Israel vs Palestinians

#20,027
#20,027
hog88 said:
Killing is not always murder and you said "murdering civilians". Keep your story straight.
Click to expand...
choosing to kill civilians is murder. my story is straight. granted they didn't specifically choose to kill Hans Schmit at 15 Duseldorf Drive in Dresden, but they chose the actions that killed him.

if it had served a military purpose, or he was killed when a downed allied bomber landed on his house, I wouldn't say that is murder. but those would have been the exceptions to the civilian losses in WW2, not the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#20,028
#20,028
OrangeTsar said:
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 😂
Click to expand...
As of a month ago, Lloyd Austin said 25k.

 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#20,030
#20,030
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Using nuclear weapons on Japan is probably why they have not been used since so be thankful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#20,032
#20,032
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...
Your father should have never been in the war to begin with. Europe and the Versailles Treaty and reparations gave them Hitler and the US had no business sanctioning Japan.
 
#20,033
#20,033
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you don’t want political propaganda then you surely don’t want Lloyd Austin or General Milley running the show
 
#20,034
#20,034
85SugarVol said:
I bet Gaza could be pretty damn nice, if the people administering it gave half a sh!t about it…
Click to expand...
I watched an old movie a few years back and turns out it was filmed in Lebanon. Granted it was a movie but the scenery was gorgeous. I imagine Gaza would be a great vacation spot minus the current inhabitants.
 
#20,037
#20,037
LouderVol said:
choosing to kill civilians is murder. my story is straight. granted they didn't specifically choose to kill Hans Schmit at 15 Duseldorf Drive in Dresden, but they chose the actions that killed him.

if it had served a military purpose, or he was killed when a downed allied bomber landed on his house, I wouldn't say that is murder. but those would have been the exceptions to the civilian losses in WW2, not the rule.
Click to expand...

No, choosing to kill civilians is not necessarily murder. If those civilians are participating in or aiding the war effort they are fair game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#20,038
#20,038
85SugarVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
for something like this was I really don't see how any one person could effectively cover both sides in real time, so no I don't think they exist at any of them.

to the bolded, I agree, never said otherwise. with both sides being biased you have to read both to have any chance of getting a decent picture of what is actually happening. if you listen to only the ones you are comfortable with you are only going to get a whitewashed biased story and will base your opinions and stances on bad information. we need to hear from both sides, Israel/Palestine, Ukraine/Russia, Republican/Democrat. If you know Al Jazeera is extremely biased you have a good chance of being able to read their material and make informed opinions.

getting rid of one side because they present biased information doesn't make what remains any more truthful. I would say that allows those who remain to be even less truthful. which is counter to the stated goal of removing one of the biases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#20,041
#20,041
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...
They target combatants. They target non-combatants. They target about anything that moves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#20,045
#20,045
EasternVol said:
The same can be said for both sides. Remember who unilaterally declared independence and started clearing out the locals.
Click to expand...

LOL

That's not how that went. They declared independence and were attacked, then they cleared out their enemies.
 
#20,047
#20,047
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ya, I already said I’d have done this differently if I was Israel.
Although most would not like my way either.

No food, no water, no power till I have all the hostages and the Hamas leaders in my possession
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top