[News] Middle East conflict

[The Fifth Column]

Tell you what is targetted, this thread. A rather cynical ploy by the OP who fully aware it would instantly become a binfest that would likely end up shut down, takes the extra traffic and ads delivered.

 

[Eric the meek]

Tell you what is targetted, this thread. A rather cynical ploy by the OP who fully aware it would instantly become a binfest that would likely end up shut down, takes the extra traffic and ads delivered.

You really have to wonder what goes on in some people's heads.

 

[Bozza]

Tell you what is targetted, this thread, nothing to do with football and stuck right in the 'big board' for maximum effect. A rather cynical ploy by the OP who fully aware it would instantly become a binfest that would likely end up shut down, takes the extra traffic and ads delivered.

Blimey.

1. There are more non-football threads on NSC than football threads. Always have been, and probably always will be.

2. There's nowhere else to put it. Every time NSCers have been asked whether they want different sub-forums for different topic types, the vote is an overwhelming "no - leave it as it is".

3. Despite the above, I know some people only want Albion discussion, which is why I created the Albion-threads-only sub-forum: http://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/search-forums/just-albion-threads.90/

4. I started the thread because it was the leading news story on the BBC site yesterday afternoon when I was looking and I was surprised there wasn't already a thread about it, and the whole premise seemed so far-fetched that if I saw it in a film I'd say "that's ridiculous - that could never happen".

5. Most threads on NSC earn pennies, literally, from their ads. I'm not going to be booking an escape to The Maldives based on a truckload of cash coming from this thread.

6. Extra traffic? From where? I'm not all over the internet posting links to this thread. I'm not sure who would be interested in what a few Brighton fans have to say on the subject - I'm sure there's plenty of well-informed discussion going on elsewhere.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Tell you what is targetted, this thread. A rather cynical ploy by the OP who fully aware it would instantly become a binfest that would likely end up shut down, takes the extra traffic and ads delivered.

That's an interesting theory.

Can you explain the logic, though, of closing such threads, if the point of them were to generate traffic?

 

[Wardy's twin]

The tragic and very sad football incident wasn’t in ‘Israel’ any more than Gaza, East Jerusalem or the West Bank is in ‘Israel’ - it was in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. At least apprise yourself of the facts.

As for the sentence in bold, I’m speechless (unless you were just referring to Israeli citizens)

To some on here all of the area known as Israel is occupied land though strangely enough Israel has occupied that area longer than Syria had control of it and whilst it might have been recognised by the UN as Syrian that was following an arbitrary split of land between France and Britain.

Of all the lands it 'took' in 1967 the Golan Heights is the last place Israel will let go.

 

[de la zouch]

And how many civilian injuries?

Plus the fact Israel like to say that every citizen is a terrorist as we've seen in Gaza so to them anyone you hit is a terrorist, their reporting of civilian casualties is massively under reported.

How would you suggest Israel defend itself from constant attack by prescribed terrorist groups?

 

[Withdean South Stand]

This was a remarkable attack by Mossad. But as others have said, it was very random because anybody could have been near the pagers when they went off. So, they decided it was an acceptable consequence that innocent people would be hurt and potentially killed in this strike. They calculated the human cost against taking out some very bad people, and decided to go ahead. It says everything about the tactics and outlook of Mossad and probably reflects the thinking of the Israeli government.

In many ways, it was as cowardly an attack as 9/11 and October 7th last year in Israel. Intentional targeting of non-combatants to strike at the heart of the perceived enemy - I'm sure Mossad will point to the owners of these devices being Hamas terrorists and that is true, but it's also true that there would be a lot of non-Hamas/non-terrorist victims and immediately there were. I don't see how this helps their cause overall, other than taking some Hamas terrorists off the board.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So you’re saying that the cause was dodgy Chinese batteries as a serious theory?

Jesus Christ.

You just reminded me why I put him on ignore.

There is a point where sympathy for a genuine inability to understand things dries up.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Or instead of abuse, you could engage with the point. An Israeli homeland could have been anywhere in the world. Jews live everywhere in the world, still countless more outside Israel than in it. Almost anywhere else would have removed one of the biggest impediments to world peace that we have today.

Have you read the Bible, it's pretty clear why that area was chosen by the Jews.

The biggest impediment to peace has been the establishment of 'nation states' where they had no right to exist as they don't match to ethnic/tribal/religious/racial boundaries and as a result you have people arguing, fighting, killing to alter those national borders. I would suggest establishing a new nation state , Jewish or indeed any other race/religion anywhere would have caused problems.

Where do you think would be a good place.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This was a remarkable attack by Mossad. But as others have said, it was very random because anybody could have been near the pagers when they went off. So, they decided it was an acceptable consequence that innocent people would be hurt and potentially killed in this strike. They calculated the human cost against taking out some very bad people, and decided to go ahead. It says everything about the tactics and outlook of Mossad and probably reflects the thinking of the Israeli government.

In many ways, it was as cowardly an attack as 9/11 and October 7th last year in Israel. Intentional targeting of non-combatants to strike at the heart of the perceived enemy - I'm sure Mossad will point to the owners of these devices being Hamas terrorists and that is true, but it's also true that there would be a lot of non-Hamas/non-terrorist victims and immediately there were. I don't see how this helps their cause overall, other than taking some Hamas terrorists off the board.

I detest the Israeli state's recent genocidal actions in Gaza, and so far be it for me to defend them - but this statement is really not true at all, is it?

9/11 and October 7th both deliberately targeted civilians - the former to cause mass casualty and strike at the heart of corporate USA, and the latter to deliberately cause absolute horror in the Israeli population.

This latest episode, seems genuinely TARGETTED at Hezbollah - but (to my mind, at least) with zero regard for the inevitable 'collateral damage'. That isn't right - but it isn't the same.

 

[Withdean South Stand]

I detest the Israeli state's recent genocidal actions in Gaza, and so far be it for me to defend them - but this statement is really not true at all, is it?

9/11 and October 7th both deliberately targeted civilians - the former to cause mass casualty and strike at the heart of corporate USA, and the latter to deliberately cause absolute horror in the Israeli population.

This latest episode, seems genuinely TARGETTED at Hezbollah - but (to my mind, at least) with zero regard for the inevitable 'collateral damage'. That isn't right - but it isn't the same.

I agree they intentionally targeted Hezbollah. No question about it - that was their intention and I've read commentary saying that they weren't even sure they were going to follow through with the plot, but were worried about detection so decided to go ahead. I wonder if they regret that choice now, or would have been more targeted - I'm sure we'll never know.

But there is no chance they thought ONLY Hamas/Hezbollah fighters and leaders would be injured. When they were devising the plot and tampering with the devices, they would have known there would be a high risk that innocent people would be injured and killed. I don't believe they wouldn't have factored that in, and decided to proceed.

Maybe the comparison with 9/11 and October 7th is unreasonable overall, considering the intent was purely civilian casualties. But for scale of attack and the number of people caught up in it, it's definitely comparable. Humanity at its worst.

 

[AstroSloth]

How would you suggest Israel defend itself from constant attack by prescribed terrorist groups?

Root and cause.

Causing young children to see family being wounded or killed by Israel (often innocent people along with terrorists) is going to create a whole new generation of Hamas/Hezbollah.

There is no simple answer, but committing terrorist attacks themselves and constant war crimes isn't the answer.

Preventing attacks through infiltration and secret services should be goal number one. Then they would need to look at the best way to stop the next generation from becoming terrorists too.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This was a remarkable attack by Mossad. But as others have said, it was very random because anybody could have been near the pagers when they went off. So, they decided it was an acceptable consequence that innocent people would be hurt and potentially killed in this strike. They calculated the human cost against taking out some very bad people, and decided to go ahead. It says everything about the tactics and outlook of Mossad and probably reflects the thinking of the Israeli government.

In many ways, it was as cowardly an attack as 9/11 and October 7th last year in Israel. Intentional targeting of non-combatants to strike at the heart of the perceived enemy - I'm sure Mossad will point to the owners of these devices being Hamas terrorists and that is true, but it's also true that there would be a lot of non-Hamas/non-terrorist victims and immediately there were. I don't see how this helps their cause overall, other than taking some Hamas terrorists off the board.

I agree with you up to the analogy with 9/11 and October 7. Both of these were deliberate attacks on civilians.

The pager attack was a specific attack on a terrorist organization, albeit with no regard whatsoever for collateral damage to innocent bystanders.

As with the rest of the Israel vs the Muslim world conflict there is nothing good about any of it, but that still doesn't mean it is all the same, every event identical. Some may argue that indifference to civilian causalities is the same as the deliberate targeting of civilians. I'm not sure that's particularly helpful. Anyway, even what we think about it matters not a jot.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this, collateral damage aside, is that it will achieve nothing useful. The terrorists are hardly going to think "boy, those Israelis are damned smart - we had better leave them alone and seek a peace deal". No, they will be plotting revenge as I type. And Bibi and chums will simply be having a laugh about the deaths, not thinking "one more attack and they will surrender!". In many respects this latest event typifies the whole mess.

Edit I see that @hans kraay fan club has made my first point already.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Have you read the Bible, it's pretty clear why that area was chosen by the Jews.

The biggest impediment to peace has been the establishment of 'nation states' where they had no right to exist as they don't match to ethnic/tribal/religious/racial boundaries and as a result you have people arguing, fighting, killing to alter those national borders. I would suggest establishing a new nation state , Jewish or indeed any other race/religion anywhere would have caused problems.

Where do you think would be a good place.

They wanted it, but it was us that gave it. Lots of places around the world were considered, Alaska, Tasmania, Uganda.

Alaska would have been good. Jews would have their homeland safe from persecution. And as a result no reason for the west to get embroiled in a decades long conflict with the muslim world.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

I'm sure Mossad will point to the owners of these devices being Hamas terrorists and that is true, but it's also true that there would be a lot of non-Hamas/non-terrorist victims and immediately there were. I don't see how this helps their cause overall, other than taking some Hamas terrorists off the board.

I think nearly 43,000 dead in Gaza and Palestine tells you all you need to know about Israel's regard for collateral damage.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Alaska would have been good. Jews would have their homeland safe from persecution. And as a result no reason for the west to get embroiled in a decades long conflict with the muslim world.

You say that, but Bigfoot might have something to screech and knock on wood about that....
Thousands of years they have lived in peace, hardly bothered us at all, then you propose this....

I see trouble ahead

 

[Zeberdi]

. Anyway, even what we think about it matters not a jot.

I disagree.

I think it matters very much what the international community thinks about geo-political events and conflicts around the world and that includes the electorate of that international community - ie us.

One cannot insulate oneself from moral culpability or even vested interest just because one might not be the one pulling the trigger or hiding in bomb shelters.

We live in a complex, multi-faceted geo-political reality where a conflict in one part of the world has a myriad of interconnecting self interests and can be significant on a global level.

‘When a butterfly flaps it’s wings in the Amazon rain forest, it can change the weather half a world away’.

- chaos theory.

 

[borat]

I think nearly 43,000 dead in Gaza and Palestine tells you all you need to know about Israel's regard for collateral damage.

This disregard is also shown for their own Israeli
soldiers and citizens - see Hannibal Directive/Protocol

 

[aolstudios]

I agree they intentionally targeted Hezbollah. No question about it - that was their intention and I've read commentary saying that they weren't even sure they were going to follow through with the plot, but were worried about detection so decided to go ahead. I wonder if they regret that choice now, or would have been more targeted - I'm sure we'll never know.

But there is no chance they thought ONLY Hamas/Hezbollah fighters and leaders would be injured. When they were devising the plot and tampering with the devices, they would have known there would be a high risk that innocent people would be injured and killed. I don't believe they wouldn't have factored that in, and decided to proceed.

Maybe the comparison with 9/11 and October 7th is unreasonable overall, considering the intent was purely civilian casualties. But for scale of attack and the number of people caught up in it, it's definitely comparable. Humanity at its worst.

How would you conduct a war with Hamas & Hezbollah?
Both proudly specifically committed to killing every single Jew

 

[oneillco]

Fiendishly inspired action by Mossad; the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah and therefore their actual activists are targeted. This has got to be better than dropping a bomb on an apartment block in which an activist may live among the general populace. However, it is very much a one-off strike which can't be repeated again.