mwguy @ mwguy @infosec.pub

Posts

72

Comments

892

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm arguing in good faith. You're ignoring the atrocities committed in recent memory. People in Egypt lost family to the Brotherhood's actions and they're unwilling to forget that.

It doesn't take much sanity to see that attacking your much larger and stronger neighbor and indiscriminately murdering their elderly and children and parading raped corpses through your streets would be a terrible idea. But we have idiots on both sides.

I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason.

If not a ceasefire, what do you think is the ideal first step for preventing as many casualties as possible?

In the long run or the short run? If I only care about the casualties in the next 1-3 months; of course I want a ceasefire. I'd be a fool not to. However; if I widen my view to 12 months, 24, 5 years Hamas is going to kill thousands of Gazans a year if left in power. It's going to kill them by starting more wars, by impoverishing them, by keeping them from accessing the aid that's being provisioned from them.

Like it's not like people are heartless. What's happening in Gaza is horrible and I wish it wouldn't. But it feels like taking out Hamas' ability to govern and rule is like taking off a bandaid. It's best done quickly.

You know that's something the Brotherhood should have considered when they decided to commit the atrocities.

So you think attaching hospitals is wrong then? Read the news from today. Not a bomb for this one, but an attack nonetheless.

Yes attaching your military infrastructure to hospitals is wrong, it's a war crime and it's what Hamas is currently doing. It's asking for it to be attacked.

Strange there are so many dead Palestinians each year from Israeli actions if they are not aggressive.

Are they from military actions or are they civil disputes. Every year Palestinians take pot shots at soldiers, fire a few rockets towards Israel,get lucky and kill some people. But that's generally not the converted effort of it's government.

Israel did not seek a peaceful solution.istael has never been at peace with it's neighbours.

This is an objectively false statement.

You're correct it's 750M not billion. Phone typo on my part.

How many people will die in the next conflict though? Or do we just expect Israel to regularly have thousands of citizens murdered and hundreds taken hostage as a regular course of business?

Nobody likes the human casualties. But at this point, the Taliban could take control in Gaza and do a better and more peaceful job.

Because that's what was negotiated.

How is it irrelevant? It directly caused Egypt's current policies.

So maybe Egypt should treat them like they’re all criminals?

You don't remember what happened do you? Can you name one atrocity that the brotherhood did in Egypt?

Did you even read the definition you linked to. " not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc "

Yes and have you been paying attention to this war? They e avoided hitting hospitals that Hamas is operating out of. Every strike is balanced against their generic goal. There are reports from on the ground of them delaying strikes to ensure that the maximum number of civilians can get evacuated. It's very clear they're not indiscriminately bombing. It's very clear they're being selective in where they bomb.

Your next point is that Israel by virtue of having firepower greater than Palestine is good by virtue of not already being on a bloody rampage. We don't reward a murderer for eating in the prison canteen without murdering the other inmates. Your argument is absurd.

I never claimed "good", you called Israel aggressive. But they're definitely not aggressive. To keep your metaphor going, if the 4' guy keeps trying to rape the 7' guy in the shower and keeps getting knocked in the teeth, the 7' guy isn't "aggressive" for that. Of one day the 4' guy brings a bat and then gets beat up severely that's still on the 4' guy.

I said war conventions, you changed the goalposts and said rules of war. That's a sneaky way to try and undermine my point, which is valid.

Not being sneaky. The conventions on war define the rules of war. They're one and the same. Nothinf sneaky there, just a lack of knowledge on your part.

What justification could you possibly have for the annexation of the folan heights and other areas in the west bank that shows Israel seeking a peaceful solution, which the majority of the international community sees as a two state solution. Israel is purposely undermining that effort in contravention of international law for decades.

They've not annexed the Golan Heights that's still disputed between them and the Rump state of Syria, similarly to the territory that's in the middle of the Hezbollah/Lebanon stuff.

Israel pulled out of Gaza seeking a peaceful solution. Gazans and Palestinians mistook their desire for peace as a sign of weakness and have been attacking ever since.

And last I checked Palestinians rejected a two state solution deal that had 99% of the '67 borders, no settlers and land swaps to give Palestinians more land than they had in 1967.

Their last ceasefire was in 2018 IIRC.

Could it have something to do with Israel funding and propping them up?

Maybe, but Israel providing funds to the West Bank and Gaza is something that has been demanded by the international community for decades.

Israel needs to pull out of the West Bank and allow Gaza control of their own utilities and trade.

Gaza has control of it's utilities and trade. Israel only has control in the reality that they provide heavily discounted utilities to the strip as a form of aid. Gaza has received and continues to receive billions of dollars so that it can control it's own utilities and trade but; it chooses to spend that money on war fighting instead of self control and self reliance.

So if pulling out of Gaza in 2004 didn't lead to peace and self reliance by the strip and instead has led to a decay in Gaza's economic well being; why would they subject the much larger West Bank to the same problem?

Egypt doesn't want to admit people from a group that successfully terrorized their whole nation for an extended period of time. They have no interest in convicting them.

Do you remember the shit the Brotherhood did in Egypt?

Well you'd know because you have the intelligence that shows that Hamas has been stealing fuel reserves at large. And you'd confirm it by sending a few Jerry cans worth of fuel to the hospital to see if they'd be allowed on or if they'd be stolen. You're acting like they didn't attempt to help at all.

These sorts of actions are designed to be trust building exercises. They prove viability of the general concept.

Is there a reason why? Like I've seen i24 post heavily editorialized headlines, same with a few other outlets. But jpost seems to me to put out headlines and content on par with say the Washington Post on terms of it's reliability.

Like is there an article, or event that cause so many people to out of hand dismiss jpost? Jpost gets dismissed more fully than literal spam sites.

I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing

That seems to be more because you don't know what the word "indiscriminate" means rather than that adjective being an accurate description of Israeli's bombing campaign.

Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions.

Actually only the second is required. And the second is happening. "Proportional response" is something that can be required by private party treaty as a peacetime control, but it's not part of the rules of war.

Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.

Actually it shows the opposite. Israel could have done what it's doing at any point since the last major conflict and ceasefire in 2018. Their lack of aggression and desire for peace kept them from doing so and they only did so once provoked by a frankly disgusting series of acts that forced them to reconsider the viability of peace with Hamas.

That's the opposite of aggression.

However, Israel's policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.

To believe this you must believe the IDF is one of the most incompetent military forces on the face of the planet.

Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win.

While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip.