Israel vs Palestinians

[hog88]

they are actually doing their jobs. plenty of war-time journalists out there, plenty followed around the Taliban during Afghanistan.

if anything it should be applauded, having them imbedded on both sides of the conflict is the only way were are actually going to know the truth. not that will happen; but its better than just blindly ignoring war crimes on your sides part. its kinda the whole point of journalists, tell us the uncomfortable truths, break down our preconceived notions, and these people are literally putting their lives on the line to do so.

the opposite also exists, I have seen plenty of people claiming the IDF has killed 30,000 members of Hamas. they will blindly make any claim they can to defend the actions of the IDF before one iota of information comes out. its not a one sided problem, which just goes back to why we need real journalists over there. blindly killing journalists just because they physically on the wrong side of line serves no purpose but to lie.

And if any were killed, oh well.

 

[EasternVol]

Shouldn’t Hamas update the made up 30k number eventually. It has been stuck there for months so I guess IDF has killed zero people since January
And if the most advanced military in the region that possesses absolute air superiority and nuclear weapons REALLY wanted to commit genocide, only 30k casualties in six months is what inwould call pretty incompetent.
Now shall we discuss „cognitive dissonance“ further? It seems like you are intimately familiar with the concept after all

If it makes you feel any better, the death count is now about 33K and that doesn't include those still buried in rubble. Data collection and reporting are said to be more difficult now since the health care system, which manages the data, has sustained a lot of damage to put it mildly.
You know that a nuclear blast in Gaza wouldn't be good for Israel. It doesn't look like the IDF is trying to kill everyone in Gaza as even they know they wouldn't get away with that. Rather they just don't try to avoid civilian casualties while destroying infrastructure and making the place uninhabitable.

 

[CobbVol]

If it makes you feel any better, the death count is now about 33K and that doesn't include those still buried in rubble. Data collection and reporting are said to be more difficult now since the health care system there has sustained a lot of damage, to put it mildly.
You know that a nuclear blast in Gaza wouldn't be good for Israel. It doesn't look like the IDF is trying to kill everyone in Gaza as even they know they wouldn't get away with that. Rather they just don't try to avoid civilian casualties while destroying infrastructure and making the place uninhabitable.

One word, three syllables --- Surrender

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t know. Out of a population of probably 60 million, the Germans probably suffered 2 million civilian causalities between 1939 and 1945 and no one (outside of Germany) complained much.
You attack another country like Hamas did on 7 October and you are going to lose some civilians. The Nazi party was responsible for the German dead, not the allies. Hamas is responsible for dead Gazans, not Israel.
War is H3LL. Don’t start one if you don’t want the consequences.
So we should agree that if Israel has actually ONLY killed 30k (and I don’t buy that number at all) in six months of Warfare they are actually being very careful and precise compared to what we did in WWII

no, the allies are 100% responsible for the civilians they killed during WW2. they chose their actions.

you aren't responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible for how you respond. war doesn't remove the responsibility, it just removes the punishment from the victor. and not for some moral reason, just because there is no one to hold the victor responsible. no one to tell the other side of the story. no one to argue that blowing up random civilians serves no function but to further the war. Even the Germans in 1944 were far outproducing themselves from 3 years earlier when allied air raids started. and not by a little, a lot. bombing the civilians served no real purpose.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/opk2000mobilisation.pdf

 

[hog88]

no, the allies are 100% responsible for the civilians they killed during WW2. they chose their actions.

you aren't responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible for how you respond. war doesn't remove the responsibility, it just removes the punishment from the victor. and not for some moral reason, just because there is no one to hold the victor responsible. no one to tell the other side of the story. no one to argue that blowing up random civilians serves no function but to further the war. Even the Germans in 1944 were far outproducing themselves from 3 years earlier when allied air raids started. and not by a little, a lot. bombing the civilians served no real purpose.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/opk2000mobilisation.pdf

LOL

I wouldn't want you having my 6 in a fight.

 

[Orangeslice13]

LOL

I wouldn't want you having my 6 in a fight.

The sad reality of war is “civilians “ don’t exist in a war zone. There is only you and your enemy trying to kill each other. “Targeting civilians” is also Bull ****. You don’t have the time or amo to hunt down people who are not your enemies.

A lot of people want to ignore that this would be over and a lot fewer dead if Hamas had not taken and/or released their prisoners.

 

[Orangeslice13]

no, the allies are 100% responsible for the civilians they killed during WW2. they chose their actions.

you aren't responsible for what happens to you, but you are responsible for how you respond. war doesn't remove the responsibility, it just removes the punishment from the victor. and not for some moral reason, just because there is no one to hold the victor responsible. no one to tell the other side of the story. no one to argue that blowing up random civilians serves no function but to further the war. Even the Germans in 1944 were far outproducing themselves from 3 years earlier when allied air raids started. and not by a little, a lot. bombing the civilians served no real purpose.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/opk2000mobilisation.pdf

So dropping nukes on Japan to end WW2
Right or wrong?

 

[LouderVol]

Where are these journalists presenting an unbiased, sterile view of the ongoings from both sides?

I see hired guns on both sides, doing the bidding of those they serve.

Who are the ones calling it down the middle? Got any names?

never paid attention to the individual reporters, but Reuters and Al Jazeera have both run stories from either side. Al Jazeera definitely took a more anti-Israeli stance after the IDF specifically started going after their journalists, and now an Israeli law is going to outright ban Al Jazeera, and not just the coverage of the war.

https://www.reuters.com/

the headline is Netanyahu admitting to the bombing, but there are also stories talking about the IDF freeing hostages on the front page. they also give a black and white break down on the individual players, currently talking about the World Central Kitchen.

I certainly won't claim its every article, but if you get past the headlines and actually read the articles they tend to cover both sides of the issue.

naturally the coverage favorability to either side will wax and wane based on the events of the time.

 

[NashVol11]

Inb4 “all of those journalists are Hamas”

 

[EasternVol]

This is just Wiki, so tifwiw -

View attachment 631535

The Jewish State is unique. It is a singular state for a major religion.

There is no Christian State. And even when there were, they were multiple.

There are many Muslim dominant states. I know of none that proclaim to be The Muslim State.

It's a state for a particular ethnicity, not only religion.
Wasn't Armenia the first Christian state? As it was the first there was only one, until Georgia and others adopted Christianity. Those states were based on ethnicity too.
I suppose the first caliphate was a unique Muslim state (run by Arabs from modern KSA), then it split and its successor states are based on ethnicity even if they have a state religion.

 

[LouderVol]

So dropping nukes on Japan to end WW2
Right or wrong?

this is really fun debate. I am going with wrong.

multiple sources claim that Japan had signaled a willingness to surrender to the US before we dropped the first bomb. pretty much every source says the US mistranslated Japan's response to surrender

pretty much every source says that the second nuke was 100% avoidable and served no purpose, and it was definitely dropped after Japan explained the mistranslation.

https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/tech-journals/mokusatsu.pdf

right now I of the opinion that Japan had yielded and we landed a few unnecessary and very questionable blows after Japan accepted our terms but nothing was signed.

similar to WW1, the allies continued to launch offensives along the western front after an armistice had been signed, but before the terms went into effect. cost hundreds if not thousands of lives because people didn't want to accept the war was over.

The Last Official Death of WWI Was a Man Who Sought Redemption | HISTORY

The six‑hour delay between the armistice signing and World War I’s official end at the 11th hour cost the lives of nearly 3,000 soldiers, including one American in the war’s final minute.

www.history.com

 

[EasternVol]

One word, three syllables --- Surrender

It would be good, but so far there's no indication it will happen.

 

[EasternVol]

this is really fun debate. I am going with wrong.

multiple sources claim that Japan had signaled a willingness to surrender to the US before we dropped the first bomb. pretty much every source says the US mistranslated Japan's response to surrender

pretty much every source says that the second nuke was 100% avoidable and served no purpose, and it was definitely dropped after Japan explained the mistranslation.

https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/tech-journals/mokusatsu.pdf

right now I of the opinion that Japan had yielded and we landed a few unnecessary and very questionable blows after Japan accepted our terms but nothing was signed.

similar to WW1, the allies continued to launch offensives along the western front after an armistice had been signed, but before the terms went into effect. cost hundreds if not thousands of lives because people didn't want to accept the war was over.

The Last Official Death of WWI Was a Man Who Sought Redemption | HISTORY

The six‑hour delay between the armistice signing and World War I’s official end at the 11th hour cost the lives of nearly 3,000 soldiers, including one American in the war’s final minute.

www.history.com

Didn't Eisenhower say the A-bombs weren't necessary as Japan was already out? He would have been in a good position to know.

 

[hog88]

It would be good, but so far there's no indication it will happen.

Then Hamas bears 100% responsibility for all deaths in Gaza.

 

[LouderVol]

LOL

I wouldn't want you having my 6 in a fight.

if you were actively choosing to murder civilians, no you wouldn't.

if you were engaged in an active firefight and civilian got killed in the crossfire, yes you would.

I don't change my principles just because of the team that does it. I will stand by the truth of the matter no matter what it costs me, no matter how much of an inconvenience it is, or who it troubles. I am exactly the type you want at your back, I am not going to change my colors when it serves my best interest. unlike a lot of people in this thread.

and yes slice, I noticed you liking his comment.

 

[LouderVol]

Didn't Eisenhower say the A-bombs weren't necessary as Japan was already out? He would have been in a good position to know.

I hadn't seen that, but it looks like you are correct.

"Japan Was Already Defeated": The Case Against the Nuclear Bomb and for Basic Morality

“I was against it on two counts,” Dwight Eisenhower, supreme allied commander, five-star general, and president of the United States, said of dropping nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. “First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing...

www.aei.org

"“I was against it on two counts,” Dwight Eisenhower, supreme allied commander, five-star general, and president of the United States, said of dropping nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. “First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”"

not sure if that is just some revisionism from him, or if he was actively against it at the time. I know Truman was pushing for it, but I don't know if he overrode Eisenhower, or if Eisenhower had even officially denied the bombings before.

 

[NashVol11]

 

[LouderVol]

Then Hamas bears 100% responsibility for all deaths in Gaza.

someone still has to pull the trigger. I was taught you were always responsible for every time you fire a gun.

 

[hog88]

if you were actively choosing to murder civilians, no you wouldn't.

if you were engaged in an active firefight and civilian got killed in the crossfire, yes you would.

I don't change my principles just because of the team that does it. I will stand by the truth of the matter no matter what it costs me, no matter how much of an inconvenience it is, or who it troubles. I am exactly the type you want at your back, I am not going to change my colors when it serves my best interest. unlike a lot of people in this thread.

and yes slice, I noticed you liking his comment.

Who's murdering civilians?

 

[hog88]

someone still has to pull the trigger. I was taught you were always responsible for every time you fire a gun.

You are, and in war you are responsible for where you are.

 

[jp1]

It would be good, but so far there's no indication it will happen.

It won't. Hamas has zero incentive to. They lose their purpose if they do.

 

[EasternVol]

Then Hamas bears 100% responsibility for all deaths in Gaza.

They're directly responsible for most of the Israeli casualties and indirectly responsible for the Palestinian civilian casualties. The IDF is directly responsible for almost all Palestinian casualties. The ones pulling the trigger are the ones directly responsible.

 

[EasternVol]

So moral.

 

[hog88]

They're directly responsible for most of the Israeli casualties and indirectly responsible for the Palestinian civilian casualties. The IDF is directly responsible for almost all Palestinian casualties. The ones pulling the trigger are the ones directly responsible.

No. Hamas is responsible for all of the Palestinian casualties.

 

[OrangeTsar]

So dropping nukes on Japan to end WW2
Right or wrong?

From a personal standpoint, my father was about to be shipped from Germany to fight in the Pacific in the summer of 1945 to fight the Japanese before the atomic bombs ended the whole thing. Considering the terrible American causalities from the Okinawa campaign, there is a decent chance that my dad would have been killed in an invasion of the home islands and I would have never been born. So I have a very personal vested interest in saying „right“