Hamas-Israel News Thread

[JosephZ]

Source?

I've taken several courses relating to violent extremism and terrorism over the years and that information was from personal knowledge.

The idea that it's "impossible" to defeat someone is ridiculous.

I didn't say it was impossible; I said it's pretty much impossible, which means almost impossible.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

 

[Chesterton]

I've taken several courses relating to violent extremism and terrorism over the years and that information was from personal knowledge.

Ever had one of your children killed and mutilated? I'm guessing not, otherwise your position in this thread would be very different.

 

[JosephZ]

Ever had one of your children killed and mutilated? I'm guessing not, otherwise your position in this thread would be very different.

What do you think my position is exactly? I've already described the acts of Hamas horrific and described them as being evil and barbaric.

Thankfully, I have never had a child directly affected by terrorism. That being said, since 2012, I have been working in a part of the world that has seen conflict for more than 50 years before coming to an end in 2019. More than 100,000 people were killed during that period, and hundreds of thousands more were displaced, with many remaining displaced to this day. Violent extremism is a major issue in the areas I work in, and countering violent extremism is incorporated into our ministry. I have also witnessed acts of Islamic extremism and the suffering that it leaves in its wake firsthand. I was present when Islamic extremists detonated a bomb at a night market in Davao City that killed 15 and wounded 60+. The villages we work in have also been the scene of many acts of violence by Islamic extremists over the years; most notably the Siege of Zamboanga in 2013 in which all of the villages of the people group we work with were razed and more than 150 of these people died from malnutrition and disease in the year that followed. So while I haven't had a child killed or mutalated by terrorists, I have seen the bodies of the dead and injured following a terrorist attack, and I've witnessed the suffering that takes place in refugee camps.

Below is a post on Facebook I commented on 2019 where I talk about the conflict in Mindanao. You will notice the similarities to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition to working in an area of conflict for many years and personally witnessing the atrocities that have resulted from acts of terrorism, I have taken several courses in violent extremism and terrorism, as mentioned in the post you quoted.

My position in this thread, whatever you think that is, comes from my knowledge of terrorism and its causes, as well as my personal experiences with terrorism and the effects it has on people who suffer from it.

 

[jacks]

Hello sir. I understand where you think my post is ridiculous. I certainly am not advocating one solution or another. My thought was strictly in terms of logic. I feel that the letters of Osama Bin Laden reflect a lot of thinking in the Arab street. Certain governments, like Egypt and Jordan, do not think the same way, but this could be more for expediency than ideology. Remember, Muslims have a strategy called "taqiyyah" which is basically justified dishonesty in order to pursue a greater goal. Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, has admitted that he agreed to the Western powers' nuclear deal, JCPOA, in 2015, under the principle of taqiyyah. I am not accusing Muslims of using this tactic often, but it is accepted, at least in some quarters, as a justifiable tactic. The "Supreme Leader" of Iran was trying to buy time with the nuclear program in his country and he thought that engaging in deceit was justified, since Western powers presumably cannot be trusted.

About the Jews moving to another country, I was thinking about it purely in terms of pragmatism, avoidance of loss of lives, and peace in the Middle East. Obviously, if there is a prophetic component to the modern state of Israel existing where they are, the Jews are not going to move to Alaska. However, given the reality pointed to in Bin Laden's letters, whose view is widely shared across the region as regards the existence of Israel and the evil of the U.S.A, there will never be peace in the region no matter how many peaceful gestures that Israel makes towards the Palestinians.

In terms of preservation of Jewish life, just in terms of the devastating loss of life that is coming for that country, I would recommend for them to leave the country. But that is their prerogative. There is a concept called, "choosing the hill to die on." For many Israelis, obviously, the prospect of forsaking the hope they carried for 2,000 years to return to their homeland is a non-starter. So, they will have to live with the fact that many, and I mean many of them, are going to die in the next three months if the Lord tarries.

Sometimes, I do wish that the Israelis would just move, because it truly breaks my heart to see how many of them are going to die (both soldiers and civilians) but that is their choice whether to stay in the land, or not, notwithstanding any actual impossibilities that surround that.

Theoretically, the government of Israel, with the backing of the United States and the rest of the Western powers, can stand up and say, "we, as the Jewish state, have made a mistake in coming here by force and displacing millions of people. In recognition of the fact that a Jewish state will always be a source of antagonism for the surrounding people, and given that the state of Israel will never exist as a peaceful country, we have decided to withdraw our presence in this land as a gesture of peace to our neighbors, and as a gesture of peace towards the citizens of Israel, whom we are not willing to subject to another holocaust, which is sure to happen in the near future."

I would like to think, for the safety of the citizens of Israel, that this could happen. Will it happen? Only in dreams. But it is still nice to think about, not because I hate a Jewish presence in Jerusalem, but because I love the people there, however ungodly they may be, and I am not willing that any of them should perish.

Going back to the impossibility of Islam to accept a Jewish state in the region, I will share a concise list of requirements that Osama Bin Laden shared with the U.S.A in regards to why he is waging war on us and what he expects of us if we are to have real peace. I will not link to those letters. They are widely circulated, even on U.S. federal agency sites such as the Director of National Intelligence page, but I will point out seven points that UBL wrote about. He said that if all seven conditions are not met, expect war with the "Islamic Nation".

1) Convert to Islam.
2) Stop the oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery that has spread in your country.
3) Be honest with yourselves, that you are a nation without principles and manners.
4) Stop supporting Israel, and all governments which oppress Muslims.
5) Pack your bags and leave our countries (including all military activity and presence).
6) End your support for the corrupt leaders in our countries.
7) Deal with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than theft and occupation, and end your policy of supporting the Jews, because this will result in more disasters for you.

He also mentions the Palestinians as "our brothers" who the Americans and Israelis are killing.

I don't think that the Muslims are people that the Israelis can negotiate with. I think of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. If the Jews can negotiate a presence and a temple on the temple mount, then I believe the Jews can also negotiate a presence in the land of Israel. But if they cannot negotiate a Jewish presence on the temple mount, then it is highly unlikely they will also be able to negotiate a lasting peace with their neighbors.

As for Bin Laden's requirements concerning the U.S, obviously, we as a country will never convert to Islam (probably) nor should we, so we will never meet all of Bin Laden's requirements to avoid terrorism. However, we are certainly stoking the fire by arming Israel and maintaining a strong presence in the Middle East. While I make no policy prescriptions as regards what the U.S. government should do, I merely note that the U.S. and the West should expect a reckoning from this mentioned "Islamic Nation" very, very soon.

I appreciate you taking the time and effort for such an in depth response. First let me mention when it comes to my personal life I have much more invested in the Muslim world than the Jewish. My brother in-law is a Muslim from Egypt, my sister has converted and of course my nieces are also following their fathers religion. None of them would support the tenants of Bin Laden. He represented an extreme fringe of the Muslim world. Saying that the end is nigh unless Israel either leaves or completely submits, is unrealistic and extreme. I believe that the majority of the Muslim world is willing to talk and make compromises for peace. We can live together in peace; if you exclude that possibility, then there will be no winners and we are all doomed.

 

[Chesterton]

What do you think my position is exactly? I've already described the acts of Hamas horrific and described them as being evil and barbaric.

Thankfully, I have never had a child directly affected by terrorism. That being said, since 2012, I have been working in a part of the world that has seen conflict for more than 50 years before coming to an end in 2019. More than 100,000 people were killed during that period, and hundreds of thousands more were displaced, with many remaining displaced to this day. Violent extremism is a major issue in the areas I work in, and countering violent extremism is incorporated into our ministry. I have also witnessed acts of Islamic extremism and the suffering that it leaves in its wake firsthand. I was present when Islamic extremists detonated a bomb at a night market in Davao City that killed 15 and wounded 60+. The villages we work in have also been the scene of many acts of violence by Islamic extremists over the years; most notably the Siege of Zamboanga in 2013 in which all of the villages of the people group we work with were razed and more than 150 of these people died from malnutrition and disease in the year that followed. So while I haven't had a child killed or mutalated by terrorists, I have seen the bodies of the dead and injured following a terrorist attack, and I've witnessed the suffering that takes place in refugee camps.

View attachment 338195

Below is a post on Facebook I commented on 2019 where I talk about the conflict in Mindanao. You will notice the similarities to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

View attachment 338199

In addition to working in an area of conflict for many years and personally witnessing the atrocities that have resulted from acts of terrorism, I have taken several courses in violent extremism and terrorism, as mentioned in the post you quoted.

View attachment 338200

My position in this thread, whatever you think that is, comes from my knowledge of terrorism and its causes, as well as my personal experiences with terrorism and the effects it has on people who suffer from it.

May I have your permission to start a private conversation with you? If you say no, that's fine. I won't judge you for it. I know we all have busy lives.

 

[JosephZ]

May I have your permission to start a private conversation with you? The CF "rules" are so arbitrary and restrictive that I think I risk getting a warning if I say publicly what needs to be said in response to this post. If you say no, that's fine. I won't judge you for it. I know we all have busy lives.

You're more than welcome to send me a PM if you feel it's necessary to do so to avoid breaking any forum rules.

 

[rjs330]

Your original question was whether I should "blanketly condemn Hamas for all their actions before and during this conflict?" (post 611)
That is all actions of Hamas since its creation.
Neither you or I know what all the actions of Hamas have been since its creation. Your question was ridiculous but also an attempt to pop me into a box.
Now you have changed it to do I condemn the Palestinian (=Hamas) attack. That is moving the goalposts. Sure you want to put me in a labelled box that you can condemn.

In post 497 (before your post 611 when you asked the original question) I wrote; "I denounce what Hamas did on Oct 7 in Israeli kibbutzim near Gaza." I can repeat that with the word "condemn" if you have something against the word "denounce".

I think you need to withdraw your false accusation that I am making "a deliberate attempt to not condemn the Palestinian attack." and also reflect on why are you making such false accusations against me.

I condemn the Hamas attack on October 7.

Ah. I literalist I see. I would have thought that based upon the thread itself it would have been obvious what I was talking about. But I guess not.

So you condemn Hamas for it's attack on Israel. On October 7. Since you like literal questions here are some.

Do you condemn them for shooting missles into Israel?

What about taking millions and millions of dollars in aid intended for the Palestinians people and spending it on buying weapons of terror, building tunnels under population centers and hospitals for their terrorist activities.

How about taking water pipes away from the people and using them to build missles to attack Israel.

Do you condemn them for kidnapping Jewish children and holding them as hostages?

Do you condemn them for not allowing people to evacuate? Blocking the roads so people can't get out?

Do you condemn them for using the people including children And the sick as human shields?

I hope that's specific enough for you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've taken several courses relating to violent extremism and terrorism over the years and that information was from personal knowledge.

Ok...I can think of several terrorist groups that were completely destroyed so I disagree.

I didn't say it was impossible; I said it's pretty much impossible, which means almost impossible.

Again, disagree.

 

[rjs330]

Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 138 (71.5%) have recognised the State of Palestine as of 31 July 2019.[84] The list below is based on the list maintained by the Palestine Liberation Organization during the campaign for United Nations recognition in 2011,[23] and maintained by the Permanent Observer Mission to the UN.[85]

Some states, marked with an asterisk (*) below, expressly recognized the State of Palestine on the borders of 4 June 1967 (i.e., the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem), which constituted Arab territory prior to the Six-Day War.

from International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia

There is deep division on this. There is no real state of Palestine to recognize. People might want to recognize a state of Palestine but there isn't one.

What is the Palestinian Authority and what is its relationship with Israel?

Set up in the mid-90s as an interim body on the path to Palestinian statehood, the PA faces a crisis of legitimacy

www.aljazeera.com

Also there no real Palestine that is a state yet.

Following the Battle of Gaza in 2007, the PNA effectively split in two, with Hamas assuming control of the Gaza Strip and Fatah retaining control over Areas A and B of the West Bank; the Fatah–Hamas conflict is ongoing as of 2022.

Among the G20, nine countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey) have recognized Palestine as a state while ten countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have not.[note 1] Although these countries generally support some form of two-state solution to the conflict, they take the position that their recognition of a Palestinian state is conditioned to direct negotiations between Israel and the PNA.

There is no state of Palestine to recognize. If it's really a state why is there a continual call for a two state solution? If Palestine is a state there is no need for a two state solution. There are already two states.

 

[JosephZ]

Ok...I can think of several terrorist groups that were completely destroyed so I disagree.

OK, you made me do my homework. The information below is a bit dated, but the failure of military force to destroy the Islamic State, Taliban, and al Qaeda since it was published indicates little if anything has changed.

The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active... most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation—and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement. In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2008/RAND_RB9351.pdf

Size of the terrorist group does make a slight difference in the success of military force being used against them.

Military force is almost never successful against small groups; however, with large to very large groups, the success rate is slightly better at 15% and 10%, respectively. Hamas would fall under the category of a very large terrorist group, and historically, nine out of 10 times, military force has failed to destroy groups similar in size.

Historical evidence aside, in my opinion, it's becoming clear based on the anger seen in the Arab world and the size of the protests seen around the world condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its indescriminate bombing that has led to more than 5,000 civilian deaths and more than 15,000 injuries as of the time of this post, Hamas is going to survive this current war with Israel. It's unfortunate, but that appears to be the direction things are heading.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is deep division on this. There is no real state of Palestine to recognize. People might want to recognize a state of Palestine but there isn't one.

What is the Palestinian Authority and what is its relationship with Israel?

Set up in the mid-90s as an interim body on the path to Palestinian statehood, the PA faces a crisis of legitimacy

www.aljazeera.com

Also there no real Palestine that is a state yet.

Following the Battle of Gaza in 2007, the PNA effectively split in two, with Hamas assuming control of the Gaza Strip and Fatah retaining control over Areas A and B of the West Bank; the Fatah–Hamas conflict is ongoing as of 2022.

Among the G20, nine countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey) have recognized Palestine as a state while ten countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have not.[note 1] Although these countries generally support some form of two-state solution to the conflict, they take the position that their recognition of a Palestinian state is conditioned to direct negotiations between Israel and the PNA.

There is no state of Palestine to recognize. If it's really a state why is there a continual call for a two state solution? If Palestine is a state there is no need for a two state solution. There are already two states.

I think the idea of a 2 state solution is predicated on a couple of ideas....

1. That the borders of Palestine are increased to include territory they've lost either legitimately through the sale of property to Israel or illegitimately through illegal Israeli settlements.

2. Palestinian sovereignty. The idea that Palestine can acquire the authority to control their own borders and what is and isn't allowed to cross into Israel. Regardless of whether or not a nation recognizes Palestine as a legitimate state....basically everyone recognizes they do not have sovereignty over the control of their borders (something, ironically, the left considers a crime against humanity and has led them to describe Palestine as a "open air prison).

Now, obviously, Israel has a legitimate cause for controlling Palestinian borders since the main thing they seem to focus on importing are weapons and explosives and intel on Israeli defenses....instead of food, water, or other things which might improve the conditions of the Palestinian people. This actually makes sense from the pov of Palestinian authorities as improving the quality of life might lead to a decrease in support for destroying Israel as Palestinians become content with the lives they have. If the majority of smuggled imports were humanitarian aid....then Israel might eventually consider themselves safe, stop controlling the Palestinian borders....and then they would lose international support as few would continue to view their conditions as that of an "open air prison."

Until Israel is destroyed entirely....Palestinian authorities want their conditions to be as miserable as possible. It is how they acquire international support and get political suckers (see Joe Biden) to donate millions of dollars in "aid" which they use to acquire weapons and continue terrorizing the Israeli people.

The best response (imo) to accusations that Israel has made Palestine an open air prison or worse that they somehow support "apartheid" which they don't....by any definition of apartheid....is to point out that Palestinians want it that way.

If the Gaza hospital was in fact destroyed by Hamas terrorists (as US, UN, and other international experts claim) it is a perfect example of the Palestinian peoples' disregard for the lives and well being of their fellow Palestinians. It allows them to paint the Israelis as heartless war criminals, it drums up support for Palestine as propaganda, and results in funding for humanitarian aid which they use for the illegal smuggling of more weapons into Palestine.

I wouldn't say that Palestinians are the worst people in history....but they're certainly in the top ten imo. The nazis were genocidal, antisemitic racists bent on military conquest and imbued with a delusional sense of entitlement.....but so are the Palestinians. The main difference of course is that the Germans cared about the lives and well being of their fellow Germans to a far greater degree than the Palestinians care about the lives and well being of their fellow Palestinians.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK, you made me do my homework. The information below is a bit dated, but the failure of military force to destroy the Islamic State, Taliban, and al Qaeda since it was published indicates little if anything has changed.

The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active... most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation—and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement. In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

View attachment 338218

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2008/RAND_RB9351.pdf

Size of the terrorist group does make a slight difference in the success of military force being used against them.

View attachment 338220

Military force is almost never successful against small groups; however, with large to very large groups, the success rate is slightly better at 15% and 10%, respectively. Hamas would fall under the category of a very large terrorist group, and historically, nine out of 10 times, military force has failed to destroy groups similar in size.

Historical evidence aside, in my opinion, it's becoming clear based on the anger seen in the Arab world and the size of the protests seen around the world condemning Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its indescriminate bombing that has led to more than 5,000 civilian deaths and more than 15,000 injuries as of the time of this post, Hamas is going to survive this current war with Israel. It's unfortunate, but that appears to be the direction things are heading.

I'm not disputing the facts you've made here except the idea that recent failures are a result of the resilience and adaptability of terrorist groups.

Their success is largely predicated on modern military tactics and theory post WW2.

Shining Path - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's an example of a terrorist group effectively destroyed and splintered into smaller disparate groups incapable of the large scale attacks of their past and completely unable to achieve the goals they originally formed for. There are organized gangs and criminal organizations that are more dangerous and far larger and sophisticated than this "terrorist" group.

If you want to see a method of destroying a terrorist group like the Taliban, for example, I'll give a short explanation.

1. Abandon "just war theory" which has dominated US war theory since WW2.

2. Adopt a Total War theory....which denies the existence of "war crimes" and focuses on breaking the enemy will to fight.

3. Deploy a complete military blockade of the Southern and Eastern borders of Afghanistan, which are their primary logistical pathways of reinforcement and retreat. Maintain a constant aerial surveillance and control of the Northern and Eastern borders which have significantly less cover from aerial attacks.

3. Destroy all crops, cash or otherwise, through sustained napalm bombardments.

4. Kill anyone fleeing to the north or east.

5. Turn back anyone attempting to flee to the south, for 4-6 months until crops and food/water supplies fail. Then allow women and children to pass into military controlled refugee camps.

As the Taliban and Mujahideen forces realize that starvation, infighting, and cannibalism are in their near future, one of three things will happen....

1. They will agree to surrender unconditionally. All suspected members of the Taliban can be thrown into large scale military prisons in allied controlled territory.

2. The Mujahideen will organize and coordinate a full scale assault of all Taliban members....realizing that this is their only path to survive the the next 6-12 months.

3. The Taliban will organize a large assault, a hail mary attempt, to punch their way through the blockade....which will be easy to see coming and countered and wiped out entirely.

Under this plan, the Taliban can be effectively removed from Afghanistan in roughly a year....and with extremely limited US and allied casualties. It denies them the innocent civilians they use as human shields, intelligence sources, and pawns to throw at the US forces.

Many would claim this a inhumane and immoral manner in which to wage war. I would explain to those people that war is never a humane or moral endeavor. War crimes are a bit of a goofy concept, that I don't really believe in....because a war zone is fundementally a place where the only laws are those enforced by those waging war.

 

[Vanellus]

Ah. I literalist I see. I would have thought that based upon the thread itself it would have been obvious what I was talking about. But I guess not.

How about saying what you mean rather than expecting me to read your invisible ink.

In your post 611 you made a false accusation against me that I had made "a deliberate attempt to not condemn the Palestinian attack." when I had already denounced the attack in my post 497. You have not apologised for this nor removed the false accusation from your post as I requested.

Now you fire a volley of six further questions and expect me to answer them all. You are assuming a position of superiority over me that you do not in any way deserve.

But if you really want to have an exchange of questions let's make it fairer and more equal and keep it to one question at a time. You've had your first move with the question about condemning the Oct 7 attack so here's my first move:

According to the Jewish human rights organisation B'tselem since the beginning of the Second Intifada, 10,672 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis and 1330 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians. Data does not include the current conflict.
see Database on fatalities and house demolitions

Here is the question: Given the holocaust do you think the life of an individual Israeli is worth more than the life of an individual Palestinian and requires much more concern and intervention by the international community?

 

[Vanellus]

I'm not disputing the facts you've made here except the idea that recent failures are a result of the resilience and adaptability of terrorist groups.

Their success is largely predicated on modern military tactics and theory post WW2.

Shining Path - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's an example of a terrorist group effectively destroyed and splintered into smaller disparate groups incapable of the large scale attacks of their past and completely unable to achieve the goals they originally formed for. There are organized gangs and criminal organizations that are more dangerous and far larger and sophisticated than this "terrorist" group.

If you want to see a method of destroying a terrorist group like the Taliban, for example, I'll give a short explanation.

1. Abandon "just war theory" which has dominated US war theory since WW2.

2. Adopt a Total War theory....which denies the existence of "war crimes" and focuses on breaking the enemy will to fight.

3. Deploy a complete military blockade of the Southern and Eastern borders of Afghanistan, which are their primary logistical pathways of reinforcement and retreat. Maintain a constant aerial surveillance and control of the Northern and Eastern borders which have significantly less cover from aerial attacks.

3. Destroy all crops, cash or otherwise, through sustained napalm bombardments.

4. Kill anyone fleeing to the north or east.

5. Turn back anyone attempting to flee to the south, for 4-6 months until crops and food/water supplies fail. Then allow women and children to pass into military controlled refugee camps.

As the Taliban and Mujahideen forces realize that starvation, infighting, and cannibalism are in their near future, one of three things will happen....

1. They will agree to surrender unconditionally. All suspected members of the Taliban can be thrown into large scale military prisons in allied controlled territory.

2. The Mujahideen will organize and coordinate a full scale assault of all Taliban members....realizing that this is their only path to survive the the next 6-12 months.

3. The Taliban will organize a large assault, a hail mary attempt, to punch their way through the blockade....which will be easy to see coming and countered and wiped out entirely.

Under this plan, the Taliban can be effectively removed from Afghanistan in roughly a year....and with extremely limited US and allied casualties. It denies them the innocent civilians they use as human shields, intelligence sources, and pawns to throw at the US forces.

Many would claim this a inhumane and immoral manner in which to wage war. I would explain to those people that war is never a humane or moral endeavor. War crimes are a bit of a goofy concept, that I don't really believe in....because a war zone is fundementally a place where the only laws are those enforced by those waging war.

Might is right is an easy doctrine to advocate when you live in the country with the most powerful army and so can decide who is right and who is wrong.

But what if a far more powerful alien force were to invade the US (we know that it is where aliens always go). Would it be more "humane" for the alien force to act against the US in the way you advocate?

America has been in 19 wars since World War II, but we will list the death toll from three of the bloodiest conflicts: The Korean War, The Vietnam War and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The total death toll of people killed by American troops in all these wars put together is over 12 million.

Each of these three conflicts have something in common: they were wars fought in the name of making the world "safe for democracy."

A particular horror was the largest use of chemical weapons against civilians since World War II, the massive use of Agent Orange against Indochina where it continues to poison people today. It may take Vietnam and Laos thousands of years to recover. In the case of Iraq, American spy satellites helped Saddam Hussein use use poison gas against the troops of Iran.

We are not condemning all aspects of these wars. Nor do we suggest that a lot of American enemies are wonderful people. However, we need to take a hard look at the horrors that were unleashed. Was it really necessary to invade places like Vietnam and Iraq and kill millions in these wars? We are not convinced that the answer is yes.​

from https://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Imperialism/usmurder.html

It could be the aliens have decided that the US is the country with most blood on its hands and the most dangerous country, and so needs to be neutralised.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Gazans forced to drink dirty, salty water as the fuel needed to run water systems runs out​

One vital supply missing from the aid convoys has been fuel. Without it, Gaza’s water system has crumbled.

“Fuel is water,” said Hall of CSIS. “Cutting off fuel is cutting off water.”

For Gazans, no power means taps have run dry. “Even if you are lucky and have a well, you will not be able to pump (water) to high floors because we don’t have electricity,” Al Shanti said.

Many of the water trucks Gazans rely on to fill water containers are unable to reach people’s homes because they lack fuel, and because of the bombardment,

Making water drinkable also relies on fuel.

All five wastewater treatment plants and two of the three desalination plants have stopped working. The enclave’s last remaining major desalination plant, which had been shut down for almost a week, resumed operations on Saturday but is at less than 7% of its usual capacity.

“The only water people have is essentially non-potable seawater mixed with sewage,” said Natasha Hall, a senior fellow with the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Most of Gaza’s water comes from a coastal aquifer, a body of underground water that stretches along the coastline of the eastern Mediterranean from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula up to Israel.

Around 97% is undrinkable; it’s salty, brackish, and contaminated by untreated wastewater and pollution.

2,000 children killed in Gaza, aid group says, as doctors warn fuel shortage is a death sentence​

Save the Children said Monday that over 1 million children are “trapped” in Gaza with no safe place to go and warned of the devastating impacts of lacking medication and electricity to power vital health infrastructure in the enclave.

“At least 2,000 children have been killed in Gaza over the past 17 days, and a further 27 killed in the West Bank,” the aid agency said on Monday.

Fuel means life in Gaza. Without fuel, water cannot be pumped or desalinated, generators that power hospitals – that keep incubators, ventilators and dialysis machines running and to sterilize surgical equipment – will fail.

Twelve hospitals and 32 medical centers are now out of service after Israeli strikes and fuel depletion, according to the Palestinian health ministry in Gaza. Early Tuesday, the Indonesian Hospital in northern Gaza had no electricity due to the fuel shortage, Hamas said.

Hospitals are nearing collapse, operating at more than 150% of their capacity and situations have become so dire that surgeries are being conducted without anesthesia, and in some cases, under the illumination of phone lights, the Palestinian Authority health ministry added.

Around 50,000 pregnant women are struggling to access health care, with about 166 unsafe births happening daily, and more than 5,000 women due to give birth in the next month, it said.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Might is right is an easy doctrine to advocate when you live in the country with the most powerful army and so can decide who is right and who is wrong.

But what if a far more powerful alien force were to invade the US (we know that it is where aliens always go). Would it be more "humane" for the alien force to act against the US in the way you advocate?



from DEATH TOLL FROM MODERN AMERICAN WARS

It could be the aliens have decided that the US is the country with most blood on its hands and the most dangerous country, and so needs to be neutralised.

I think the conspiracy theory section is that way --------->

But what if a far more powerful alien force were to invade the US (we know that it is where aliens always go). Would it be more "humane" for the alien force to act against the US in the way you advocate?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think the conspiracy theory section is that way --------->

But what if a far more powerful alien force were to invade the US (we know that it is where aliens always go). Would it be more "humane" for the alien force to act against the US in the way you advocate?

Posing a hypothetical scenario - even an impossible one - in order to illustrate a point is not a conspiracy theory.

 

[jacks]

I'm not disputing the facts you've made here except the idea that recent failures are a result of the resilience and adaptability of terrorist groups.

Their success is largely predicated on modern military tactics and theory post WW2.

Shining Path - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's an example of a terrorist group effectively destroyed and splintered into smaller disparate groups incapable of the large scale attacks of their past and completely unable to achieve the goals they originally formed for. There are organized gangs and criminal organizations that are more dangerous and far larger and sophisticated than this "terrorist" group.

If you want to see a method of destroying a terrorist group like the Taliban, for example, I'll give a short explanation.

1. Abandon "just war theory" which has dominated US war theory since WW2.

2. Adopt a Total War theory....which denies the existence of "war crimes" and focuses on breaking the enemy will to fight.

3. Deploy a complete military blockade of the Southern and Eastern borders of Afghanistan, which are their primary logistical pathways of reinforcement and retreat. Maintain a constant aerial surveillance and control of the Northern and Eastern borders which have significantly less cover from aerial attacks.

3. Destroy all crops, cash or otherwise, through sustained napalm bombardments.

4. Kill anyone fleeing to the north or east.

5. Turn back anyone attempting to flee to the south, for 4-6 months until crops and food/water supplies fail. Then allow women and children to pass into military controlled refugee camps.

As the Taliban and Mujahideen forces realize that starvation, infighting, and cannibalism are in their near future, one of three things will happen....

1. They will agree to surrender unconditionally. All suspected members of the Taliban can be thrown into large scale military prisons in allied controlled territory.

2. The Mujahideen will organize and coordinate a full scale assault of all Taliban members....realizing that this is their only path to survive the the next 6-12 months.

3. The Taliban will organize a large assault, a hail mary attempt, to punch their way through the blockade....which will be easy to see coming and countered and wiped out entirely.

Under this plan, the Taliban can be effectively removed from Afghanistan in roughly a year....and with extremely limited US and allied casualties. It denies them the innocent civilians they use as human shields, intelligence sources, and pawns to throw at the US forces.

Many would claim this a inhumane and immoral manner in which to wage war. I would explain to those people that war is never a humane or moral endeavor. War crimes are a bit of a goofy concept, that I don't really believe in....because a war zone is fundementally a place where the only laws are those enforced by those waging war.

This is the sad truth.
I generally try to avoid stating this so clearly, because the culture of the extremists in the mid east is often macho and combative. They see the Jihad as the ultimate weapon and rally against the realities of simple military power in an all out war. I'm torn on whether letting this illusion stand is preferable than forcing it being put to a test. It's like if someone smaller than you is picking a fight, instead of just smashing them you let them keep their pride as you just restrain them; and try to reason out a less violent solution. Or maybe a better analogy would be protestors throwing rocks and bottles at the police. Obviously the police could easily stop this, but they restrain from opening fire, hoping for a more peaceful resolution.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Posing a hypothetical scenario - even an impossible one - in order to illustrate a point is not a conspiracy theory.

Fantasy would be a better description.