Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]Edit: RULES FOR THIS THREAD
Posting guidelines for Politics and Soci...
These are our baselines. We're not reinventing the wheel here. If you aren't sure if something is acceptable to post, its better to ask first. If you think someone is posting something that violates the above guidelines, please report it or PM me rather than responding in kind.
To reiterate some of the points:
1. No personal attacks. This is a broad instruction, but, in general, we want to focus on attacking an argument rather than the poster making it. It is fine to say a post is antisemitic; it is not okay to call someone an antisemite over and over. If you believe someone is making antisemitic posts, report them or PM me. The same goes for calling people "baby killers" and "genocide lovers". You are allowed to argue that an action supports genocide or that the consequences of certain policies results in the death of children, but we are no longer going to be speaking to one another's intentions. It is not productive to the conversation and doesn't further any debate.
2. Racist posts and other bigoted statements that target a particular group or individuals of such groups with derogatory comments are not allowed. This should not need further explanation.
3. Graphic Images need to be in spoilers with a trigger warning.
4. Wishing Harm on other posters will result in an immediate timeout.
5. Genocidal statements such as "Kill 'em all" etc, are no longer permissible in the thread.
If anyone has any questions about the above, please PM me. I don't want a discussion about the rules to derail the content of this thread. If anything needs clarifying, I will do that in this thread.
Please be aware this thread is strictly moderated[/quote]
How many deaths until Israel reaches a point where it’s response is worse than the attacks Hamas committed on them?
You can be honest and say there is no number
Defense is always legitimate.
Any civilian lives lost while targeting enemies don't change that.
Of course that is different from saying randomly killing civilians with no military gain is acceptable (it isn't).
What's the meaning of being allied with a country and not with another, if not valuing that country citizens more than others?
You help your ally more than you help a stranger, and you help your ally a lot more than you help a century long enemy of your ally.
Countries aren’t real. People are, and they’re all worth the same.
Ye which is why you translate "allied to Israel" as "allied with Israeli citizens".
If we are allied with Israeli citizens that means we go to great length to preserve their lives over and above the lives of others, and especially over and above the lives of Israeli citizens enemies.
You probably disagree with the side we chose but we actually democratically chose that.
You want us to renege our promises?
I don’t have time or interest to argue with psychopathic ideas.
Defense is always legitimate.
Any civilian lives lost while targeting enemies don't change that.
Of course that is different from saying randomly killing civilians with no military gain is acceptable (it isn't).
Ok so gazas defense of its people and their attempt to get back 1000s of hostages is legit?
Game theory for child death is psychopathic, as far as thought experiments go
No they have enough money to buy as many weapons as they need on their own, and if you are out of the picture you can't put strings now or in the future to their behavior.
The money is used mainly for the iron dome
Without money for the iron dome they would have to nuke gaza
Us money to Israel actually saves Palestinian lives
No, I'm not trolling
It is collective punishment, which I am completely against. Hamas is an entity with many factions, not all of them evil. There is a lot of evidence that the political faction was not even aware that the military faction was planning October 7. As far as messaging goes, I believe that Gazans are as deterred as they are likely to be. I believe they reached that level quite early into the current destruction. Any further destruction is a recr
Terrible take.
Would you have said the same thing about the Nazis? When the allies rebuilt Germany, should they have tried to let the Nazis continue as part of the government, as long as it wasn't the most 'extreme' Nazis?
It sure seems like that's what you would have recommended, but I sure think it would not have been more successful.
there aren't Palestinian hostages to "get back".
And Gaza wasn't targeted by Israeli government terrorists.
Israel has literally over 1000 hostages. So it was ok for Palestine to defend itself and gets its hostages back or not?
IDF has killed 50k civilians, is that not terrorism?
The money is used mainly for the iron dome
Without money for the iron dome they would have to nuke gaza
Us money to Israel actually saves Palestinian lives
No, I'm not trolling
Or they stop spending money on killing (ammo) and have to spend that money on their iron dome
Talking about the short run
Terrible take.
Would you have said the same thing about the Nazis? When the allies rebuilt Germany, should they have tried to let the Nazis continue as part of the government, as long as it wasn't the most 'extreme' Nazis?
It sure seems like that's what you would have recommended, but I sure think it would not have been more successful.
No, you take them home with you and have them help you develop WMD's and give them a nice house and salary.
They might see it as a win because the west is full of weak people who don't understand game theory and/or don't care too much about guaranteeing Israeli security against terrorism at any cost who will ask for a ceasefire after enough children are killed.
Which is basically as saying that people who don't support indiscriminate bombing of targets where terrorists hide, no matter how many civilians are there, help terrorists. Not only Hamas,
Game theory doesn't require anyone else to understand anything. your approach is something but it sure aint game theory.
Game theory dispensed with. You're justify killing kids on the basis it will save future kids when even you recognise that in fact it wont.
By your argument which is very wrongheaded imo: Killing innocent people with high disregard increases terrorism so can only be supported by people who dont care about Israel's security.
If someone wanted to attack the us because we are bombing their country, they should target the pentagon or a military base. Our soldiers aren't hiding in hospitals and grammar schools
While you acknowledge this as viable, attacks against US military targets are often portrayed as terrorism.
The main reason the US and Isreal favor open military conflict is that their military is much stronger and they are a lock to win.
During the US revolution we fought dirty and used guerrilla tactics, by the standards of the day.
This is what usually happens. Vietnamese "hid" in villages because those were their homes. It's kind of absurd to expect the weaker opposition to march out onto an open battlefield and line up to get killed.
The argument that it's ok to masacre infinite numbers of civilians because you have vastly more military might, which is unfair to you, is a perverse one. Though powerful forces like it anyway.
Plus, American politicians and arms dealers and so forth, (our version of Hamas) of course "hide" among the general population too. W., Cheney and Hillary were never going to March into the field and engage in hand to hand combat with Saddam and his sons.
It's either ok to masacre countless civilians for the crimes of their leaders, or a faction within them, or it isn't.
Killing children or hostages to save even more children or hostages in the future is incorrect but not because it is applying game theory. Game theory like other math, when properly applied helps people. It is unfair to the subject to accuse its practioners of mental illness if they are using it correctly to do good. The fact that "game" is part of its title doesn't mean that those who are using it correctly actually think the subject matter is a game.
The better criticism is fivefold.
1. Not assassinating may not lead to more killing in the future. There are many possible futures where there is less killing for reasons other than fear of anti terrorists.
2. Indiscriminate anti terrorist killing may not lead to less killing in the future. There are many possible reasons why it may lead to more.
3. Some people enjoy causing the turmoil in anti terrorist's thoughts when they kill innocents such that it is worth causing that turmoil even if it risks their lives.
4. Just because the anti terrorists refuse to pay ransom or back down in other ways doesn't mean that they won't next time. Terrorists know this.
5. It is impossible to get everyone on board with fully wiping out terrorists at any cost and partial success does little.
The proper strategy is to find anyone on either side who is even partially responsible for children dying and when they are alone torture them. If there are things that you can do that make them think they can't go to heaven do that also.
The proper strategy is to find anyone on either side who is even partially responsible for children dying and when they are alone torture them. If there are things that you can do that make them think they can't go to heaven do that also.
This is actually basically how the KGB dealt with Palestinian terrorists, and the terrorists learned to leave them alone. For good or bad the West has norms which don't allow this sort of behavior/moral calculus. Which is probably part of the reason why we have a very poor track record dealing with terrorists and more generally asymmetric warfare.
But I think our norms in totality have produced much better results than places like Russia and China which do deal with terrorists this way; so I would hesitate to try to copy anything they have done, even tactics which seems to work in the short run or narrow view.
