Attack on Israel (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

One likely reason for the increase in hostilities at this time is because Saudi Arabia was getting ready to join the Abraham Accords. The terror was intended to show the Saudis what they are in for if they become a friend to Israel. The Saudi royal family is already in a tenuous position. They would be hard pressed to survive an influx of terrorists.

 

[NauticalGent]

But an important question is: How far can retaliation go?

I have had a similar discussion with someone on this topic. There was a story here in the local papers when a would-be thief broke into a home. The home-owner had a firearm and chased the thief out of his house. The thief was outside and almost off the man's property - clearly no longer a threat - but the home-owner shot him anyway. One of us had the opinion that the thief could have returned with a gun of his own, therefore the "threat" was not nullified. The other opinion was that there was no way of knowing that, therefore the home-owner did not need to kill the intruder.

That discussion is for another thread....

The reason I mention it here, is that the threat to Israel is always there and has been attacked before and if history is an indicator, will return again. If my home was attacked more than once and members of my family killed, I would not stop until I was CERTAIN that threat was no longer a threat. This is not a score-keeping event. Revenge? Of course, but that does not make it completely wrong and in this case, revenge is immaterial.

Whether or not Israel has a right to be there does not play here - they are there. If you resort to violence to "make it right" (in your case anyway) then violence is what you have sown and so shall you reap.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Steve R.]

I have had a similar discussion with someone on this topic. There was a story here in the local papers when a would-be thief broke into a home. The home-owner had a firearm and chased the thief out of his house. The thief was outside and almost off the man's property - clearly no longer a threat - but the home-owner shot him anyway. One of us had the opinion that the thief could have returned with a gun of his own, therefore the "threat" was not nullified. The other opinion was that there was no way of knowing that, therefore the home-owner did not need to kill the intruder.

That discussion is for another thread....

The reason I mention it here, is that the threat to Israel is always there and has been attacked before and if history is an indicator, will return again. If my home was attacked more than once and members of my family killed, I would not stop until I was CERTAIN that threat was no longer a threat. This is not a score-keeping event. Revenge? Of course, but that does not make it completely wrong and in this case, revenge is immaterial.

Whether or not Israel has a right to be there does not play here - they are there. If you resort to violence to "make it right" (in your case anyway) then violence is what you have sown and so shall you reap.

I've been contemplating a similar analogy.
Suppose there is a guy with a knife. You have a gun.
The guy with the knife periodically attempts to stab you. Occasionally that person injures you. But you practice restraint hoping that person will eventually realize that what they are doing is wrong.
That person with the knife refuses accept that what they are doing is wrong and also refuses to restrain himself and continues to attack you.
At what point do you finally accept the reality of the situation, run out of patience, pull-out the gun, and shoot the person with the knife?
After all, if they endlessly keep attacking (even with a knife), they might eventually succeed in killing you should you continue to demonstrate "restraint".

PS: I would contend that the "success" of Hamas could be partially attributed to Israel becoming complacent due to its prior success at blunting Hamas attacks and consequently becoming "careless" because of that prior success. Israel failed to use its gun to kill the knife wielder.

 

[Jon]

I have had a similar discussion with someone on this topic. There was a story here in the local papers when a would-be thief broke into a home. The home-owner had a firearm and chased the thief out of his house. The thief was outside and almost off the man's property - clearly no longer a threat - but the home-owner shot him anyway. One of us had the opinion that the thief could have returned with a gun of his own, therefore the "threat" was not nullified. The other opinion was that there was no way of knowing that, therefore the home-owner did not need to kill the intruder.

I think a closer description of the truth here is that the thief was also:

- A potential murderer
- Part of a terrorist organisation that kills civilians in their own homes
- A potential kidnapper
- A wannabie squatter
- Has a policy of keeping on returning until you no longer exist
- Hates you and all your kind

In the case of Hamas, we already know all of the above, although Hamas will think Israelis are the squatters!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Earlier I declined to blame this on religion. This morning I had a long and somewhat painful talk with a Muslim friend and former professor of Engineering, originally born in Algeria, who as a child was the victim of French action back in the late 50's, early 60's. He has seen what happened to Muslims when a major power unleashes a full dose of military hell on a village. He was a displaced refugee as a child.

We disagreed on certain factors, but he is adamant that true believers in Islam are forbidden to kill innocents - specifically including women, children, and old people, and specifically non-combatant non-Islamic people. This may be a conflict between groups who happen to be divided by a religious difference, but it relates more to political causes than to religion. I cannot say that this is a religious war.

I still think Hamas was wrong to do what they did and they deserve the harshest possible treatment. However, the "decapitation of babies" claim is being walked back because even the Israeli military will not confirm that they have evidence of same. Other claims - killing young people who were celebrating a holiday - are more easily verified. Edgar is obviously on the side of the Palestinians. I have not crossed over to that side. But I suggest that some emotion-based hyperbole has been expressed in a way that certainly is inflammatory.

Harsh treatment of the Palestinians will not solve the problem. Eradication of Hamas probably will not solve the problem because we have good reason to believe they are externally funded and motivated from Iran. As long as Iran remains consistently motivated, Hamas CAN'T actually be eradicated. They can only be removed from an area until the next wave of radical youth gets Iranian money and arms and decides on another name.

 

[Jon]

but he is adamant that true believers in Islam are forbidden to kill innocents - specifically including women, children, and old people, and specifically non-combatant non-Islamic people.

The penalty is death for apostasy in Pakistan. So that brings us to two points. Firstly, the term "true believers" is subjective. Anyone can say a muslim who kills someone else is not a true believer, but who are they to say what "true" means? Secondly, the word "innocents" is not the same as "anyone". For example, is a Jew who (by virtue of their own religion) considers the Koran to be false, someone who is innocent? Or are their beliefs blasphemous because they think the Koran does not represent the direct words of God, and therefore are outside of the category of "innocents"?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Edgar is obviously on the side of the Palestinians...

And possibly Hamas. The reason I say this is because he doesn't appear to distinguish between the two. Whereas we distinguish between Jewish concert goers and the Jewish military. I believe in some peoples mind Hamas and Palestinians are the same thing. Just a guess.

 

[Jon]

For some strange reason, I want to use an analogy: a dog and its vegan owner!

If a Palestinian is a vegan and Hamas a dog, the fact that the vegan doesn't eat meat doesn't mean that they are not contributing to the death of animals, since they chose to get the dog. They are just not the ones doing the chewing!

 

[Steve R.]

The penalty is death for apostasy in Pakistan

In the West we tolerate and allow Muslims to practice their religion. Contrast this with Islamic countries were the name of the country usually begins with "Islamic Republic ...". Minority religions are openly persecuted. By extension it can be assumed that when a Muslim majority assumes power in a country, it will become an Islamic Republic that will begin to suppress non-Muslims. Be careful of being tolerant to those that seek to "transform" society under the guise of high sounding language like "diversity" and "inclusion".

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In the West we tolerate and allow Muslims to practice their religion. Contrast this with Islamic countries were the name of the country usually begins with "Islamic Republic ...". Minority religions are openly persecuted. By extension it can be assumed that when a Muslim majority assumes power in a country, it will become an Islamic Republic that will begin to suppress non-Muslims. Be careful of being tolerant to those that seek to "transform" society under the guise of high sounding language like "diversity" and "inclusion".

But the problem is that uniformity and exclusion are how wars get started. If you are going away from diversity, you are heading to an Orwellian society of mindless conformity. You have to find the middle ground.

 

[Edgar_]

And possibly Hamas. The reason I say this is because he doesn't appear to distinguish between the two. Whereas we distinguish between Jewish concert goers and the Jewish military. I believe in some peoples mind Hamas and Palestinians are the same thing. Just a guess.

I've been questioning Israel's innocence the entire time, I notice many here have had such a hard time being questioned about that strong belief, of Israel's innocence, that the only likely conclusion is that I'm just in favor of Hamas and Palestine.

Since having such strong beliefs usually correlate with being manipulated by propaganda, I posted about how to gain a wider perspective: looking at basic maps, exploring global conflict maps, checking the GDP of each country, reading different news sources, comparing Israel's statements with Palestine's, and more, are all good ways to gain a more informed and balanced perspective.

It all comes down to the person, though. That favorite news anchor won't always serve up all the information on a silver platter. They may be influenced by underlying interests, causing them to withhold certain details and exaggerate others. This is why maintaining a nice dose of skepticism is essential here and now. Everyone, including me and you, should be vigilant against propaganda, especially during wartime.

Sadly, by the time the actual truth comes out, if it ever does, Palestine will be so devastated and its helpless people so full of hatred, we don't know what's actually going to happen next, but peace doesn't seem likely. That's what wars do, something that many support under the banner of "Israel must defend itself". But what will history call this catastrophic event? Oh, because there will be a name for this extinction, and someone to hold responsible, and it won't be in the name of Allah, Muhammad, Jesus, or God. It'll be in the name of the economic system.

I can only hope newer generations are less depraved. We'll see.

 

[Steve R.]

I've been questioning Israel's innocence the entire time,

By all means question Israeli innocence, but also question the innocence of the Palestinians. Unlike the Israelis, the Palestinians are openly promoting genocide. Just like Nazi Germany. Look at the rise of anti-antisemitism, world wide; encouraging genocide of the Jews. The Palestinians are the resurrected Nazis.

Moreover, look at the neighboring Arab states. Do you know of any of the adjacent Islamic states offering to take-in Palestinians as a humanitarian gesture? It appears that the Arab states desire the propaganda value of having their Palestinians neighbors killed. Using your Islamic neighbors as cannon fodder is not a humanitarian gesture.

I don't think you ever answered the question of how the world should punish the Palestinians for the barbaric sneak attack murder of 1,300+ people in Israel?

 

[Edgar_]

Look at the rise of anti-antisemitism, world wide; encouraging genocide of the Jews. The Palestinians are the resurrected Nazis.

Pretty sure Palestinians have more than religious reasons to dislike Israeli people. I talked about this in previous posts. Economic reasons perhaps?

Moreover, look at the neighboring Arab states. Do you know of any of the adjacent Islamic states offering to take-in Palestinians as a humanitarian gesture? It appears that the Arab states desire the propaganda value of having their Palestinians neighbors killed. Using your Islamic neighbors as cannon fodder is not a humanitarian gesture.

The whole region is engulfed in conflict, as I've mentioned before. There should be a link to a map of ongoing conflicts somewhere in this thread. I suggest giving it a look. Pretty sure accepting refugees could pose challenges not only to the host countries in the nearby Arab states, with their populations, but also on an international scale. That whole area is on fire. Economic reasons perhaps, again?

I don't think you ever answered the question of how the world should punish the Palestinians for the barbaric sneak attack murder of 1,300+ people in Israel?

Given the terrible conditions in the Gaza concentration camp, which is under Israeli control, punishing its residents further seems morally questionable and it would solve absolutely nothing, it would actually make matters worse. I may not have the answer you're looking for, but I'm sure that extinction is not what these people deserve. Their government should face the consequences of their acts, but so should the government of Israel, they have been subjugating Palestinians to a degree that the entire world does not tolerate it anymore. And before I read again that this is all about religion, here's more data for you:

Here's a muslim country, or whatever it is:

And here's another:

One has attacked Israel, the other has not, yet both share the same religion. How come? Ohhh, maybe Qatar has a much higher quality of life, therefore, they're not looking for conflict? Could it be? Of. Course. If you're happy, you do not look for conflict, it's dead simple. Yet, keeping the lives of innocent Palestinians miserable was chosen. And you're suggesting that they should be punished further.

 

[Pat Hartman]

But the problem is that uniformity and exclusion are how wars get started. If you are going away from diversity, you are heading to an Orwellian society of mindless conformity. You have to find the middle ground.

A country without borders or without a common culture isn't a country. So, we do need some amount of uniformity. It used to be that we all believed in the American Dream. Didn't matter where our parents came from, once we got here, we assimilated. Now, we don't expect immigrants to assimilate. Instead, they bring their culture (not just their food and music) and want to implement it here. Notice how countries like Sweden and France and us are fracturing. There is no possible way to accommodate Sharia Law and what the US and western Europe think of as common law. They are in conflict. We don't let Mormons have multiple wives. Why should we allow Muslims to have multiple wives? We don't allow animal sacrifice either. Are we going to support polygamy for all? How about polyandry?

Why do you think that Christians and Jews are so unwelcome in Muslim cultures? The Muslim women see what it is like to be free and the men can't have that happen. They need their women to be content being barefoot and pregnant and uneducated beyond ~ 5th grade. That is also why some Muslim communities practice sexual mutilation of women. If they can't enjoy the sexual act, they won't be tempted to stray.

 

[Steve R.]

Given the terrible conditions in the Gaza concentration camp, which is under Israeli control,

You have to be kidding. If Gaza was under Israeli control how is it that they have a heavily armed militia terrorist organization with a plethora of offensive rockets. Do you know of any prison that would allow the inmates to have weapons?

 

[Steve R.]

Notice how countries like Sweden and France and us are fracturing. There is no possible way to accommodate Sharia Law and what the US and western Europe think of as common law.

The West is committing cultural suicide.

 

[Edgar_]

You have to be kidding. If Gaza was under Israeli control

Controlling water supply is not enough for you?

how is it that they have a heavily armed militia terrorist organization with a plethora of offensive rockets.

You keep assuming Israel is ignorant and innocent, too bad

Do you know of any prison that would allow the inmates to have weapons?

Allow? not really. Do prisons with armed inmates exists? Oh yes, many have entire mafias and can even have a delinquent life inside, where they don't even need to go outside, they just make a few calls to fake the kidnapping of people and ask for rescue money, as well as other forms of fraud.

 

[ColinEssex]

I can't disagree with that. Enough is enough. but short of turning Gaza to glass, how does this end and what happens to the people trapped by their hatred? Maybe they reap what they sow.

Don't worry. Mr Biden is going over to sort it out, let's hope he doesn't doze off during talks.
Col

 

[Jon]

Since having such strong beliefs usually correlate with being manipulated by propaganda

Are you suggesting that you are not manipulated by propaganda and therefore have weak beliefs?