|
|
Post by psychedelictony on Oct 19, 2023 22:41:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 1:18:02 GMT
People are odd.
It's a bit like giving Bob Monkhouse shit about World War 11. Weird and weird.
He seems a nice bloke so hopefully he's ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Oct 20, 2023 8:22:36 GMT
The “Morals of War.”
Moral agony about civilian casualties arising from Israel’s legitimate retaliation against Hamas terrorism demands attention to historical precedent. Fortunately, Britain has plenty. Hitler’s blitz against British cities killed about 43,000 civilians. The principal response was that the RAF should “bomb back and bomb hard”. In the words of one newspaper: “Everywhere the same cry is heard – reprisals, reprisals, reprisal.” Popular determination was emphatic: if Britain was “taking it” then Germany should take it at least as hard, ideally harder.
Britons embraced the need to wage total war. They desired and demanded saturation raids on German cities. Areas targeted by the RAF were usually city centres or densely populated suburbs. None were warned. Allied raids killed at least 500,000 civilians in cities, including Berlin, Dresden and Cologne.
Bleating that Israel might kill civilians when it exercises its legal and moral right to attack Hamas is misguided. Israel has made greater effort to avoid civilian deaths than Bomber Command ever did by urging residents to leave northern Gaza.
The terrorists’ guilt is as complete as was Hitler’s responsibility for Auschwitz.
Tim Luckhurst. Principal of South College, Durham University.
(Who may have taught Agnes from Eastbourne, for all I know.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Oct 20, 2023 8:40:04 GMT
So, two wrongs do make a right then?
|
|
|
|
Post by stealbull on Oct 20, 2023 9:03:38 GMT
Don't totally understand why he's being targeted but reading that Grauniad article made me a bit emosh - he's a good egg and wish him nothing but the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Oct 20, 2023 9:22:26 GMT
So, two wrongs do make a right then? It is plain that Mr Luckhurst thinks that there are different degrees of wrongfulness. It is not a new moral issue. The Queen Mother was shouted down when she wanted to erect a statue of Bomber Harris. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 9:24:23 GMT
So, two wrongs do make a right then? It is plain that Mr Luckhurst thinks that there are different degrees of wrongfulness. It is not a new moral issue. The Queen Mother was shouted down when she wanted to erect a statue of Bomber Harris. So what do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Oct 20, 2023 9:52:54 GMT
It is plain that Mr Luckhurst thinks that there are different degrees of wrongfulness. It is not a new moral issue. The Queen Mother was shouted down when she wanted to erect a statue of Bomber Harris. So what do you think? I think the parallel with Word War II is a valid one. I think, however, there are wider implications which Mr Luckhurst doesn't mention. I think that if Israel go in hard, Iran will join in. I think if Israel don't go in hard, Hamas will do it again. I also think the stated right to do everything to "recover our hostages" is probably, sadly, something of a diplomatic pretext. I also used to think that Yassir Arafat looked like Ringo Starr. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 9:57:29 GMT
I think that whilst Hamas are sponsored by Iran it has nothing to do with Omid who is a decent fella. As are the Iranian people on the whole apparently. Always the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 10:09:24 GMT
I think the parallel with Word War II is a valid one. I think, however, there are wider implications which Mr Luckhurst doesn't mention. I think that if Israel go in hard, Iran will join in. I think if Israel don't go in hard, Hamas will do it again. I also think the stated right to do everything to "recover our hostages" is probably, sadly, something of a diplomatic pretext. I also used to think that Yassir Arafat looked like Ringo Starr. I think it's quite different for a few reasons but mainly a) the history of power in the regions and b) the validity of leadership. a) There aren't really very many areas of the world which have had such a complex history. If the thing which had instigated the attacks on us by Nazi Germany had been that we were controlling their borders, the flow of goods and commodities for x number of years and that they wanted freedom to do as they pleased then the story would be quite different, don't you think? The Nazis attacked the world in order to expand, not merely to remain and function correctly. Edit: I would just add that this in no way justifies Hamas killing innocent people. Of course not. b) Obviously, the rise of the Nazis in Germany is complicated. I would say though that they did somewhat legitimately rise to power in Germany a relatively short time before the World War began, initially at least. Hamas were marginally elected in 2006 and have not had an election since, for obvious reasons. Polling prior to the recent attacks had them at 20% with a significant large majority of people in Gaza not wanting any of the leadership options on offer. Can you really blame the people of Palestine for the actions of Hamas (to the extent that you blow up their children) when most people do not support them? Aside from that, the majority of their population has never been eligible to vote as the average age in Gaza is incredibly low (probably to do with regularly being slaughtered). Edit: I would also add that I'm not suggesting that everyone in Germany supported the Nazis either. So whilst there may be some parallels, the overall picture is entirely different. And this isn't even considering the fact that killing innocent people has never been an acceptable thing to do in civilised society. Not 2,000 years ago, not 80 years ago, and not now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 10:25:54 GMT
The middle east is impossible to understand/solve?
Beyond the mess that was made of setting it all up, Israel treat the Palestinians badly, however if they stop treating them badly instead of them thinking great let's live in peace, the people amongst them who's stated aim is to destroy Israel will use whatever freedoms they had been given to cause harm to Israel. Impossible.
Hamas are vile. Israel are brutal. Israel will be got at one day though. Inevitable surely? Madness all of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 11:05:29 GMT
If Israel's aim was to rid Gaza of extremists then they'd be doing a pretty bad job of it. I doubt there will be many fair minded Palestinians left in the area once this particularly brutal phase of destruction is over with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 11:18:15 GMT
If Israel's aim was to rid Gaza of extremists then they'd be doing a pretty bad job of it. I doubt there will be many fair minded Palestinians left in the area once this particularly brutal phase of destruction is over with. How should they do it? They have Viet Cong tunnel networks with command centres underground don't they? Put under hospitals etc. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Oct 20, 2023 11:24:30 GMT
The “Morals of War.” Moral agony about civilian casualties arising from Israel’s legitimate retaliation against Hamas terrorism demands attention to historical precedent. Fortunately, Britain has plenty. Hitler’s blitz against British cities killed about 43,000 civilians. The principal response was that the RAF should “bomb back and bomb hard”. In the words of one newspaper: “Everywhere the same cry is heard – reprisals, reprisals, reprisal.” Popular determination was emphatic: if Britain was “taking it” then Germany should take it at least as hard, ideally harder. Britons embraced the need to wage total war. They desired and demanded saturation raids on German cities. Areas targeted by the RAF were usually city centres or densely populated suburbs. None were warned. Allied raids killed at least 500,000 civilians in cities, including Berlin, Dresden and Cologne. Bleating that Israel might kill civilians when it exercises its legal and moral right to attack Hamas is misguided. Israel has made greater effort to avoid civilian deaths than Bomber Command ever did by urging residents to leave northern Gaza. The terrorists’ guilt is as complete as was Hitler’s responsibility for Auschwitz. Tim Luckhurst. Principal of South College, Durham University. (Who may have taught Agnes from Eastbourne, for all I know.) Collective punishment is not legitimate. And Dresden is now considered by many to have been a war crime. Thank God I wasn't taught by Tim. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Oct 20, 2023 11:29:28 GMT
So, two wrongs do make a right then? It is plain that Mr Luckhurst thinks that there are different degrees of wrongfulness. It is not a new moral issue. The Queen Mother was shouted down when she wanted to erect a statue of Bomber Harris. The Queen Mother was also a supporter of apartheid. Not the most enlightened of women apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Oct 20, 2023 11:35:53 GMT
I think the parallel with Word War II is a valid one. I think, however, there are wider implications which Mr Luckhurst doesn't mention. I think that if Israel go in hard, Iran will join in. I think if Israel don't go in hard, Hamas will do it again. I also think the stated right to do everything to "recover our hostages" is probably, sadly, something of a diplomatic pretext. I also used to think that Yassir Arafat looked like Ringo Starr. I think it's quite different for a few reasons but mainly a) the history of power in the regions and b) the validity of leadership. a) There aren't really very many areas of the world which have had such a complex history. If the thing which had instigated the attacks on us by Nazi Germany had been that we were controlling their borders, the flow of goods and commodities for x number of years and that they wanted freedom to do as they pleased then the story would be quite different, don't you think? The Nazis attacked the world in order to expand, not merely to remain and function correctly. Edit: I would just add that this in no way justifies Hamas killing innocent people. Of course not. b) Obviously, the rise of the Nazis in Germany is complicated. I would say though that they did somewhat legitimately rise to power in Germany a relatively short time before the World War began, initially at least. Hamas were marginally elected in 2006 and have not had an election since, for obvious reasons. Polling prior to the recent attacks had them at 20% with a significant large majority of people in Gaza not wanting any of the leadership options on offer. Can you really blame the people of Palestine for the actions of Hamas (to the extent that you blow up their children) when most people do not support them? Aside from that, the majority of their population has never been eligible to vote as the average age in Gaza is incredibly low (probably to do with regularly being slaughtered). Edit: I would also add that I'm not suggesting that everyone in Germany supported the Nazis either. So whilst there may be some parallels, the overall picture is entirely different. And this isn't even considering the fact that killing innocent people has never been an acceptable thing to do in civilised society. Not 2,000 years ago, not 80 years ago, and not now. You certainly can't blame those in the West Bank, where Hamas are not the defacto government and never have been. That said, thirty four Palestinians children were killed there last year. I wonder why? www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackelmo on Oct 20, 2023 12:29:58 GMT
I think the parallel with Word War II is a valid one. I think, however, there are wider implications which Mr Luckhurst doesn't mention. I think that if Israel go in hard, Iran will join in. I think if Israel don't go in hard, Hamas will do it again. I also think the stated right to do everything to "recover our hostages" is probably, sadly, something of a diplomatic pretext. I also used to think that Yassir Arafat looked like Ringo Starr. Israel have been "going in hard" in Gaza, periodically, for the past seventeen years and how had that worked out for anyone? War begets war, violence begets violence. Thankfully polling suggests that you're in the minority on this one with most people in the UK (correctly) recognising that a ceasefire is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackelmo on Oct 20, 2023 12:41:45 GMT
I'll add a little to this as I have a personal perspective and connection to Palestine. My wife has good friends in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Her friends in Gaza lived in Gaza City. As per the Israeli instruction they left their home behind and moved to the south for their own "safety". Two days later, a neighbouring building in the "safe" zone was hit by an Israeli airstrike killing three and blowing out the windows in their own place of supposed safety.
One of her friends has been routinely harassed by Hamas for working for western aid agencies. He, like many in Gaza, is far, far from a fan of Hamas. Tell me, does he deserve having his life, which was already extremely difficult, made worse in this way? Does he need to see his neighbours killed because of the actions of militants that he hates?
Even before this latest escalation he has survived multiple Israeli bombings on Gaza. He cannot leave Gaza (basically no-one can, or could).
The human cost is indescribable, I'm seeing picture of dead babies being cradled by their parents, shell-shocked children shivering in fear, husbands gripping the bodies of their dead wives, doctors collapsing when they realise the victims brought to them are members of their own families. These are real people, this is not an abstract situation where Israel can just drop a few bombs and everything will be sorted.
And just for the avoidance of doubt, Israel does not give a flying Feck about whether civilians are hit. They are mere collateral damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Oct 20, 2023 12:44:18 GMT
I think the parallel with Word War II is a valid one. I think, however, there are wider implications which Mr Luckhurst doesn't mention. I think that if Israel go in hard, Iran will join in. I think if Israel don't go in hard, Hamas will do it again. I also think the stated right to do everything to "recover our hostages" is probably, sadly, something of a diplomatic pretext. I also used to think that Yassir Arafat looked like Ringo Starr. Israel have been "going in hard" in Gaza, periodically, for the past seventeen years and how had that worked out for anyone? War begets war, violence begets violence. Thankfully polling suggests that you're in the minority on this one with most people in the UK (correctly) recognising that a ceasefire is necessary. Blimey. You're even less clever than I thought. Given that I haven't remotely taken sides. |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackelmo on Oct 20, 2023 12:45:43 GMT
Israel have been "going in hard" in Gaza, periodically, for the past seventeen years and how had that worked out for anyone? War begets war, violence begets violence. Thankfully polling suggests that you're in the minority on this one with most people in the UK (correctly) recognising that a ceasefire is necessary. Blimey. You're even less clever than I thought. Given that I haven't remotely taken sides. Apologies, on this one I'm happy to hold my hands up and acknowledge I didn't read your post fully before responding. Thankfully I don't give a shit what you think of me. |
|
