Religion Mid East Religious War, Now with added USA Involvement!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
What is interesting to think about, which is what @Phatguysrule is discussing - is what the equivalent of the Marshal plan will be for help to the Palestinians if / after the Hamas is removed. Now, the US and the allies did not "control" Europe after WW2, but there was a big US military presence there and while Japan was not, technically, a part of the Marshal plan, they did receive a lot of rebuilding money from the US, but there was a US control there for 7 years.

I do not think that anyone will be interested in Israel taking control of Gaza the same way, which is why I think the only long term solution is to find some kind of a 3rd party mediator that will control it while it is rebuilt. If there will be one like that will be interesting to see.
 
andalusian said:
I do not think I did. I think there is just no alternative Israel is presented with. I argued before and I continue to argue that the big civilian casualties suffered in Gaza is because Hamas is using the civilians as shield and propaganda. If they really cared about their people, they would not do that. If they really cared in this specific war, they would not prohibit them from leaving. They would not build their tunnels under civilian buildings and use them as shields for their rocket launchers.

What I argued was the making statements like "there has to be other solution", implying that Israel chose to have it's citizens attacks or can realistically choose to let it's citizens continue to live under terror threat because the terrorists use their own people as shields. That, to me, as an illogical statement.

My argument is that Israel has to choose between protecting it's people and try to be precise in attacking Hamas while it uses it's own people as shields. They just have no other reasonable solution at this point.
Click to expand...
Well, you're definitely diminishing them by saying Israel has no other choice to protect their civilians. From the data I saw from UN, 300 people over 15 years. So 20 a year. I do not want to discount their lives, but more people die from gang violence in like every big US city it seems. It seems Israel is doing a great job in protecting their citizens.
 
RR7 said:
Well, you're definitely diminishing them by saying Israel has no other choice to protect their civilians. From the data I saw from UN, 300 people over 15 years. So 20 a year. I do not want to discount their lives, but more people die from gang violence in like every big US city it seems. It seems Israel is doing a great job in protecting their citizens.
Click to expand...

I would argue that none of them would have died if Hamas did not attack originally and used them as shields. My argument is not that I am diminishing their life, it is that Hamas is. I am again going to the question of - how can Israel protect it's citizens when it has to fight an opponent that does not value the life of their own constituents?

The correct question is not why is it 10 to 400 or whatever the number is, it is why isn't it 0 to 0?

If we agree that Israel has the right to protect it's citizens, and if we also agree that Hamas should not use civilians as shields, I do not understand how anyone can suggest these 2 true facts are the reason for the problem and why we should blame the ones that were not the aggressors.

Again, at large, history has shown that Israel has been and hopefully will continue to be willing to make concessions for peace. Until the other side is willing to do the same, it just makes no sense to me to blame them for the consequences of the aggression.
 
andalusian said:
I would argue that none of them would have died if Hamas did not attack originally and used them as shields. My argument is not that I am diminishing their life, it is that Hamas is. I am again going to the question of - how can Israel protect it's citizens when it has to fight an opponent that does not value the life of their own constituents?

The correct question is not why is it 10 to 400 or whatever the number is, it is why isn't it 0 to 0?

If we agree that Israel has the right to protect it's citizens, and if we also agree that Hamas should not use civilians as shields, I do not understand how anyone can suggest these 2 true facts are the reason for the problem and why we should blame the ones that were not the aggressors.

Again, at large, history has shown that Israel has been and hopefully will continue to be willing to make concessions for peace. Until the other side is willing to do the same, it just makes no sense to me to blame them for the consequences of the aggression.
Click to expand...
I don't blame the civilians on either side. And both sides should go out of their way to avoid targeting civilians.

Any side who doesn't go out of their way to keep civilians out of it is in the wrong. Any side deliberately cutting off food, water and electricity to or bombing women and children is wrong.

Hamas is certainly in the wrong. I'd prefer it if Israel weren't. But as of right now, they are in the wrong as well. No question about it.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how to say this.

A very disturbing report of Hamas sending videos to the families of the IDF soldiers being held hostage in the tunnels below Gaza. Especially disturbing were videos of the female IDF soldiers, and leave it there.

Not sure, but this maybe the reason for last nights heavy rocket pounding.
 
Wars in the middle east will never end.

Many people point to post WW1 as the starting point of the problems when England and France divided up the mid-east. It was just one chapter of a very large book.

Truth is, all of these tribes have been throwing stones at each other, and fighting over control of the lands since before the first addition (edition) of the old testament.

No one knows who threw the first stone, or why. Hating each other has lasted so long it is breed into them.

Wish we had the option to let them work it out among themselves. All we are doing by being involved is uniting many of the tribes that hate each other, to now hate a common enemy, the USA. I can't count how many times they have told us to get out of the mid-east.

The mid-east tribal wars will never end. Best we can hope for are long periods of peace and calm.

BTW, appreciate everyone's tolerance of my many spelling errors. For a growing number of reasons, posting has become a very difficult long process. Getting old sucks!
 
Last edited:
oldfisherman said:
Wars in the middle east will never end.

Many people point to post WW1 as the starting point of the problems when England and France divided up the mid-east. It was just one chapter of a very large book.

Truth is, all of these tribes have been throwing stones at each other, and fighting over control of the lands since before the first addition of the old testament.

No one knows who threw the first stone, or why. Hating each other has lasted so long it is breed into them.

Wish we had the option to let them work it out among themselves. All we are doing by being involved is uniting many of the tribes that hate each other, to now hate a common enemy, the USA. I can't count how many times they have told us to get out of the mid-east.

The mid-east tribal wars will never end. Best we can hope for are long periods of peace and calm.

BTW, appreciate everyone's tolerance of my many spelling errors. For a growing number of reasons, posting has become a very difficult long process. Getting old sucks!
Click to expand...
And they will always do so until there is a fair and just power which can show patience and understanding while rewarding peace and cooperation, lifting the whole region to a higher standard of living for multiple generations.

Israel has squandered many opportunities to do so, the US has as well. And the US had the world behind us for Desert Storm and after 9/11. Both opportunities in which we could have made vast gains if we truly had good intentions and quality leadership.

This was an opportunity for Israel to do the same, with the full backing of the rest of the world.
 
Biden Officials Claim No Leverage Over Israel as US Prepares $14 Billion in Military Aid

"Instead of funding more bombs with American taxpayer dollars, our leaders should be calling for a cease-fire now," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/biden-leverage-israel

America won't call for peace. We literally don't care about peace.

America's only solution to military conflict is, to sell more weapons...
 
Phatguysrule said:
And they will always do so until there is a fair and just power which can show patience and understanding while rewarding peace and cooperation, lifting the whole region to a higher standard of living for multiple generations.

Israel has squandered many opportunities to do so, the US has as well. And the US had the world behind us for Desert Storm and after 9/11. Both opportunities in which we could have made vast gains if we truly had good intentions and quality leadership.

This was an opportunity for Israel to do the same, with the full backing of the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Here is a story from 2021:
https://apnews.com/article/business...d-gaza-strip-611b2b90c3a211f21185d59f4fae6a90

I am not sure that the idea that no-money arrives in Gaza is true.

The issue has been that the people that have their hands on the money are the same ones that also fund rockets and tunnels and terror operations, so how much of it actually goes to the people is questionable.

I think a lot of the issue is that all the money that is earmarked for aid often ends up somewhere else or is used as an excuse for Hamas not to invest in the people.

You have the double-edged sword here of giving self authority to the people's so called representatives - without a way to properly monitor how they use the money.

While I agree that investment in the area will be good, I am not sure how you can do it when Hamas rules it. This is not a democratic society with easy access to anyone to see where the money goes to and how it is used.
 
1) IDF soldiers have moved into parts of Gaza City, and found a tunnel under a hospital.

2) 45 USA soldiers wounded todate in Syria and Iraq by Iranian backed terrorist attacks.
 
andalusian said:
Here is a story from 2021:
https://apnews.com/article/business...d-gaza-strip-611b2b90c3a211f21185d59f4fae6a90

I am not sure that the idea that no-money arrives in Gaza is true.

The issue has been that the people that have their hands on the money are the same ones that also fund rockets and tunnels and terror operations, so how much of it actually goes to the people is questionable.

I think a lot of the issue is that all the money that is earmarked for aid often ends up somewhere else or is used as an excuse for Hamas not to invest in the people.

You have the double-edged sword here of giving self authority to the people's so called representatives - without a way to properly monitor how they use the money.

While I agree that investment in the area will be good, I am not sure how you can do it when Hamas rules it. This is not a democratic society with easy access to anyone to see where the money goes to and how it is used.
Click to expand...
You can't allow those kinds of people to maintain power. You have to get them out. Go after their leadership.

Targeting civilians is not acceptable.
 
Phatguysrule said:
You can't allow those kinds of people to maintain power. You have to get them out. Go after their leadership.

Targeting civilians is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
That's the catch 22, isn't it?

How can you do it when they use that against you and hide behind the civilians. Seriously, maybe it is just my advanced age, I just don't know how you do it without horrific losses to your own people.

The only thing I have seen, historically, was WW2 when horrific losses all around followed by the winning side investing heavily in rebuilding the losing side worked.

If you don't go against them, your own people (civilians) will continue to live under daily terror and rockets. If you do, you suffer horrific losses or there are civilian losses because of your operations.

I know that our liberal hearts (and I am one of those people) hurt when you think of the collateral damage, but I, for one, just can't see a move that solves it without taking the truly evil people that just don't want to compromise out. Otherwise, you are just kicking the can down the road.
 
Phatguysrule said:
You can't allow those kinds of people to maintain power. You have to get them out. Go after their leadership.

.
Click to expand...

Agree, get them out, and go after their leadership. But I believe the time has come to go one step further.

This cycle will continue until the Iranian leaders funding and training these terrorist groups are given a permanent attitude adjustment.
 
andalusian said:
That's the catch 22, isn't it?

How can you do it when they use that against you and hide behind the civilians. Seriously, maybe it is just my advanced age, I just don't know how you do it without horrific losses to your own people.

The only thing I have seen, historically, was WW2 when horrific losses all around followed by the winning side investing heavily in rebuilding the losing side worked.

If you don't go against them, your own people (civilians) will continue to live under daily terror and rockets. If you do, you suffer horrific losses or there are civilian losses because of your operations.

I know that our liberal hearts (and I am one of those people) hurt when you think of the collateral damage, but I, for one, just can't see a move that solves it without taking the truly evil people that just don't want to compromise out. Otherwise, you are just kicking the can down the road.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If you offer the people services that radical leadership is (and isn't) providing (including medical care, education, security, etc), and you have agents looking for radical leadership and paying for information, and you keep doing that for a few decades you will root the problems out.

But you have to be fair. And you have to understand that it will take a massive investment of time and effort, for a very long time.

If Israel wanted to do it, it could institute an eye in the sky program over the whole region and pick Hamas apart within a year. No drone strikes needed, just military force. Then it's just down to providing services and educating the population.

It's not easy, but it is possible, and it would work.

We've had this technology for decades (you can only imagine how advanced it is now). They could literally track every person in the region and trace nearly every attack back to the person who planned it.
 
Last edited:
oldfisherman said:
Agree, get them out, and go after their leadership. But I believe the time has come to go one step further.

This cycle will continue until the Iranian leaders funding and training these terrorist groups are given a permanent attitude adjustment.
Click to expand...
This is a valid point, and I don't know how best to deal with it. The US mucking with Iran is why it has fallen as far as it has... How do we just go after its leaders? All out war with Iran?
 
Phatguysrule said:
This is a valid point, and I don't know how best to deal with it. The US mucking with Iran is why it has fallen as far as it has... How do we just go after its leaders? All out war with Iran?
Click to expand...

Good question, all out war with Iran would kill a lot of civilians.

I have not traveled to Iran, but have talked to people that have traveled to many countries. They claim the Iranian people are the nicest and most generous people in the world. It is their leadership that is bad.

One idea that may work. Destroy their oil industry. Take away the money source funding a lot of the terrorist groups.
 
oldfisherman said:
I have not traveled to Iran, but have talked to people that have traveled to many countries. They claim the Iranian people are the nicest and most generous people in the world. It is their leadership that is bad.
Click to expand...

I have heard this many many times.
 
oldfisherman said:
Good question, all out war with Iran would kill a lot of civilians.

I have not traveled to Iran, but have talked to people that have traveled to many countries. They claim the Iranian people are the nicest and most generous people in the world. It is their leadership that is bad.

One idea that may work. Destroy their oil industry. Take away the money source funding a lot of the terrorist groups.
Click to expand...
Nuclear and renewables (also geothermal) are the only ways to crack that nut... I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
oldfisherman said:
Good question, all out war with Iran would kill a lot of civilians.

I have not traveled to Iran, but have talked to people that have traveled to many countries. They claim the Iranian people are the nicest and most generous people in the world. It is their leadership that is bad.

One idea that may work. Destroy their oil industry. Take away the money source funding a lot of the terrorist groups.
Click to expand...
yep, and China wouldn't want to see that happen. Get China to put pressure on the religious leadership to stop funding terrorist, or at some point their oil fields could be taken out, which would hurt China as they import most their oil from them.
 
Just watched a video of a Hamas motar crew firing shells at IDF soldiers. The entire crew was wearing civilian clothes. They looked very much like Palestinian civilians. They were not wearing anything that would identify them as combatants, let alone a member of Hamas.
 
oldfisherman said:
Just watched a video of a Hamas motar crew firing shells at IDF soldiers. The entire crew was wearing civilian clothes. They looked very much like Palestinian civilians. They were not wearing anything that would identify them as combatants, let alone a member of Hamas.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's how terrorists roll.

Attacking all civilians in an effort to kill the .001% who actually are terrorists is an incredibly stupid and ineffective strategy. It's pretty much exactly what the terrorists hope Israel will do.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yes. That's how terrorists roll.

Attacking all civilians in an effort to kill the .001% who actually are terrorists is an incredibly stupid and ineffective strategy. It's pretty much exactly what the terrorists hope Israel will do.
Click to expand...

Literally just described what Israel has been doing. Lol
 
Germany and Japan the had shit bombed out of them in order to defeat tyranny. Then we helped rebuild the countries into what they are today. Once Gaza is rid of the terrorist that overran their government with no other vote since then, only then Palestinian people can take back their State and the rebuild will begin. They dont want to be ruled by an organization/Hamas that doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist and all Jews must die, bull shit.
 
Last edited:
22 House Dems Join GOP in Voting to Censure Tlaib, Only Palestinian-American in Congress

"Congresswoman Tlaib's moral courage will never be extinguishable, but these 22 Democrats' cowardice, bigotry, and fanaticism will be the only thing the American people ever remember of them," said Justice Democrats.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/tlaib-censure-vote

Our own government isn't even democratic. Speak your own mind and get censured.

It's pretty clear neither party gives a crap about democracy. You either tow the party line, or your party will disown you.
 
PDXFonz said:
What would @barfo have to say about this?
Click to expand...

I really can't improve on Oxford:

this

pronoun
pronoun: this; pronoun: these
  1. 1.
    used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.
    "is this your bag?"
    • used to introduce someone or something.
      "this is the captain speaking"
    • referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by “that”).
      "this is different from that"
  2. 2.
    referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.
    "the company was transformed and Ward had played a vital role in bringing this about"
determiner
determiner: this; determiner: these
  1. 1.
    used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.
    "don't listen to this guy"
    • referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other, if specified, being identified by “that”).
      "this one or that one?"
  2. 2.
    referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.
    "there was a court case resulting from this incident"

  3. 3.
    used with periods of time related to the present.
    "I thought you were busy all this week"
    • referring to a period of time that has just passed.
      "I haven't left my bed these three days"
  4. 4.
    informal
    used (chiefly in narrative) to refer to a person or thing previously unspecified.
    "I turned around, and there was this big mummy standing next to us!"
adverb
adverb: this
  1. to the degree or extent indicated.
    "they can't handle a job this big"
Phrases
this and that
various unspecified things. "they stayed up chatting about this and that"
this here
used to draw attention emphatically to someone or something. "I've slept in this here bed for forty years"

Origin
Old English þis, neuter of thes, of West Germanic origin; related to that and the.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top