Israel vs Hamas Conflict 2023

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lee Sasi, an American woman from California, was attending the music festival several miles from the Gaza border when the Palestinian militant group Hamas began attacking concertgoers, killing hundreds.

In an interview with NewsNation's "Cuomo," Sasi said she hid with her uncle, who died protecting her from a grenade, and a friend, who was shot defending the bomb shelter they were in. Her pregnant cousin is missing and thought to have been kidnapped.

Sasi said the Hamas militants were laughing as they shot concertgoers.

"They were so excited in their voice and it was like joy to them," Sasi told host Chris Cuomo. "Like they were waiting to kill us."

For hours, she hid under a pile of dead bodies until she was rescued. Sasi said she feels deaf in one of her ears after from the noise of gunshots and rockets.

Sasi said she decided to hide underneath dead bodies in the shelter to protect herself from the oncoming grenades.

"Everybody was dying in front of me," she said. "I was sitting on them and then they started throwing grenades. I had to bury myself under the bodies to protect myself."

She said she hopes people update the SOS tracking on their cellphones, which ultimately helped her be rescued hours later.

Sasi said she hopes her story will make a difference.


 
"...So, while U.S. officials may want to put conflict in the Middle East behind them, as laid out in last year's national security strategy, analysts say the realities there render such an aspiration easier said than done..."

 
Guys, as much as its easy to say "kill all terrorists," the only way to defeat a terrorist organisation is to undermine its credibility and legitimacy. In other words, the root cause of terrorism needs to be defeated. Why do people join ranks with terrorists? Why do they choose to fight against a government? What conditions does that person live under that pushes them towards extremism? Usually, it's a lack of education, lack of employment, injustice dished out by a corrupt government or the big reason people choose to fight - oppression. In other words, a government needs to provide conditions to its people that are more appealing than what a terrorist organisation can provide. The more you indiscriminately bomb and kill a population, the more people you are going to funnel into the ranks of terrorism. Terrorists can be defeated on the battlefield, but as long as the political and environmental conditions remain the same, so will terrorists exist.
Sounds touchy-feely I know, but unfortunately, the root causes of terrorism are extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to overcome. Executions and killing civilians in the crossfire only advance the cause of the terrorists - it's what keeps them motivated to continue the fight.

Now, hang on a minute, let's not get into demonstrating nuance as a political tool, no one will buy it... :lol:
 
Guys, as much as its easy to say "kill all terrorists," the only way to defeat a terrorist organisation is to undermine its credibility and legitimacy. In other words, the root cause of terrorism needs to be defeated. Why do people join ranks with terrorists? Why do they choose to fight against a government? What conditions does that person live under that pushes them towards extremism? Usually, it's a lack of education, lack of employment, injustice dished out by a corrupt government or the big reason people choose to fight - oppression. In other words, a government needs to provide conditions to its people that are more appealing than what a terrorist organisation can provide. The more you indiscriminately bomb and kill a population, the more people you are going to funnel into the ranks of terrorism. Terrorists can be defeated on the battlefield, but as long as the political and environmental conditions remain the same, so will terrorists exist.
Sounds touchy-feely I know, but unfortunately, the root causes of terrorism are extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to overcome. Executions and killing civilians in the crossfire only advance the cause of the terrorists - it's what keeps them motivated to continue the fight.
If that is true, how do you explain the privileged students at Harvard demonstrating their support for Hamas? Or even the Democrat representatives Corey Booker, Rashida Tlaib, & Ilhan Omar? Those are hardly poor oppressed, uneducated individuals. The same can be said for the nitwits demonstrating their support for Hamas in NYS, Chicago, & LA. Recently the BLM movement has revealed itself by posts supporting Hamas. It is a struggle between good & evil, right & wrong. Choose wisely... we will all be judged in the end.
 
If that is true, how do you explain the privileged students at Harvard demonstrating their support for Hamas? Or even the Democrat representatives Corey Booker, Rashida Tlaib, & Ilhan Omar? Those are hardly poor oppressed, uneducated individuals. The same can be said for the nitwits demonstrating their support for Hamas in NYS, Chicago, & LA. Recently the BLM movement has revealed itself by posts supporting Hamas. It is a struggle between good & evil, right & wrong. Choose wisely... we will all be judged in the end.

We are still waiting on examples from you how summary executions actually deter others from becoming terrorists.

Good thing we are not holding our breath. We know none are coming.
 
The problem with a hardline when dealing with extremists of any kind is that we do ignore their plight and their reasons for why they join these organisations in the first place. Wildcat is right. Anyone who has studied Human Factors at university or within a safety-oriented workplace will know that discovering the root cause of an incident or accident requires forethought and prescience. The same approach is required in this sort of situation. Years ago when George Bush's government invaded Iraq, the net result was that organisations like ISIL had a swell in membership. Analysts were asking why. "Do the math". is the answer.

Here's an example. Nowhere, in the history of mankind has "cracking down on crime" ever helped a government or politicians deal with civil unrest. In New Zealand at the moment there is a spate of ram raids against corner stores and liquor stores using motor vehicles to breach security doors. Political parties across the spectrum are advocating for greater police presence on the streets and being tougher on offenders. The question is, what is the net result from these actions? These ramraids are happening in poorer suburbs, so what do you reckon an increase in police officers on the streets will do? The minorities who live in these areas will immediately accuse the police of racism and harrassment, because, y'know, police can't help themselves when it comes to exercising "the strong arm of the law". The next issue is that you have to catch the criminals for these tougher sentences to impact them. I read a statistic that states that less than 30 percent of these ram raid offenders are being caught. What use is a tougher sentence going to have on those not being caught, because the ram raids keep happening?

The only way politicians can effectively deal with this issue is to use human factors analysis. One politically unpalatable solution advocated by hardliners is to turn the place into a hardline police state, with more police on the streets, CCTV cameras everywhere, spending millions on defensive measures like barbed wire and bollards on the foot paths and so forth. So, how well do you think such measures would go down? Political suicide springs to mind, the general public would never sanction that stuff. Riots on the streets, violence against police and millions of dollars of destruction will result. Scratch that idea, then.

The only answer is to investigate the root cause of the ram raids. At present the cost of living in New Zealand is skyrocketing and poorer families are struggling to make ends meet. These ram raiders are not members of organised crime rings. They are largely teenagers or young men and women, the disenfranchised who live in poor neighbourhoods and are tired of living off bread and water while there is societal inequality. The politicians are barking up the wrong tree. The root cause is not a criminal issue, it is a social issue.

How does this relate to terrorists? Because the same human factors apply. Investigate why they do what they do, the circumstances behind why they join these organisations and commit these acts of violence and so forth. Nuance is the key. Any other option is exacerbating the issue, not bringing about change.
 
Last edited:
The problem with a hardline when dealing with extremists of any kind is that we do ignore their plight and their reasons for why they join these organisations in the first place. Wildcat is right. Anyone who has studied Human Factors at university or within a safety-oriented workplace will know that discovering the root cause of an incident or accident requires forethought and prescience. The same approach is required in this sort of situation. Years ago when George Bush's government invaded Iraq, the net result was that organisations like ISIL had a swell in membership. Analysts were asking why. "Do the math". is the answer.

Here's an example. Nowhere, in the history of mankind has "cracking down on crime" ever helped a government or politicians deal with civil unrest. In New Zealand at the moment there is a spate of ram raids against corner stores and liquor stores using motor vehicles to breach security doors. Political parties across the spectrum are advocating for greater police presence on the streets and being tougher on offenders. The question is, what is the net result from these actions? These ramraids are happening in poorer suburbs, so what do you reckon an increase in police officers on the streets will do? The minorities who live in these areas will immediately accuse the police of racism and harrassment, because, y'know, police can't help themselves when it comes to exercising "the strong arm of the law". The next issue is that you have to catch the criminals for these tougher sentences to impact them. I read a statistic that states that less than 30 percent of these ram raid offenders are being caught. What use is a tougher sentence going to have on those not being caught, because the ram raids keep happening?

The only way politicians can effectively deal with this issue is to use human factors analysis. One politically unpalatable solution advocated by hardliners is to turn the place into a hardline police state, with more police on the streets, CCTV cameras everywhere, spending millions on defensive measures like barbed wire and bollards on the foot paths and so forth. So, how well do you think such measures would go down? Political suicide springs to mind, the general public would never sanction that stuff. Riots on the streets, violence against police and millions of dollars of destruction will result. Scratch that idea, then.

The only answer is to investigate the root cause of the ram raids. At present the cost of living in New Zealand is skyrocketing and poorer families are struggling to make ends meet. These ram raiders are not members of organised crime rings. They are largely teenagers or young men and women, the disenfranchised who live in poor neighbourhoods and are tired of living off bread and water while there is societal inequality. The politicians are barking up the wrong tree. The root cause is not a criminal issue, it is a social issue.

How does this relate to terrorists? Because the same human factors apply. Investigate why they do what they do, the circumstances behind why they join these organisations and commit these acts of violence and so forth. Nuance is the key. Any other option is exacerbating the issue, not bringing about change.
That attitude virtually guarantees the continuance, if not the increase in crime. Too bad, NZ used to be a very nice place.
 
That attitude virtually guarantees the continuance, if not the increase in crime. Too bad, NZ used to be a very nice place.

Which attitude specifically? The politicians' solution of increased police presence and tougher sentencing has most certainly resulted in what you said. It hasn't worked yet as ram raids continue. Why would investigating inequality at a societal level and working to ease that inequality result in more crime? Do you have evidence to prove that would be the case?
 
Last edited:

Religion poisons everything, and that is evident in this matter too.

Nope...the misuse of religion is the poison. Pretty much all religions preach service for others, care for the needy etc. Unfortunately, there are many who corrupt such messages by amplifying selected verses that talk of vengeance, punishment, "death to non-believers." etc. These. people quote this type of thing out of context or with a peculiar or singular interpretation of the scripture's meaning. It's those kinds of "leaders" who, sadly, hold a lot of sway in certain societies, and who perpetuate this nonsense. Any preacher of any denomination who starts cherry-picking verses from texts to justify selfish human desires (i.e. perpetuating an "us-versus-them" mindset) is putting himself/herself above their god and above the tenets of the religion. Unfortunately, it's an attractive message because we humans are social creatures. We like identifying groups to which we can belong, whether they be supporters of sports teams, political parties, nationalities, or skin colours.
 
It is a struggle between good & evil, right & wrong. Choose wisely... we will all be judged in the end.

If only life was divided into such neat, binary options. Sadly, it isn't. Israel has literally stolen the land of Arabs, set up occupying settlements, and starved the people of Gaza. I'm no more convinced that all Israelis are the good guys than I am that all Palestinians are the bad guys. And before you say it, I abhor the recent attacks on Israel. They are no more justified than the actions of Israel trying to eradicate Israeli Arabs.

Sergeant Buster Kilrain had it absolutely right "Any man who judges by the group is a pee-wit. You take men one at a time."
 
Guys, as much as its easy to say "kill all terrorists," the only way to defeat a terrorist organisation is to undermine its credibility and legitimacy. In other words, the root cause of terrorism needs to be defeated. Why do people join ranks with terrorists? Why do they choose to fight against a government? What conditions does that person live under that pushes them towards extremism? Usually, it's a lack of education, lack of employment, injustice dished out by a corrupt government or the big reason people choose to fight - oppression. In other words, a government needs to provide conditions to its people that are more appealing than what a terrorist organisation can provide. The more you indiscriminately bomb and kill a population, the more people you are going to funnel into the ranks of terrorism. Terrorists can be defeated on the battlefield, but as long as the political and environmental conditions remain the same, so will terrorists exist.
Sounds touchy-feely I know, but unfortunately, the root causes of terrorism are extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to overcome. Executions and killing civilians in the crossfire only advance the cause of the terrorists - it's what keeps them motivated to continue the fight.

Yes and Israel has much to answer for. Not that long ago Israeli's did raids into one of the neighbouring countries (Lebanon?) and destroyed a lot of facilities built by Hezbollah, one of the known Arab terrorist groups. The trouble with those raids was that Hezbollah provide all the schools and hospitals for the poor in those areas and they were destroying those facilities as well.

Just like the Americans bombing the shit out of villages in Vietnam all that was achieved was to cause the locals in both locations (who only wanted to left alone and live their lives in peace) to throw their support behind those who were their own race and supporting them, not the morons who were destroying their infrastructure and injury in the name of peace.

As the old saying goes Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Hamas have just proved they are bigger idiots than the Israelis by deliberately murdering civilians and then lying about it when there is no shortage of genuine video proving otherwise.
 
Guys, as much as its easy to say "kill all terrorists," the only way to defeat a terrorist organisation is to undermine its credibility and legitimacy. In other words, the root cause of terrorism needs to be defeated. Why do people join ranks with terrorists? Why do they choose to fight against a government? What conditions does that person live under that pushes them towards extremism? Usually, it's a lack of education, lack of employment, injustice dished out by a corrupt government or the big reason people choose to fight - oppression. In other words, a government needs to provide conditions to its people that are more appealing than what a terrorist organisation can provide. The more you indiscriminately bomb and kill a population, the more people you are going to funnel into the ranks of terrorism. Terrorists can be defeated on the battlefield, but as long as the political and environmental conditions remain the same, so will terrorists exist.
Sounds touchy-feely I know, but unfortunately, the root causes of terrorism are extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to overcome. Executions and killing civilians in the crossfire only advance the cause of the terrorists - it's what keeps them motivated to continue the fight.

I'd recommend Forum members read the book "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife" which contrasts the different approaches taken to counter the Communist insurgency in Malaya by the British and in Vietnam by the US military. In Malaya, entire villages were uprooted and moved into protective compounds. That sounds totalitarian but the villagers were provided running water (a first for many of them), organized schools, and paying jobs. They were also protected from attack by Communist insurgents. The effort essentially starved the Communists because it removed their sources of food and accommodation, while building trust and support for the British cause with the local populace. It was far from perfect but it worked a hell of a lot better than serially bombing Vietnamese villages.

The only way to stop the self-perpetuating cycle of hatred is to offer an alternate path. Keep pushing Arabs into ghettos, starving them, and destroying their mosques, schools and hospitals will simply continue the cycle. Offer a different path, with opportunities for employment, fair and equitable treatment for peaceful members of society, and collaboration on social construction projects might...just MIGHT...make a difference.
 
Adding to what I said in two earlier posts. The reason I generally support Israel over the Palestinians and related groups comes down to basic operating methods.

The Palestinians and related groups believe that walking into group of innocent people and exploding a bomb is totally acceptable. No other group is that stupid or believes that is acceptable.

The Palestinians and related groups believe that walking into group of innocent people and letting loose with gunfire is totally acceptable. No one else, apart from the Americans (for a different reason), believes that is acceptable.

Look at all the theatres and sports events bombed and shot up in Europe and other mass murders of innocent people such as the twin towers and you will not find one common denominator.

You will find no such atrocity done by the Israelis or by Christians (except for Christians in America).
 
Last edited:
Which attitude specifically? The politicians' solution of increased police presence and tougher sentencing has most certainly resulted in what you said. It hasn't worked yet as ram raids continue. Why would investigating inequality at a societal level and working to ease that inequality result in more crime? Do you have evidence to prove that would be the case?
Yes, NYC under Mayor Giuliani for instance. Look at the hellhole (not in Nelson :) ) that San Francisco has become under the laissez-faire "justice" system it has now.
 
Adding to what I said in two earlier posts. The reason I generally support Israel over the Palestinians and related groups comes down to basic operating methods.

The Palestinians and related groups believe that walking into group of innocent people and exploding a bomb is totally acceptable. No other group is that stupid or believes that is acceptable.

The Palestinians and related groups believe that walking into group of innocent people and letting loose with gunfire is totally acceptable. No one else, apart from the Americans (for a different reason), believes that is acceptable.

Look at all the theatres and sports events bombed and shot up in Europe and other mass murders of innocent people such as the twin towers and you will not find one common denominator.

You will find no such atrocity done by the Israelis or by Christians (except for Christians in America).
That is another very offensive statement- where are you located?
 
Nope...the misuse of religion is the poison. Pretty much all religions preach service for others, care for the needy etc. Unfortunately, there are many who corrupt such messages by amplifying selected verses that talk of vengeance, punishment, "death to non-believers." etc. These. people quote this type of thing out of context or with a peculiar or singular interpretation of the scripture's meaning. It's those kinds of "leaders" who, sadly, hold a lot of sway in certain societies, and who perpetuate this nonsense. Any preacher of any denomination who starts cherry-picking verses from texts to justify selfish human desires (i.e. perpetuating an "us-versus-them" mindset) is putting himself/herself above their god and above the tenets of the religion. Unfortunately, it's an attractive message because we humans are social creatures. We like identifying groups to which we can belong, whether they be supporters of sports teams, political parties, nationalities, or skin colours.

A fig leaf is a fig leaf is a fig leaf. If one's ideology can be used to repress or exterminate others who don't agree, is that an issue of the believer, or of the belief? Westerners think of Buddhism as a peaceful religion, but maybe ask the Rohinga. Is it the practitioner or the belief, or perhaps both?

And just to say, all preachers cherry-pick. Every single one.

This thread is not about religion, and I understand that going deep on this will kill this thread, but ignoring the influence of religion in this war is shortsighted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back