Turkey and Israel, war of words

[Gideon300]

"In several clashes between Kurdish rebels and Turkish forces 73 Kurdish rebels, 22 members of Turkish security forces and 19 civilians were reported killed. Fifty-three Kurds were reported arrested or captured. These clashes included attacks into northern Iraq by Turkish air and ground forces."

"Turkish aircraft and drones are striking mainly Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria with increasing frequency, Reuters data analysis shows."

"11 Oct 2023 — Syria's Kurds say Turkish forces are committing war crimes as Erdogan escalates against the US-Allied Syrian Democratic Forces."

Funny how it's OK for Turkey to defend itself while it's not OK for Israel.

 

[Smoke]

"In several clashes between Kurdish rebels and Turkish forces 73 Kurdish rebels, 22 members of Turkish security forces and 19 civilians were reported killed. Fifty-three Kurds were reported arrested or captured. These clashes included attacks into northern Iraq by Turkish air and ground forces."

"Turkish aircraft and drones are striking mainly Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria with increasing frequency, Reuters data analysis shows."

"11 Oct 2023 — Syria's Kurds say Turkish forces are committing war crimes as Erdogan escalates against the US-Allied Syrian Democratic Forces."

Funny how it's OK for Turkey to defend itself while it's not OK for Israel.

I could be wrong, but I believe 100% of the people here agree Israel has the right to defend itself. Where there is disagreement is if obliterating more Palestinian children than Hamas terrorists is considered "self-defense" and/or if it's a good strategy.

The West Bank and East Jerusalem have been occupied and settled by Israelis prior to Oct 7th, so many of us are confused how killing them and arming the settlers with guns is considered "self-defense" as well. How does an occupier in West Bank and East Jerusalem claim "self-defense"?

With this logic, one can claim Russia is entitled to self-defense against Ukraine.

 

[ZNP]

Questioning whether Israel's strategy of fighting a war is "good" is a relative term. We need another plausible strategy to compare this with. I don't believe anyone who is questioning Israel's strategy has done that, however this would be the perfect place to lay out a "better" strategy than Israel's. If there is no "better" strategy then it is empty rhetoric to say their strategy is not good.

For Americans not familiar with the situation, Gaza city is about 45 miles from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. That would be similar to the distance between Baltimore and Washington DC. So then you can imagine a densely populated city 45 miles from Washington DC that is a staging ground for mortars, missiles and terrorist attacks on Washington DC and Philadelphia.

What is your strategy to put a stop to it.

 

[Magenta]

I could be wrong, but I believe 100% of the people here agree Israel has the right to defend itself.

I have not seen that.

 

[Smoke]

I have not seen that.

I am curious who, because I would love to explain that every state has the right to defend themselves. I won't justify HOW Israel is "self-defending" itself, but that they do have a right to defend itself. It's just tricky on where the line between "self-defense" is and engaging in terroristic behavior. That is where we should focus our attention on.

My apologies for not always focusing on that point and instead getting derailed on other petty things. I believe we could all discuss and make our case on where the line is without making things personal.

 

[ZNP]

I am curious who, because I would love to explain that every state has the right to defend themselves. I won't justify HOW Israel is "self-defending" itself, but that they do have a right to defend itself.

What is your strategy to put a stop to it.

 

[Smoke]

Questioning whether Israel's strategy of fighting a war is "good" is a relative term. We need another plausible strategy to compare this with. I don't believe anyone who is questioning Israel's strategy has done that, however this would be the perfect place to lay out a "better" strategy than Israel's. If there is no "better" strategy then it is empty rhetoric to say their strategy is not good.

For Americans not familiar with the situation, Gaza city is about 45 miles from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. That would be similar to the distance between Baltimore and Washington DC. So then you can imagine a densely populated city 45 miles from Washington DC that is a staging ground for mortars, missiles and terrorist attacks on Washington DC and Philadelphia.

What is your strategy to put a stop to it.

If people want to lay a strategy they think is better, by all means. I don't mind indulging in a military war game.

I think a more appropriate and useful discussion would be on what NOT to do and what is NOT working. Before coming up with a new strategy, we should first come to a consensus that the status quo is or isn't working. If a consensus is not possible, then agree to disagree and then have fun coming up with a different strategy.

Status quo: Israel is bombing and killing exponentially more civilians (most of which are children) than actual Hamas terrorists to make way for a ground force attack. Is continuing to bomb and kill more civilians a viable option?

Person 1: Yes, bombing and killing more civilians than Hamas terrorists is great strategy. It protects the lives of Israelis and will make it easier to eradicate Hamas.

Person 2: I'm for eradicating Hamas, but I don't think this plan is viable if it means more children are getting blown up than Hamas terrorists. Surely we can agree that the children are victims and need to be protected, yeah?

Person 1: Yes, children are precious and should be protected. However, I don't think there is a strategy that will allow us to spare their lives. That's why Israel keeps bombing Hamas knowing they are going to continue to kill more civilians.

Person 2: Is there a point in which too many civilians are dying that we have to question if this really the only course of action?

Person 1: No, while we don't want civilians to die, if all of the civilians need to die so we get rid of Hamas then that is what we must do.

Etc... At that point, there really isn't anything else to discuss because one side will not agree killing more civilians is a good plan while the other side thinks it's the only plan. After agreeing to disagree, then it makes sense to discuss other alternatives to blowing up more civilians than terrorists. The problem is, I doubt many here are knowledgeable to make a realistic plan. Not knowing what a better plan would look like is not the same as a better plan not existing though.

 

[Smoke]

Person 1: Israel does not want to kill civilians.

Person 2: But aren't they doing exactly that knowing Hamas is purposefully integrated with the civilians?

Person 1: Yes, Israel knows they will be blowing up more children but they are targeting Hamas.

Person 2: So Israel KNOWS they will be blowing up more children... but they aren't targeting them?

Person 1: Now you get it!

 

[Billyd]

The only way to prevent collateral damage to innocent people is to line up combatants in a face to face formation and let them go at it until one side surrenders or runs out of combatants.

Modern warfare should be face to face unmanned hardware battling it out until one side is out of hardware. When the war is over the losing side's people meet the rest of the people at the local pub and buy the drinks.

 

[ZNP]

If people want to lay a strategy they think is better, by all means. I don't mind indulging in a military war game.

I think a more appropriate and useful discussion would be on what NOT to do and what is NOT working. Before coming up with a new strategy, we should first come to a consensus that the status quo is or isn't working. If a consensus is not possible, then agree to disagree and then have fun coming up with a different strategy.

Status quo: Israel is bombing and killing exponentially more civilians (most of which are children) than actual Hamas terrorists to make way for a ground force attack. Is continuing to bomb and kill more civilians a viable option?

Person 1: Yes, bombing and killing more civilians than Hamas terrorists is great strategy. It protects the lives of Israelis and will make it easier to eradicate Hamas.

Person 2: I'm for eradicating Hamas, but I don't think this plan is viable if it means more children are getting blown up than Hamas terrorists. Surely we can agree that the children are victims and need to be protected, yeah?

Person 1: Yes, children are precious and should be protected. However, I don't think there is a strategy that will allow us to spare their lives. That's why Israel keeps bombing Hamas knowing they are going to continue to kill more civilians.

Person 2: Is there a point in which too many civilians are dying that we have to question if this really the only course of action?

Person 1: No, while we don't want civilians to die, if all of the civilians need to die so we get rid of Hamas then that is what we must do.

Etc... At that point, there really isn't anything else to discuss because one side will not agree killing more civilians is a good plan while the other side thinks it's the only plan. After agreeing to disagree, then it makes sense to discuss other alternatives to blowing up more civilians than terrorists. The problem is, I doubt many here are knowledgeable to make a realistic plan. Not knowing what a better plan would look like is not the same as a better plan not existing though.

OK, what not to do --

1. Do not ignore terrorist attacks.

2. Do not allow terrorist organizations to grow and metastasize 45 miles from your capital.

3. Do not put your army into a killing field with tall buildings, narrow streets, and tunnels.

4. Do not act cavalierly, rather encourage non combatants to leave the area, drop leaflets from the air warning of imminent attacks and then give them a few days to flee.

 

[Cameron143]

OK, what not to do --

1. Do not ignore terrorist attacks.

2. Do not allow terrorist organizations to grow and metastasize 45 miles from your capital.

3. Do not put your army into a killing field with tall buildings, narrow streets, and tunnels.

4. Do not act cavalierly, rather encourage non combatants to leave the area, drop leaflets from the air warning of imminent attacks and then give them a few days to flee.

Simply can't understand the difference between a target and nontarget. The target is what you are wanting to hit.

 

[HeIsHere]

I could be wrong, but I believe 100% of the people here agree Israel has the right to defend itself.

Agree, most people object to the how not the why.

 

[maxwel]

If people want to lay a strategy they think is better, by all means. I don't mind indulging in a military war game.

I think a more appropriate and useful discussion would be on what NOT to do and what is NOT working. Before coming up with a new strategy, we should first come to a consensus that the status quo is or isn't working. If a consensus is not possible, then agree to disagree and then have fun coming up with a different strategy.

Status quo: Israel is bombing and killing exponentially more civilians (most of which are children) than actual Hamas terrorists to make way for a ground force attack. Is continuing to bomb and kill more civilians a viable option?

Person 1: Yes, bombing and killing more civilians than Hamas terrorists is great strategy. It protects the lives of Israelis and will make it easier to eradicate Hamas.

Person 2: I'm for eradicating Hamas, but I don't think this plan is viable if it means more children are getting blown up than Hamas terrorists. Surely we can agree that the children are victims and need to be protected, yeah?

Person 1: Yes, children are precious and should be protected. However, I don't think there is a strategy that will allow us to spare their lives. That's why Israel keeps bombing Hamas knowing they are going to continue to kill more civilians.

Person 2: Is there a point in which too many civilians are dying that we have to question if this really the only course of action?

Person 1: No, while we don't want civilians to die, if all of the civilians need to die so we get rid of Hamas then that is what we must do.

Etc... At that point, there really isn't anything else to discuss because one side will not agree killing more civilians is a good plan while the other side thinks it's the only plan. After agreeing to disagree, then it makes sense to discuss other alternatives to blowing up more civilians than terrorists. The problem is, I doubt many here are knowledgeable to make a realistic plan. Not knowing what a better plan would look like is not the same as a better plan not existing though.

Let me present another dilemma, a thought experiment.

Person A: places munitions inside an elementary school, and every day fires rockets at Person B from the the school playground.
Person B: has rockets fired at his children every day, some of them are killed, and rockets keep coming.
Person A: when asked to stop, says "I hope you all die, and I'm going to keep firing rockets till you're all dead."
Person B: Doesn't want to fire on the school, and kill the school children... but if he does not... his own children will keep dying.
Person C: Suggests everyone agree to a ceasefire, and Person B says, "We were already in a ceasefire when Person A attacked... we already tried that many times, and they always break the cease fires and attack our children anyway... it seems like the only solution to protect our own children is to attack person A, who, by the way, is already committing OFFICIAL WAR CRIMES BY PUTTING ROCKETS IN A SCHOOL... not to mention that whole hostage thing which is also an official U.N. war crime."
Person C: Becomes very adamant, and tells Person B, "The right thing to do is protect THEIR children by having a cease fire, so they can break the cease fire next week and kill YOUR children again, like they always do... because your children don't matter."


Sorry, but there really is a lot to think about here.


.

.

 

[ByTheGraceOfGod]

GAZA DEATH PIT VIDEO ANALYZED. ISRAEL WAR HOAX
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HTAYvJBIb9eK/

 

[PennEd]

Let me present another dilemma, a thought experiment.

Person A: places munitions inside an elementary school, and every day fires rockets at Person B from the the school playground.
Person B: has rockets fired at his children every day, some of them are killed, and rockets keep coming.
Person A: when asked to stop, says "I hope you all die, and I'm going to keep firing rockets till you're all dead."
Person B: Doesn't want to fire on the school, and kill the school children... but if he does not... his own children will keep dying.
Person C: Suggests everyone agree to a ceasefire, and Person B says, "We were already in a ceasefire when Person A attacked... we already tried that many times, and they always break the cease fires and attack our children anyway... it seems like the only solution to protect our own children is to attack person A, who, by the way, is already committing OFFICIAL WAR CRIMES BY PUTTING ROCKETS IN A SCHOOL... not to mention that whole hostage thing which is also an official U.N. war crime."
Person C: Becomes very adamant, and tells Person B, "The right thing to do is protect THEIR children by having a cease fire, so they can break the cease fire next week and kill YOUR children again, like they always do... because your children don't matter."


Sorry, but there really is a lot to think about here.


.

.

Perfect, irrefutable post.

I really believe the amils pushing “we need a ceasefire” have a problem with these Jews occupying the Land given to them by God.

Let alone the holocaust being the final impetus demonstrating the incredible need for Jews to have a homeland that they can go to and defend.

The amount of cognitive dissonance employed by the amils to NOT see that even “moderate” Muslims want to kill and drive into the sea EVERY Jew is staggering.

 

[NightTwister]

Let's take a recent example. Hamas built a series of tunnels underneath a refugee camp next to legitimate military targets. In those tunnels they stored munitions. Israel targeted the legitimate military targets nearby with precision munitions that still set off the munitions stored under the refuge camp. The story them becomes "Israel targets refugee camp", which isn't true, but most of the media runs with that story anyway. This is the problem with almost all of these discussions. The truth never really comes out.

 

[maxwel]

Let's take a recent example. Hamas built a series of tunnels underneath a refugee camp next to legitimate military targets. In those tunnels they stored munitions. Israel targeted the legitimate military targets nearby with precision munitions that still set off the munitions stored under the refuge camp. The story them becomes "Israel targets refugee camp", which isn't true, but most of the media runs with that story anyway. This is the problem with almost all of these discussions. The truth never really comes out.

To make things even worse, it looks like once you place munitions or combatants into a civilian facility, that civilian facility is changed into a legitimate military target. So even if Israel DID intentionally strike a civilian facility that contained munitions, that would no longer constitute a civilian target once it contained the munitions.
In fact, PLACING MUNITIONS IN A CIVILIAN FACILITY IS THE WAR CRIME... the U.N. lists that as an actual war crime.

So it may be unwise or unpalatable to strike a civilian facility that contains munitions, but as far as I understand, it would be a legitimate military target, and civilian casualties stemming from the attack of a military target does NOT constitute a war crime.



None of this is good.
This whole subject is pretty dark.
It's an awful thing to have to discuss... but this is the world we're in.

.

 

[NightTwister]

To make things even worse, it looks like once you place munitions or combatants into a civilian facility, that civilian facility is changed into a legitimate military target. So even if Israel DID intentionally strike a civilian facility that contained munitions, that would no longer constitute a civilian target once it contained the munitions.
In fact, PLACING MUNITIONS IN A CIVILIAN FACILITY IS THE WAR CRIME... the U.N. lists that as an actual war crime.

So it may be unwise or unpalatable to strike a civilian facility that contains munitions, but as far as I understand, it would be a legitimate military target, and civilian casualties stemming from the attack of a military target does NOT constitute a war crime.



None of this is good.
This whole subject is pretty dark.
It's an awful thing to have to discuss... but this is the world we're in.

.

They're dealing with a people who live and think like it's still the 7th Century. It's really not a surprise to me.

 

[NightTwister]

Perfect, irrefutable post.

I really believe the amils pushing “we need a ceasefire” have a problem with these Jews occupying the Land given to them by God.

Let alone the holocaust being the final impetus demonstrating the incredible need for Jews to have a homeland that they can go to and defend.

The amount of cognitive dissonance employed by the amils to NOT see that even “moderate” Muslims want to kill and drive into the sea EVERY Jew is staggering.

That's a very broad brush you're painting with.

 

[NightTwister]

And if no one else has made it clear, yes, Hamas hate their children. Their actions make that clear. Believe it, agree with it, or don't.