.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2023 at 1:49pm:


Well, except for Israeli terrorists in the IDF who intentionally target hospitals, pregnant women, and babies.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2023 at 2:03pm:



Not at all

Every person in Gaza has to be considered an enemy combatant
Otherwise why are they there
If you are in a war zone and you aren't wearing an Israeli uniform
We can assume you are a hostile
I don't even have a problem with the Israeli army killing the hostages
In world war 2 it was common knowledge that American pow camps we're set up in the rhur region of Germany
The air force had no problem whatsoever in bombing their own men

The gazans declared war on Israel
And Israel needs to destroy Gaza as a matter of duty to their own citizens
Destroy humiliate and ensure that never again will anyone occupying that area attack Israel
It seems likely that the only way to achieve this noble aim is to completely depopulate the area

Eventually Egypt and the other Arab States will come to their senses and allow the defeated army to be rehabilitated in a tent city in the sinai desert

Tell me the gazans aren't so stupid as to think that Gaza is going to be rebuilt and they are going to move back into shiny new apartments
Tell me they aren't really that simple

Jesus, we've got two guys here jerking off over dead babies.

The right are sick MOFOs.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2023 at 6:18pm:

It is an illusion to believe that ceasefires invariably, or even usually, save lives. Rather, ever since the newly established UN issued its first demand for a ceasefire on August 1, 1947, calls for ceasefires have become an ­essential part of combatants’ armoury, to be deployed as strategically as any other weapon – not for the purpose of making peace but of better pursuing a war they would otherwise lose.

As Clapham argues in reviewing their role in Africa, Western governments, who regularly seek to impose those agreements, act as if the participants in every conflict “share a common value framework, within which differences are ultimately negotiable”.

Additionally, vocal domestic constituencies and “external human rights monitoring organisations, led by the long-established Amnesty International”, fuel the demands for a ceasefire while aggressively tilting “the balance of moral advantage” from governments to insurgents who pose as victims worthy of being protected.

But as these insurgents’ “willingness to resort to systematic murder on a large scale in order to maintain their own power” shows, they “are fundamentally irreconcilable to any resolution of the conflict through a negotiated settlement”.

Blissfully ignoring that fact, Western governments hold to the “tragically mistaken” assumption that a pause in hostilities “can only have a positive or neutral impact”: “if it succeeds, it does good; if it fails, it does no harm”. The grim reality, however, is that the pauses have repeatedly acted as little more than a way of preventing a definitive military solution, condemning conflict zones to “forever wars” and bloodshed without end.

The ancients would not have been surprised. Diodorus, in one of the earliest compendiums of the laws of war, included the ­precept that a “truce may not be broken”; but precisely because respect for that precept required a degree of civilisation, and the trustworthiness that accompanies it, the Greeks thought there was no point in entering into truces with barbarians, who understood nothing but brute force.

And when Plato suggested, in The Laws, that the rules of warfare should apply equally to Greeks and barbarians, his contention was ridiculed as absurdly naive.

Now, the same Western governments that helped engineer one disastrous ceasefire after the other are placing mounting pressure on Israel to commit to a pause which would allow Hamas to regroup. They have, it seems, forgotten absolutely everything and learned absolutely nothing.

HENRY ERGAS

Frank wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2023 at 10:14am:


indeed frank

the leftie does degrees like gender studies at uni but the superior man reads history.

the cheyenne and the sioux were very wise spiritual people and championed by the left (elizabeth warren with 1.5 % lakota blood claiming she was native american).

the cheyenne and the sioux , if they were fighting in gaza would assume that all men in that area must be killed.

if they arent hamas, they did nothing to stop hamas, so its a scalping for them

women who were attractive could be taken by the young warriors as wives .

old women, old men and infants were disposed of.

young children could be adopted and raised to have tribal values.

certainly, i can see no argument for any male in gaza to not be assumed to be the enemy.

either he is hamas or he did nothing to stop hamas, so he can be assumed to be an enemy of israel

the kiddies and women can be shipped off to a nearby arab nation for re education

the saudis and the dubai residents need gardeners and cleaners

and gaza can become a national park


one things for sure

gazans will not be living in gaza next year

the israelis have to wreck the joint so it is unliveable (they are getting close)

then people will be incentivised to leave

they can go stay at tedros house if the egyptians wont have them

.

.