn't help when Braverman and co misrepresent largely peaceful protests.

There has to be saner ways of taking out the leadership of Hamas than bombing refugee camps packed with civilians.
Click to expand...

Tbh Tim with the public support so overwhelmingly wanting a Ceasefire you'd think Starmer would read the room and come to the conclusion why am i saying the exact opposite. I mean I'm fairly certain he'll jump on board when the death count hits unimaginable figures. Too late then though.
 
Looking at both sides, you can see the Israeli position a ceasefire will give Hamas time to regroup, but the pressure is building on Western Governments to force the issue, children being pulled from the rubble is not a good look for supporters of this, it would at least give time to get the hospitals running

Although I am still convinced that the tipping point is nearly here when the Americans say enough

Interestingly enough I see the Houthi’s are fire long rang weapons at Israel could this be an attempt to goad Israel into attacking them, they could then say that Israel is on the side of the Gulf Nations they are fighting, which would not go down well, but would be great for the Iranians, wheels within wheels as they say
 
The blue phantom said:
Tbh Tim with the public support so overwhelmingly wanting a Ceasefire you'd think Starmer would read the room and come to the conclusion why am i saying the exact opposite. I mean I'm fairly certain he'll jump on board when the death count hits unimaginable figures. Too late then though.
Click to expand...
I think Starmer will want a ceasefire when it can be claimed that Hamas’ terror capability has been degraded and there are major outbreaks of cholera, typhus etc in Gaza. Like Sunak before him, everything is about becoming PM.

It’s the pro Israeli Government votes they Stermer also wants and potential voters who are impressed by the right wing media. It’s incredible the about of money the Israeli Government and their allies can spend on communications.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
I think Starmer will want a ceasefire when it can be claimed that Hamas’ terror capability has been degraded and there are major outbreaks of cholera, typhus etc in Gaza. Like Sunak before him, everything is about becoming PM.

It’s the pro Israeli Government votes they Stermer also wants and potential voters who are impressed by the right wing media. It’s incredible the about of money the Israeli Government and their allies can spend on communications.
Click to expand...
To be fair foreign policy is never a big vote winner, from his point of view he might as well go with the consensus of Western Governments, to me it does not matter he calls for or not, he had no influence in the matter, if he was in power it would be a different matter
 
Ducado said:
To be fair foreign policy is never a big vote winner, from his point of view he might as well go with the consensus of Western Governments, to me it does not matter he calls for or not, he had no influence in the matter, if he was in power it would be a different matter
Click to expand...
Surely Labour voters in favour of the Ceasefire especially the Muslim vote won't forget his stance on this at the Ballot box.
 
IDF spokesman was just asked by Kay Burley 8 Times if White Phosphorus was being used. On the 8th time of asking he said "Not that I'm aware of" To which she said "I'll take that as a No"....His response " I'm not sure and its perfectly acceptable use anyway".This is after Surgeons have stated its being used.

I'm fairly certain watching that interview they are using it.
 
Last edited:
The blue phantom said:
IDF spokesman was just asked by Kay Burley 8 Times if White Phosphorus was being used. On the 8th time of asking he said "Not that I'm aware of" To which she said "I'll take that as a No"....His response " I'm not sure and its perfectly acceptablet o use anyway".This is after Surgeons have stated its being used.

I'm fairly certain watching that interview they are using it.
Click to expand...



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top