Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I and some of the folks I know ,CNN as the Clinton News Network ..Has a rep and not a great one for impartiality.
'Now to our man in the HAMAS studio ,Take it away Wolff '
You didn't quote that text as a a lift from the article so my bad if it wasn't your words.
That is what some dude on CNN said. ok.
But do you agree that ?
Quote:
The ability to continue to prosecute the war in the face of mounting international criticism depends to a large extent on Israel being able to prove this point.
Israel didn't enter the war blind or with suspicion the enemy is up to no good, looking for a smoking gun like some may compare to the Iraqi WMD war.
All the evidence they needed was Hamas literally declaring war on Oct 7th, massacring everyone and taking hostages, and then high tailing it back into the cities in Gaza.
... Drive-By Media is the same way. They come in with their cameras and their microphones and their news reporting, and they create an absolute mess. ... They literally cause carnage. Their actions sometimes are destructive and ruinous to individuals. They kill the reputations of people, or try to. And then they get in the convertible, they head on down the highway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFX
I'm surprised anyone still watches CNN
The last time I looked, their viewership was about 20% of Fox News.
(I looked because one of them was ridiculing the 'tiny' viewership of a Fox program that had 5 times the viewership he did, which also tells us something about their honesty: they lie about their own ratings.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben young
I and some of the folks I know ,CNN as the Clinton News Network ..Has a rep and not a great one for impartiality.
'Now to our man in the HAMAS studio ,Take it away Wolff '
I came to know them as Communist News Network, but it seems Hamas has a pretty cozy relationship with a couple of their former reporters:
Quote:
Honest Reporting, a watchdog organization whose mission is to "expose anti-Israel media bias," conducted an investigation into photojournalists who captured grisly images of Hamas' surprise attack.
It alleged that at least two of the photographers apparently were able to breach the Israeli-Gaza border alongside the militant group.
The Associated Press and Reuters news agencies have worked with these journalists in the past. The implicated journalists have also reportedly freelanced for CNN and the New York Times.
You have to realize, they didn't cut ties with them for being embedded with Hamas, they cut ties because it looked bad, that they were along when Hamas butchered and kidnapped all those people. The fact they were there indicated they had a long standing, trusting, relationship with Hamas.
So let's go back to my analogy.
Invaders have taken over your home and brought all their relatives over. You have been oppressed in a corner of YOUR home for multiple years.
Is it fair game for you to attack any one of them in an attempt to regain sovereignty in your home?
Do you have the right to kill innocent relatives of the attacker?
What would you have Israel do differently? Hamas hides and fights among civilian populations, so there will, by definition, be civilian casualties when trying to take out such a barbaric group. They do not respect the rules of war, and instead build tunnels underneath hospitals and launch rockets from apartment buildings.
Many hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed by Allied forces during WWII. I think people will say that was a small price to pay for defeating the Nazi regime.
Still, Israel is taking care to limit civilian casualties; if Israel indiscriminately targeted Gaza, trust that the death toll would be many times the current number.
Like I stated they have the right to attack Hamas and stop the attacks, they do not have the right to kill innocent people.
Iraq would be more comparable did we bomb cities like Mosul and Falluja that had terrorists integrated with citizens?
If you can look at the strikes and destruction in Gaza and claim that these are targeted we are watching news sources.
I have to wonder about Israeli intelligence from beginning to end so when they say there is a command center in a hospital, I have to question that claim based on their massive failures.
Like I stated they have the right to attack Hamas and stop the attacks, they do not have the right to kill innocent people.
But that doesn't answer his question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
What would you have Israel do differently? Hamas hides and fights among civilian populations, so there will, by definition, be civilian casualties when trying to take out such a barbaric group. They do not respect the rules of war,
I am curious to hear some suggestions to an Oct 7th response.
We all have heard up and down how what they( Israel IDF) are doing is bad.
27 pages in, I think it would be fresh to hear what they 'should' have done in response.
I think being on the ground instead of arial strikes is one way to significantly cut down on the collateral damage. Of course , it is pretty common to 'soften' targets up first with arial strikes. And yes, it poses a much bigger risk to IDF fighting on Hamas' turf and tunnels.
Nuclear weapons have almost zero tactical value. Especially those early nukes. I mean, we could have leveled Chinese cities I guess, but not sure how killing Chinese civilians defeats the Japanese Army.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I was arguing for using nuclear weapons on mainland China back in WW II. What I was trying, apparently in vain, to get across was that if there was no compelling reason for JPN to surrender unconditionally, the presence of several hundred thousands of battle hardened veterans of the Kwantung Army conducting guerrilla warfare against occupation forces would have been unimaginably bloody. Whether the Allies knew that army was on the march home or not, is not the point, and the point is what somehow JPN must be convinced to surrender and do it quickly. The war in Europe was essentially ended. No one wanted the other hemisphere to continue fighting each other. The nuclear weapons did what was necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
That doesn't mean nukes weren't a factor in their decision. I'm sure it was(especially for Hirohito), but it wasn't the decisive factor.
Yes, they were. Clue for you...
The military do not build but destroy. Even the Roman Army knew that, and they built a lot of stuff all over Europe. What make a civilization are centers of PEACEFUL civilians where people build peaceful things like plowshares and wagons. The military do not raise children. Civilians need places conducive to raising children and caring for the elders. The nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved to Hirohito that the Japanese civilization could credibly be destroyed or relegated to historical footnote. For YOU to persistently argue that nuclear weapons have no tactical value showed shortsightedness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Why must you believe all your enemies are just crazy? I don't get it. Do you know who John Mearsheimer is?
PS: When I was analyzing Hamas strategy, I asked myself "What would I do if I was Hamas?" Have you ever thought about the world from someone else's shoes? Can you even imagine being a Palestinian? I can. I can imagine being a Israeli as well, and a Chinese, etc. I can't remember what's its called but there is some kind of philosophical discipline where you're supposed to try to make the opposite side's argument to the best of your ability. I would love to see you make the best possible argument from the perspective of a Palestinian/Arab.
Yes, I know who John Mearsheimer is.
As am a refugee from communism, an emigre to the US, and a veteran, I would say that I have worn more shoes than you have, and that probably my worldview have been more challenged and changed than yours have been.
Anyone who believes he is capable of putting himself into anyone else's shoes and would come to the same conclusion is 1/2 way delusional. Your lived experience, from birth to now, made your virtual feet either too large, too small, and/or too differently shaped to fit into anyone else's virtual shoes. If I was Hamas, would I advocate going after Israeli civilians? YOU do not believe anything Israel say anyway, so how would that question applied to me? From my military experience, I have no problems believing that Hamas would resort to rape and torture, even to children, as methods of war, so already my answer is tainted. I cannot, in all fairness, say that I would condone rape, torture, even to children, as methods of war against Israelis.
But YOU have a problem...
Since you do not believe anything Israel say about Hamas, you have to believe that whatever 'evidence' Israel presented must be frauds. But you cannot erase them, and increasingly, even biased Western journalists are moving towards the Israelis. This mean that eventually, you will in default condone anything Hamas do in their war against Israel, no matter how morally atrocious those tactics and methods will be, because it will be Israel who will be presenting those 'evidences'. And as far as Hamas is concerned, they won over one more gullible Westerner -- YOU.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
