I have read articles and watched videos of talks given by Israeli historians that there were Jews in Palestine and they got along well with each other. Whose word should I value, an Israeli historian that has spent his adulthood studying the subject or you? Difficult decision!
The Inconsequential Hazard Of War, Collateral Damage?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Dan is a modern day Randall "tex" Cobb. For those that follow boxing. That or the Energizer bunny trying to cross the freeway.
Me. But only because I’m grounded in actual reality. “Moslems” and “peace” simply don’t go together, except perhaps in platitudes from democrooks and RINOS.
Maybe you should read back on the threads discussing the topic, you will find the above statement is false.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked @Ostatedchi: what’s your definition of anti-Semitism? Is someone who is anti-Zionist an anti-Semite because of his anti-Zionism? Is there a difference between Judaism and Zionism?
Oh I get it just fine, it's you that doesn't get it. I've posted several times that the October 7th attack was the straw that broke the camels back. Israel is not going to put up with it anymore and I do not blame them. Decades of the Palestinians attacking Israel, Israel kicking their ass, people like you feeling sorry for the Palestinians and demanding Israel stop, only for the cycle to continue to repeat. The Palestinians are not going to stop hating the Jews and Israel is not going to stop doing what ever they feel is necessary to protect their citizens. Pretty damn simple. Only now Israel is tired of it and going to put an end to it.
Or a war crime?
'I pretended to be dead': Survivors recount harrowing Israeli field executions in Gaza
In Gaza City, Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinians at point blank range, killing them in front of their familieswww.middleeasteye.net
How Middle East Eye is fake-news central
In the world of political media, ownership is an important issue that implies editorial influence. This in itself is harmless as it grants a level of transparency to an outlet: We know that Al Jazeera belongs to Qatar’s royal family (yet it denies having editorial influence), Al Arabiya to the...
www.arabnews.com
From Arab News
I am already going to call BS. Lets see dead women - check, innocents killed-check, pregnant women killed - check, elderly people killed - check & people killed cooperating with the IDF killed -check.
That the IDF would send any number of soldier into Gaza who don't speak or at least understand Arabic is laughable. About 20% of Israeli's speak Arabic as their native tongue, since there are approximately 620,000 soldiers in the IDF, including reserves that means at a minimum there are 124,000 native arab speakers, add in that the intelligence personnel that learn arabic & the fact that arabic is taught in Israel schools as a 2nd language as is english (that adds another ~7% arab speakers. Plus the IDF teaches their soldiers arabic phrases for a rudimentary understanding of Transjordanians.
If this were a "thing" it would have been all over the news, in the US, include tall the media outlets run by the pinko, liberal, left wing bedwetters & anti-semites.
Did you see where the 3 YO transjordanian baby was killed today. Yea, two a-hole male Transjordanians in a van ran a roadblock in the West Bank, and for their efforts got shot & killed along with the poor baby they were hauling around. Is that the IDF's fault? Juxtapose that against the propaganda article you posted & I still say that I'm about 99.9999999% sure its a BS article with no validity.
Last edited:
When it comes to historical and foreign affairs topics I value your opinion more than any other voice on this board. I disagree with you that it’s a BS article, but I concede it could be.How Middle East Eye is fake-news central
In the world of political media, ownership is an important issue that implies editorial influence. This in itself is harmless as it grants a level of transparency to an outlet: We know that Al Jazeera belongs to Qatar’s royal family (yet it denies having editorial influence), Al Arabiya to the...
From Arab News
I am already going to call BS. Lets see dead women - check, innocents killed-check, pregnant women killed - check, elderly people killed - check & people killed cooperating with the IDF killed -check.
That the IDF would send any number of soldier into Gaza who don't speak or at least understand Arabic is laughable. About 20% of Israeli's speak Arabic as their native tongue, since there are approximately 620,000 soldiers in the IDF, including reserves that means at a minimum there are 124,000 native arab speakers, add in that the intelligence personnel that learn arabic & the fact that arabic is taught in Israel schools as a 2nd language as is english (that adds another ~7% arab speakers. Plus the IDF teaches their soldiers arabic phrases for a rudimentary understanding of Transjordanians.
If this were a "thing" it would have been all over the news, in the US, include tall the media outlets run by the pinko, liberal, left wing bedwetters & anti-semites.
Did you see where the 3 YO transjordanian baby was killed today. Yea, two a-hole male Transjordanians in a van ran a roadblock in the West Bank, and for their efforts got shot & killed along with the poor baby they were hauling around. Is that the IDF's fault? Juxtapose that against the propaganda article you posted & I still say that I'm about 99.9999999% sure its a BS article with no validity.
Addendum: sorry to take time between replies, my first response was between “honey-do” jobs my wife tasked me with. I read your Arab News piece and to be honest was underwhelmed. It really didn’t say much and offered no evidence to back up what it said. Basically it comes across as a hit piece on a competitor, upset that the competitor has influence. Meh! One of the reasons I think the MEE artcle has legs is the author named names, named dates and places where the events took place. Any enterprising and intrepid journalist from Arab News, as an example, could satisfy his skepticism by going to the location, finding the people reported on and interview them himself. Of course that may be nearly impossible to do since the IDF has shut down any access to Gaza. (I wonder why.). If the reporter could not find the people named or anyone that could not confirm the article’s validity then Arab News might have some credibility. Unfortunately they didn’t do what journalists are supposed to do.
Addendum 2: I call poppycock that if this were a thing it would be all over the MSM. You know how we both believe the MSM is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Democrats? Guess who’s prosecuting the war on Israel’s behalf. This story has no chance of being made public by anyone but independent journalists and Palestinian-sympathetic websites like MEE who are given no play by Israel-friendly big tech. I bet you and I are the only ones on this board that had heard of MEE before this thread.
Last edited:
I never said anything about you being an anti-Semite. I was saying you are incredibly naive and have an unbelievably myopic one-sided view of the conflict. The fact that you utilize a pro-Palestinian rag that support Hamas just showcases your blinded bias.
On this site it is just comical. However, many sharing your misguided views, ie extreme far-left progressive members of The Squad, give support to anti-Israel thoughts…which does drive anti-semitism.
Last edited:
@Ostatedchi called me an anti-semite and you followed it by saying “This.”
Addendum: it has not gone unnoticed that neither of you seem to be capable of defining anti-Semitism, or are unwilling to do it. Nor have you given any indication that you know there is a difference between Judaism and Zionism. And it is that lack of knowledge on your part that leads you to think I’m anti-Semitic, naive and espouse only one side of the issue. How do you want our conversation to go? You: “Hamas is evil.” Me: “Yeah, Hamas is evil.” You: “Nice talking with you.” End of conversation. If you naively believe Zionism = Judaism then there’s not much we can say to each other that bridges the gap. If you know that they are not the same thing (Judaism is a religion, Zionism is a “political” ideology) then you recognize I have not uttered one negative word about Judaism or Jews qua Jews. My criticism of Israel has been 100% aimed at what Israel’s government is doing. If you agree with what it is doing, fine, let’s talk civilly about our disagreement. Getting mad and calling names and disparaging the character of the person with whom you disagree is just childish. I suppose it would be one thing if I personally had the power to make Israel do things my way, but I don’t. So getting mad and attacking the “messenger” rather than the message is without merit.
Last edited:
Ponca,
CNN Runs Gaza Coverage Past Jerusalem Team Operating Under Shadow of IDF Censor
The Jerusalem bureau has long reviewed all CNN stories relating to Israel and Palestine. Now, it’s helping shape the network’s coverage of the war.theintercept.com
Its hard to take you seriously when you post this thread taking an article very much at face value and calling Israel's actions a war crime (your words), while in another post calling out pro-Israel reporting as propoganda. Are you really so naive as to not understand that both sides are selling propaganda for their respective audiences.
No, I’m not that naive. If you’ll notice I said “war crime?” Did you see the question mark? Now I’ll admit I personally agree with most of the world that Israel is committing war crimes. But the intent was to get those that support Israel to consider maybe the IDF ought to tamp down on the slaughter. And have a conversation - a civil conversation! - based on that question. Unfortunately too many of them are so emotionally invested in their opinion that all they can do is respond accordingly. As far as “propaganda” goes I attempt to check out both sides, which I’m pretty sure none of them have done even once. And that may be the cause of their emotional investment. And before you accuse me of only posting Palestinian-friendly links I would ask you what would be the point in my posting another pro-Israeli link when that’s the only thing that gets posted other than mine. I don’t know what more is expected of me, I’ve condemned Hamas to hell, but not the Palestinian people en toto. I don’t understand fully *why* I’m supposed to accept the racist/collectivist point of view that ALL Palestinians are evil for being born Palestinian, but I’m well aware that I’m persona non grata until I do. So be it!
I think it's been mentioned before but did you ever stop to think the October attack was Israel's Pearl Harbor? I don't think anyone in this country was to concerned with the lives of the Japanese people during WWII. I'm fairly certain it's the same for Israel and those that are outraged over the attack. And no I'm not suggesting or implying Israel should nuke anyone.
You should watch the Mearsheimer interview. He touches briefly on that subject. Not in the context of Pearl Harbor but in the context of how Israel thought it had everything under control. Turns out they thought wrong. But the Pearl Harbor connection is interesting, no I had not thought of that. But now that you mention it there is at least one comparison I can think of. Many historians believe FDR knew the attack was coming and allowed it to happen because until then public sentiment was … shall we call it mixed? Now we’re told the Netanyahu knew Oct 7 was coming (maybe not the exact date) and some are speculating he allowed it to happen for two reasons: he knew it would allow his party to gin up so much public anger he could fulfill his lifelong dream of chasing the Palestinians out, plus it would assure he wouldn’t go to prison for rampant corruption, which was on the verge of happening. If either of those things is true (I think it’s highly probable that both are) then that man is as evil as all the Palestinians you hate with such rage.
I've often thought it was possible FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and did nothing. If he did know and did nothing, is he evil?
I've heard the same on Bibi but I have also heard the report they are talking about was not known to him, it was the left leaning PM that had been briefed on the report. Really doesn't matter either way, doesn't change the fact the Palestinians attacked Israel.
Yes, absolutely FDR was insanely evil for letting those men die for his political aims. As for Bibi there were multiple reports. How convenient for him to give himself plausible deniability,
I guess that's when that quote about the greater good comes in. Great leadership sometimes requires tough and distasteful decisions.
Sorry, not buying it. Real leadership leads the charge from the front of the action. It can even be considered real leadership when you warn your troops that an attack is imminent while you are safely in the rear of the action. But it is pure cowardly evil to allow the men who put their trust in you to be slaughtered by an attack you know is coming but don’t tell them so you can gain a political foothold, all while sleeping safe and secure in your comfy bed. If there is a hell people who do things like that punch a well deserved one way ticket to its hottest corner.
Dan you should watch some interviews with WW2 Vets and listen to them talk about War. Did they shoot prisoners? Yep. Did they kill women and children? Yep. Why did they do that? Go watch some I won't make it easy on you only that in war its kill or be killed and do you think they harbour any ill will for the hell they have been put through by the enemy starting the shit in the first place?
War is hell, people die and yes those that supported the bastards that started it are fair game. Don't want to die, don't start a War, don't want to die in a War, don't support the evil ones that started it.
I don’t need to watch your interviews, I have a pretty good perspective on the cruelty of combat. And I’ll tell you that *nothing* justifies what either FDR or Netanyahu did. Can you imagine the horror those Israeli citizens were experiencing while being raped and shot telling themselves help is on the way while Netanyahu was calculating the longer he held his troops back the more of them will be killed, which will make it easier for him to marshal the country into accepting the genocide he’d lusted after for years? In the meantime he calls himself a victim and has people so filled with rage and hatred they nod affirmatively while assuring themselves this little bitch deserves everything she got, she probably cheered when she heard about it. And all she says is “I used to run and play. I was so happy.” If she didn’t want what happened to her she shouldn’t have been born a Palestinian in Gaza! Right? Shrug it off! War is hell! She’s just unfortunate collateral damage. Put it out of your mind. Move along! Hamas was hiding near her so she is a justified target! As Mike Gundy is famous for saying, “It makes me want to puke!”
Last edited:
I don't know about that. If my history is correct the country was very much against entering WWII due to the carnage of WWI. Hitler had taken over all of Europe, except Britain and at the time looked to be taking over Russia. The US was against entering the war despite all of this. I think it's reasonable to say FDR knew if Hitler took over Russia the US was next and realized we needed both Russia and Britain to defeat Germany. Russia for the second front to take manpower and resources, Britain for a base operation into the rest of Europe. At the time the German military looked to be unbeatable and we may of had intelligence showing Hitler was developing WMDs that we stood no chance against. Remember in 1939 Einstein told FDR about the feasibility of nuclear energy and with Germany having some of the top scientist in the world it doesn't take one to suspect Germany was working to develop a Atom Bomb. What if Germany had developed the Atom Bomb first?
FDR also knew if the population wasn't behind entering the war the US stood no chance of defeating Germany. If FDR did know the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor he suspected it would outrage Americans, changing public perception to enter the war and save the country from an even worse war facing Germany alone. Faced with the prospect of fighting both the Germans and Japanese alone along with the very real threat of Germany obtaining a weapon we had no defense from and could kill millions would you be willing to sacrifice a few thousand men to save millions? Being responsible for millions of people comes with great responsibility and sometimes sacrifices are made to protect those millions, hence the comment about the greater good.
Carry this thinking over to Israel, how many people have been killed in all the attacks against Israel over the decades and how many will be killed in the future because the decisions being made are ineffective at solving the problem?
Regardless it a fun discussion.
If I understand you correctly your argument is that a republican/democratic society of free individuals in which the "people" supposedly are in charge of the direction the society should take sometimes has to be redirectd by individuals or a handful of individuals who know better than everybody else what to do. And being a party to the cold blooded murder of hundreds or thousands of the very people these brilliant "leaders" are charged with protecting, sacrificing them without their advance knowledge their lives had been put on the chopping block in order to get the brilliant leaders' political way, in the case of Bibi Netanyahu protecting his own corrupt ass, is a necessarily proper thing to happen to the "free society." I disagree.
If that is what you got out of my post I feel sorry for you.
Correct my error, please. FDR wanted to get in the war, the people did not. FDR knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent but said nothing, made no effort to protect the sailors on those ships, willingly let them go to their graves in the prime of their lives because he knew better than anybody else that the US should get involved in yet another European war, and he knew the people would be roused to vengence when he let it happen. It appears you call that good leadership of supposedly free and independent people. Correct my error, please.
Wanted or knew what the consequences of not going to war would be? I guess you are of the thinking Hitler would have been satisfied with just Europe and Russia despite evidence Hitler had plans to attack the US. How many deaths, especially American civilian deaths would have occurred if that played out? If it was true FDR knew and it led to the US getting involved in WWII all I can say is thank god or the bloodshed over these decades would have been unfathomable
While this is all speculation we do have a real world example of your philosophy from WWII, Neville Chamberlin. A strong argument can be made Chamberlin's naivety and refusal to confront evil due to his anti war mentality directly led to WWII and the deaths of almost a billion people, most of which were civilians. With this it begs the question was it better to take the chance WWII doesn't break out or was it best to take make the sacrifice to confront Germany/Hitler before they gained their military strength.
While I do not like it, sometimes there are no good choices and regardless of which one you make people will die. That is the position of a leader and why it is important to choose those that are capable of making the correct decision when faced with them. IMO FDR was correct and I think history proves it.
Is Israel making the right choice now by decimating the Palestinians or is the right choice doing nothing and allowing the constant attacks on it's people? If history is any indication the answer is clear but who knows, only time will tell.
So what is my error? I said you said FDR (and Netanyahu) were necessary because they knew better than the people of the democracy in which they were presidents, and they were correct to sacrifice the lives of people "for the greater good." You keep telling me I'm wrong, you aren't saying that, and then repeat historical examples that those strong leaders knew what was best so it was good of them to let the sacrificial lambs get slaughtered. This particular part of the conversation is not about whether Israel made the right choice to decimate Palestinians, it's about whether Netanyahu showed signs of being a good leader by knowingly letting his own citizens get slaughtered so he could use it as an excuse to decimate Palestinians.
Where you are wrong is the criticism for leaders making tough decisions that protect against far more massive loss of life. In other words you are very short sighted in your criticism and give no thought to the long term. Example FDR's action was if evil if he knew.
So you agree that Netanyahu should have sat back and let his citizens be slaughtered in the most brazen and brutal way because he wants to decimate Palestinians and that's the easiest way to do it. It's morally outrageous to you what Hamas did, but acceptable to you for Netanyahu to let them do it when he could have stopped it because decimating Palestinians is for the long range greater good of Israel, and Israel's greater good trumps everybody else's greater good. Okay, we differ on that for sure.
Who says "most of the world" agrees that Israel is committing war crimes. You are being fed a narrative by a very pro-left media to believe that. And this article you posted, is every bit the propaganda that CNN posts. You take on face value the narrative of a supposed 6 year old who saw his parents unjustly executed by the IDF?
Probably not worth noting, but this same source was happy to promote the narrative of Israeli troops killing 500 Palestinians in the hospital strike.
Do you think that is what happened? Or is that you wanting it to be true because of your dislike of Bibi and Israel?
Well, let's see. Recently the UN had a vote calling for a permanent cease fire in the name of preserving lives. The vote was 173 calling for a cease fire, 4 against, and 19 abstintions. So it failed to pass because the US, Israel and two tiny inslands whch the US probably bribed voted "Nay," and at the UN the USA gets what the USA wants. So I use that as evidence that "most of the world" wants to end the bombing, and I would presume that most of the 173 nations would call what Israel is doing a war crime.
I'm somewhat perplexed why you find the report to be a lie. Was the accompaning picture of the legless child fake, too? But yes, I take on face value that the child saw her parents disappear under the same rubble that crushed her legs, just like I accept on face value Israel's claim of multiple rapes in the Oct 7 attack even though to my knowledge they haven't produced forensic evidence that there were in fact many many rapes.
Let me say for the umpteenth time (maybe eventually some of you will get it through your thick skulls!) I am *fully aware* that the Gazans have their own propaganda machine at work in this conflict. It pales in comparison to that of the Israelis, but it exists. I say that up front and out loud. I post these sympathetic articles about the Gazan's plight because I see unbelievable indifference to their suffering by virtually every pro-Israeli advocate on this board. Which is hard for me to compute, because they show extreme empathy for the Israeli victims from Oct 7, but don't give a single damn what happened to that little girl and her family and the thousand or so other children amputees because of Israel's brutal slaughter. Many if not most articulate those children deserve what they got. I have assumed it is because the children are nameless and faceless and are never mentioned on the media they consume. It occurred to me that if they see the reality that those are real children in real places with real pain and suffering they might revert to the Christian charity they have probably been raised to practice.
Right now there is a huge outcry that the editor of Canadian broadcasting defended their use of verbiage referring to Palestinain killing of Israelis one way and the Israeli bombing in much more moderate tones because Israel is dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air, they never see the results of the carnage, and for some reason the editor says that is a more preferable way to kill than face-to-face. It is astonishing to me the degree to which so many people are willing to accept that what Israel is doing is justified.
I have given no indication that I "dislike Israel." I dislike what the governmet is doing. I think Netanyahu is corrupt to his core and always has been, and I dislike him intensly. And yes, if I were a betting man that is where I'd put my money.
In other words you want it to be true and if you repeat it often enough the easily manipulated will believe it is. Got it.
No, I don’t want him to be corrupt to his core, and I don’t want him to blithely allow people who trusted him get butchered so he can gain political points. But I do think it is more likely that he is corrupt and did allow the butchery than less likely.
