The anti Israel = anti semitism agenda

[Thekwango]

This "logic" effectively allows the attacker to dictate the terms of the battle. -not really an effective approach if you actually want to defeat the attacking force.

how on earth does this "logic" (why the inverted commas btw?) effectively allow the attacker to dictate the terms of a battle? i also wasn't aware it was a battle, surely if it was then Israel would have long ago defeated the palestinian army in battle?

second part of your post depends on your definition of defeat. if you mean defeated as in to wipe them out, kill them all then yea it's not an effective approach. if you want to deter the attacker from further attacks while trying to find more humane ways of bringing about peace then a proportional response to any attack makes sense.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

how on earth does this "logic" (why the inverted commas btw?) effectively allow the attacker to dictate the terms of a battle? i also wasn't aware it was a battle, surely if it was then Israel would have long ago defeated the palestinian army in battle?

second part of your post depends on your definition of defeat. if you mean defeated as in to wipe them out, kill them all then yea it's not an effective approach. if you want to deter the attacker from further attacks while trying to find more humane ways of bringing about peace then a proportional response to any attack makes sense.

You're saying if a country wants to defend itself from an attack, they can only respond with the same force they are attacked with. And which historical battles were fought with that belief or is it ever a good idea to respond in a war only with 'an eye for an eye'?

Under your idea, the terms of the battle are dictated based on the amount of force used in the attack, you state that the defender can only retaliate with an equal amount of force, so the defensive force is dictated by the power of the attacking force.

If the attacker in this scenario had 10 times the manpower and resources, the defender would never be able to withstand in a protracted battle of attrition. If the defending nation wants a clear win, they need to eliminate as much and any threat from the attacker to prevent being taken over.

I simply don't get why no matter how many past, present and future aggressions and atrocities that the Islamic world continues to carry out, westerners are this brainwashed by 'but muh islamaphobia' into treating them like victimized little babies that need coddling.

 

[Twinz]

how on earth does this "logic" (why the inverted commas btw?) effectively allow the attacker to dictate the terms of a battle?

If the people you attack are limited to defending themselves in "proportion" to your attack on them, then your choice of attack sets limits on how they can respond to your attack.

It's pretty straightforward.

*Edit* covered while I was typing...

 

[Thekwango]

You're saying if a country wants to defend itself from an attack, they can only respond with the same force they are attacked with

Nope. Didn’t say that at all. Proportional does not equal same.

I simply don't get why no matter how many past, present and future aggressions and atrocities that the Islamic world continues to carry out, westerners are this brainwashed by 'but muh islamaphobia' into treating them like victimized little babies that need coddling

Where have I said ‘but muh islamaphobia’??

are you sure were having the same debate here?
And I’ll ask again, is this a battle? Has Israel declared war on Palestine, or are they simply defending themselves from terrorist attack? there’s a big difference in the 2.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Where have I said ‘but muh islamaphobia’??

It was a general statement based on the majority of the public backlash, not aimed at you specifically.

Rockets being fired and buildings being blown up would clearly indicate a battle, and this has bee going on for quite some time already.

 

[Thekwango]

If the people you attack are limited to defending themselves in "proportion" to your attack on them, then your choice of attack sets limits on how they can respond to your attack.

It's pretty straightforward.

*Edit* covered while I was typing...

Ah I see what you’re meaning now and where your confusion stems from.
You see in virtually every armed conflict there’s ‘proportional’ response. If there wasn’t then why not just immediately nuke your opponent? Or carpet bomb off the face of the planet? Why not just unload the full arsenal of your military capability against your enemy whoever they may be?

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Ah I see what you’re meaning now and where your confusion stems from.
You see in virtually every armed conflict there’s ‘proportional’ response. If there wasn’t then why not just immediately nuke your opponent? Or carpet bomb off the face of the planet? Why not just unload the full arsenal of your military capability against your enemy whoever they may be?

Because normally you would want to be able to conquer the land and expand into it?

And are you suggesting that dropping a nuke on an adjacent country isn't going to cause radiation to spill back into the host country?

Also if Israel went ahead and carpet bombed Palestine or anything as such, they would then have to face retaliation from the rest of the Middle East.

You've probably never beaten a Civ game on the easiest difficulty.

 

[Twinz]

Ah I see what you’re meaning now and where your confusion stems from.
You see in virtually every armed conflict there’s ‘proportional’ response. If there wasn’t then why not just immediately nuke your opponent? Or carpet bomb off the face of the planet? Why not just unload the full arsenal of your military capability against your enemy whoever they may be?

Contrary to what some here think and what Hamas actually does, Israel would like to avoid killing innocents if possible.
Nuking Hamas would harm Isarel.
Unloading everything they have in one shot would leave them exposed to other threats. (They had to fight almost everyone in 1967)

The people attaking you should not get to decide what kind of force you defend yourself with.

*edit* two-thumb typing too slow again. Lol

 

[Thekwango]

You've probably never beaten a Civ game on the easiest difficulty.

I really wish you’d played that ace in the hole sooner. Would have saved me wasting any of my time replying to you earlier.
That’s the problem I guess with debating on the internet. You never know when you’re debating with a normal, same person or someone who’s coat should zip up at the back for their own safety.

 

[Rroff]

And are you suggesting that dropping a nuke on an adjacent country isn't going to cause radiation to spill back into the host country?

In this case unlikely - there isn't much need for surface burst use of nuclear warheads - while Hamas has a network of underground structures there is little in the way of hardened structures. Worst case using the most likely weapons in Israel's nuclear arsenal and normal environment conditions such as wind you are looking at brushing the outskirts of Beer Sheva with light to moderate fallout or mostly ending up in low population land south of that. Maybe some light contamination in the longer term but so spread out health risk would barely be above background levels. (That is assuming nuclear weapons were used in the worst way for fallout).

You'd need well into the megaton range older atom bombs to cause a serious radiation issue for Israel.

Scary thing is you'd need at most 6, probably get away with 4, 100-150kt warheads to pretty much wipe the whole of the Gaza Strip off the map with minimal fallout issues for Israel.

 

[Dem2k]

I'd of thought they'd much rather annex the West Bank but unfortunately for them they don't have the power as say Russia or China to do so without consequence.

https://youtu.be/XPozpCgd_9I?t=35

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

I really wish you’d played that ace in the hole sooner. Would have saved me wasting any of my time replying to you earlier.
That’s the problem I guess with debating on the internet. You never know when you’re debating with a normal, same person or someone who’s coat should zip up at the back for their own safety.

Said the guy that thinks dropping nukes anywhere has no consequence.

Israel could simply wipe the floor with Hamas and be done with it, but how much more severe do you the rest of the world would react than it already is doing?

A better question is why does other countries affairs affect you or anyone else in the UK?

If Israel did use excessive force, what would be your expected response to that? Another war between the UK / US and Israel?

Wouldn't it be best to simply stop being bothered by what continues to happen in such an unstable part of the world? This isnt a case of say England randomly dropping missiles in Wales, there have been clearly identified and long ongoing issues between Israel ad Palestine for a very long time.

Actually somewhat similar to but nowhere near as long as the dispute over Kashmir.

 

[Thekwango]

Israel would like to avoid killing innocents if possible.

if that were true they would have moderated their response better.

Unloading everything they have in one shot would leave them exposed to other threats.

israel wouldn't need to unload everything to obliterate palestine, hell they wouldn't even notice the

i don't think you understand that following nearly every terrorist attack the victim almost always aims to make their response proportional to the attack and level of threat posed by the enemy otherwise you risk it breaking down into a much larger conflict or ending up with needless civilian and collateral damage.

if an enemy throws a petrol bomb at your people you don't send in attack helicopters and tanks. but if that enemy launches a dirty bomb you most definitely do. that's how a proportional response works, it scales with the attack and level of threat posed by the enemy.

unless of course you're also basing your opinions on an ability or lack thereof to win at a game Civ

 

[Thekwango]

Said the guy that thinks dropping nukes anywhere has no consequence.

where did i say it had no consequence?

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

where did i say it had no consequence?

Well if you knew it would have, then what is point in even suggesting it in the first place?

By this point it would be a reasonable response for Israel to counter 'wipe off the map' any nation that has threatened to do that to them, but you don't see that happening.

They're responding as reasonably as they can with minimal force or violence, more so than the US / UK ever would if they were similarly threatened.

Or shall we just ignore how disproportionate the response to 9/11 was over 'its just a couple of towers' or some such?

 

[Thekwango]

Well if you knew it would have, then what is point in even suggesting it in the first place?

By this point it would be a reasonable response for Israel to counter 'wipe off the map' any nation that has threatened to do that to them, but you don't see that happening.

They're responding as reasonably as they can with minimal force or violence, more so than the US / UK ever would if they were similarly threatened.

Or shall we just ignore how disproportionate the response to 9/11 was over 'its just a couple of towers' or some such?

quit waffling, put the crack pipe down and quote the post, or statement where i said it had no consequence.

edit: 9/11 was just a couple of towers or some such?! the **** is wrong with you? i should have stopped as soon as you used the utterly idiotic Civ game mention but nice double down on the stupidity.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

quit waffling, put the crack pipe down and quote the post, or statement where i said it had no consequence.

Well if you agree that such actions have consequences, then you should have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anything that Israel has done so far in response to the constant threats and acts of terrorism that they continue to be subjected to.

Hence there is no reason at all for you to be so invested into this topic.

 

[Thekwango]

Well if you agree that such actions have consequences, then you should have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anything that Israel has done so far in response to the constant threats and acts of terrorism that they continue to be subjected to.

Hence there is no reason at all for you to be so invested into this topic.

so you can't quote where i said it had no consequence and you continue to waffle. jog on back to your game of Civ.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

.
edit: 9/11 was just a couple of towers or some such?! the **** is wrong with you? i should have stopped as soon as you used the utterly idiotic Civ game mention but nice double down on the stupidity.

This was a paraphrase of your own logic. So why does your opinion differ so much on that than it does with Israel defending themselves against terrorism?

 

[Thekwango]

This was a paraphrase of your own logic. So why does your opinion differ so much on that than it does with Israel defending themselves against terrorism?

yawn, you not got Civ 6 loaded up yet?