Israel vs Palestinians

#20,003
#20,003
LouderVol said:
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.

Click to expand...
Thank GOODNESS you aren’t a commander in our military! (actually you would probably fit right in under Austin and Miley 😳)
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, MR_VOL and hog88
#20,008
#20,008
OrangeTsar said:
Blaming Israel for Palestinian causalities makes about as much logical sense as me punching you in the jaw and then complaining when I hurt my knuckles.
Play stupid games……
Click to expand...
Yes definitely, being blamed for killing someone you killed is such an unheard-of proposition
 
#20,010
#20,010
NashVol11 said:
Yes definitely, being blamed for killing someone you killed is such an unheard-of proposition
Click to expand...
Self defense is mankind‘s oldest and most scared right. Someone tries to kill me you are darn right that I am going to stop it from happening.
And Israel is targeting actual combatants. The collateral casualties are remarkably low for close combat in an urban area.
And Hamas can end this (as they could have at any time) in 30 minutes by surrendering and releasing the hostages
 
#20,011
#20,011
jp1 said:
It won't. Hamas has zero incentive to. They lose their purpose if they do.
Click to expand...
depends on what you believe the purpose of Hamas is.

If you think they are actually there to represent and help the Palestinians, you are right.

but if you believe they are a terrorist group, serving as a proxy for at least Iran, in their jihad to remove Israel from the map, losing the west bank, doesn't hamper that at all. it could even be a rallying point for future conflicts against Israel to have a bunch of martyrs to the muslim cause. its one of the reasons I think Israel's response has been misguided. they have done nothing in this war but to justify the shared hatred and distrust between them and their neighbors.
 
#20,012
#20,012
OrangeTsar said:
Self defense is mankind‘s oldest and most scared right. Someone tries to kill me you are darn right that I am going to stop it from happening.
And Israel is targeting actual combatants. The collateral casualties are remarkably low for close combat in an urban area.
And Hamas can end this (as they could have at any time) in 30 minutes by surrendering and releasing the hostages
Click to expand...
Blowing up every hospital and school in Gaza isn’t “self-defense”
 
#20,013
#20,013
OrangeTsar said:
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“
Click to expand...
and how does that change with the knowledge the Japanese were willing to surrender before the first one was dropped? I linked a source to it, and there are multiple other sources you can find the exact same information about, if you actually care about the real truth, and not just a convenient half lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#20,014
#20,014
OrangeTsar said:
Thank GOODNESS you aren’t a commander in our military! (actually you would probably fit right in under Austin and Miley 😳)
Click to expand...
Eisenhower, at least post bombing, agrees with me. you may want to be careful throwing stones in that glass house.

I think our armed forces would be far better served by someone invested in the truth rather than a political propaganda.
 
#20,015
#20,015
LouderVol said:
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.


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.

www.history.com

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 www.history.com
Click to expand...
It is a fun debate that can only be had with a few people.
That’s why I asked you and not the dipsticks.

There are those that argue that Japan , even with the mistranslation was not willing to surrender unconditionally.
Assuming that to be true. Do you still feel it was wrong and should the allies have continued to fight a more conventional war?.
 
#20,019
#20,019
OrangeTsar said:
Blaming Israel for Palestinian causalities makes about as much logical sense as me punching you in the jaw and then complaining when I hurt my knuckles.
Play stupid games……
Click to expand...
except Palestine isn't complaining about the troops they lost on 10/7. I really haven't heard any lamenting of those lost in the "punch".

This was Hamas throwing a sucker punch, and Israel coming back swinging wildly and clocking a few bystanders as well as Hamas. Israel is 100% responsible when their wild blows hit someone not involved for the initial punch. in this case Israel has undoubtedly done more damage to the bystanders than the guy who punched them.
 
#20,020
#20,020
EasternVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a State for a particular ethnicity - Jews.
And a State for a particular religion - Judaism.

It is the only one in the world. Pretty unique.
 
#20,021
#20,021
hog88 said:
If I were in charge of Israel we'd be building seaside resorts in the newly flattened Gaza by now.
Click to expand...
Most buildings there are already unusable, your “flattening” wouldn’t be done through a nuclear weapon because the fallout would land in Israel
 
#20,023
#20,023
NashVol11 said:
Most buildings there are already unusable, your “flattening” wouldn’t be done through a nuclear weapon because the fallout would land in Israel
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have used a nuclear weapon, unlike you I am not that dumb. Plus that would render the land useless for years and nobody is going to buy radioactive condos in the new resorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL
#20,024
#20,024
LouderVol said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Bwaaaaa…. Al Jazeera? Get out of here.

Reuters & AP both are usually pretty neutral, but even they show their biases.

But I was talking about individual journalists. Do you know of any that accurately report both sides? I’m guessing even Reuters has journos that cover one side or the other.
 
#20,025
#20,025
Orangeslice13 said:
It is a fun debate that can only be had with a few people.
That’s why I asked you and not the dipsticks.

There are those that argue that Japan , even with the mistranslation was not willing to surrender unconditionally.
Assuming that to be true. Do you still feel it was wrong and should the allies have continued to fight a more conventional war?.
Click to expand...
heck no they shouldn't have fought conventionally assuming Japan wasn't going to surrender. I just don't think nukes were the best choice. the only reason to invade mainland japan was to keep the Russians from doing it too.

their navy was done, their airforce, done. they were stuck on an island that was lacking many of the necessary materials needed to make war. it was a big reason for their expansions pre Dec 7th. going back to what Israel should/could have done a long time ago; the allies could have simply made life on the islands as uncomfortable as possible denying the Japanese any organized civilization until a regime change. even after the nukes and peace treaty, the Emperor kept his title. removing two large cities from Japan wouldn't have fundamentally changed anything in a continued war. no reason to think it would have because it didn't change anything at the end of the actual war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top