4 ms·

That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK send

by nsguy 3y ago

That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK sends raids into Russia to kill Russians and then retreats and mixes with civilian population in the UK, what do you feel is a legitimate move or tactic by Russia to defend its citizens in this hypothetical situation?

rakoo 3y ago
And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7, being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to see their family, London being half the UK capital and half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years and no one in the world does anything because the richest country in the world blindly supports Russia ? Context, always.
- nsguy 3y ago
  It's less of a context than your political position or opinion. I think it's also at the very least naive and simplistic. As one example, those checkpoints you're describing did not exist before terrorism such as suicide bombers and other indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They also do not exist in Gaza. I'm finding it hard to follow the rest of your analogy. My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours. What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times. Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
  - rakoo 3y ago
    And I can also say that your view is less context than a personal biased view on the situation. Mixing up Hamas and Palestinians as if they're all the same. Excusing Israel's response as just and proportionate, meaning that shelling entire neighborhoods, sniping people left and right, shooting at an ambulance are somehow fighting terrorism. Saying on all platforms that the goal is to "exterminate animals", from the highest personnel in positions of power. Shooting civilians who try to get food, blocking humanitarian convoys from entering, putting as part of a plan the total blockade of water, food, electricity of millions of people, that's fighting terrorism ? > Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours. If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#h-Fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it. > Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, I don't know how someone can still believe that when there's a page dedicated to illegal Israeli settlements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034> > But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle. Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably. We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy. Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
- incognos 3y ago
  I wonder if Sir William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, would be considered a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter. When England invaded and occupied and imposed ridiculous rules on them, should they have not fought back? How about the Potato Famine, how many of you know that this was caused by England INTENTIONALLY by shipping all the food out of Ireland to England. is Sinn Fein a terrorist group still? or were they so named because they fought an occupier?
  - nsguy 3y ago
    I'm not familiar at all with these stories. I should read about them. I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence. A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.
hef19898 3y ago
Gaza is among the most densly populated areas on earth. By definition, any military installation is close to civilians. Same goes for a lot of IDF, and every other military, ehich has bases next to a city. Doesn't mean one just can indiscriminately bomb everything and everyone...

by nsguy 3y ago

rakoo 3y ago

And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7, being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to see their family, London being half the UK capital and half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years and no one in the world does anything because the richest country in the world blindly supports Russia ? Context, always.

nsguy 3y ago
It's less of a context than your political position or opinion. I think it's also at the very least naive and simplistic. As one example, those checkpoints you're describing did not exist before terrorism such as suicide bombers and other indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They also do not exist in Gaza. I'm finding it hard to follow the rest of your analogy. My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours. What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times. Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
- rakoo 3y ago
  And I can also say that your view is less context than a personal biased view on the situation. Mixing up Hamas and Palestinians as if they're all the same. Excusing Israel's response as just and proportionate, meaning that shelling entire neighborhoods, sniping people left and right, shooting at an ambulance are somehow fighting terrorism. Saying on all platforms that the goal is to "exterminate animals", from the highest personnel in positions of power. Shooting civilians who try to get food, blocking humanitarian convoys from entering, putting as part of a plan the total blockade of water, food, electricity of millions of people, that's fighting terrorism ? > Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours. If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#h-Fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it. > Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, I don't know how someone can still believe that when there's a page dedicated to illegal Israeli settlements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034> > But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle. Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably. We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy. Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
incognos 3y ago
I wonder if Sir William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, would be considered a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter. When England invaded and occupied and imposed ridiculous rules on them, should they have not fought back? How about the Potato Famine, how many of you know that this was caused by England INTENTIONALLY by shipping all the food out of Ireland to England. is Sinn Fein a terrorist group still? or were they so named because they fought an occupier?
- nsguy 3y ago
  I'm not familiar at all with these stories. I should read about them. I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence. A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.

hef19898 3y ago

Gaza is among the most densly populated areas on earth. By definition, any military installation is close to civilians. Same goes for a lot of IDF, and every other military, ehich has bases next to a city. Doesn't mean one just can indiscriminately bomb everything and everyone...