Meanwhile in Israel

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Unrwa.

Quality, trustworthy group.

 

[BobyBrno]

This is the Israelis account of the strike. You can, of course, take the terrorists account of the strike.

 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

I wouldn't particularly want to take the word of either party, but if we're posting the claims of UNRWA and the "Gaza-run Health Ministry" (Hamas), it seems only fair we note the IDF has claimed the attack occurred in the early hours of the morning, a number of Hamas and PIJ terrorists were killed, and that the operation was called off twice in order to minimise civilian casualties

Edited June 6, 2024 by Lt. Aldo Raine

[bolty58]

7 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

Israel say it was a school used by Hamas. Israel say they killed over 30 Hamas. The strike was in the early hours of the morning. Not school time. Not sure where you got your information about two classrooms full of kids from. 

This is what they do. Invent stuff to try to deliver maximum discredit.

Precisely what we saw when a missile fired by Hamas or the other mob of scumbags (PFLP, PIJ or whatever they are labelled) hit the hospital and then tried to say it was the IDF.

Socialist Worker types like him follow suit.

[bolty58]

7 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Unrwa.

Quality, trustworthy group.

 

Oh aye. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/un-agency-unrwa-staff-accused-involvement-in-october-7-attack-israel-hamas-palestine/

[London Wanderer]

10 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

it really doesn’t add up, does it?

 

It really does add up. Another horrific attack that will create more terrorists than it kills. 

[London Wanderer]

10 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

This is the Israelis account of the strike. You can, of course, take the terrorists account of the strike.

 

Both sides are extremists.

 You can’t trust either 

 

[London Wanderer]

10 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Unrwa.

Quality, trustworthy group.

 

It was the IDF who said they had terrorists in their midst.

 Yet they’re still to present the evidence.

 Funny that

[kent_white]

The IDF looked at their intelligence and concluded that 9 dead members of Hamas is worth 5 dead kids. 

Read into that what you will. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

44 minutes ago, kent_white said:

The IDF looked at their intelligence and concluded that 9 dead members of Hamas is worth 5 dead kids. 

Read into that what you will. 

How many would the Hamas/other terrorists have gone onto kill?

If we were at war and we had the opportunity to remove 9 twats who were seeking to kill as many of our own as possible, then (as unfortunate as it is) it's a no brainer to take them out with some innocents lost too.

Moreover, having monitored and delayed the action to minimise such losses, then I would support our forces totally. 

I think we all know the terrorists would do the very opposite and seek to kill as many men, women and children as possible, and would monitor a target to ensure maximum numbers were available. 

[BobyBrno]

40 minutes ago, kent_white said:

The IDF looked at their intelligence and concluded that 9 dead members of Hamas is worth 5 dead kids. 

Read into that what you will. 

Isn’t that always the dilemma in war? 
Taking it to the extremes of comparison, how many innocent deaths would have been acceptable to eradicate Hitler, Stalin, etc.etc. etc. before they came to power.

I and you know little about the targets killed by the Israelis. It may bring the war to an early end. It may prolong it. 
The principle remains the same though. 
Before anyone asks, the principle being the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage.
 

[bolty58]

2 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Isn’t that always the dilemma in war? 
Taking it to the extremes of comparison, how many innocent deaths would have been acceptable to eradicate Hitler, Stalin, etc.etc. etc. before they came to power.

I and you know little about the targets killed by the Israelis. It may bring the war to an early end. It may prolong it. 
The principle remains the same though. 
Before anyone asks, the principle being the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage.
 

Amplified when the target(s) purposely put innocents in the line of fire to either hide behind or generate the maximum amount of negative publicity against the opponent should a direct hit be achieved.

Ergo, it is not unreasonable to lay the blame for the death of these five innocents at the feet of Hamas. Furthermore, you can put the deaths of all of the innocents in Gaza at the feet of Hamas. No 7th October, no war.

Fucking scumbags. No wonder Egypt are letting none of them in.

 

[BobyBrno]

8 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Amplified when the target(s) purposely put innocents in the line of fire to either hide behind or generate the maximum amount of negative publicity against the opponent should a direct hit be achieved.

Ergo, it is not unreasonable to lay the blame for the death of these five innocents at the feet of Hamas. Furthermore, you can put the deaths of all of the innocents in Gaza at the feet of Hamas. No 7th October, no war.

Fucking scumbags. No wonder Egypt are letting none of them in.

 

Watching the D Day remembrance events yesterday and I noticed the memorial to the French civilians killed during the allied invasion. Over 20,000 killed. Some by the allies, some by the Germans. 
War is shit.

[kent_white]

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

Isn’t that always the dilemma in war? 
Taking it to the extremes of comparison, how many innocent deaths would have been acceptable to eradicate Hitler, Stalin, etc.etc. etc. before they came to power.

I and you know little about the targets killed by the Israelis. It may bring the war to an early end. It may prolong it. 
The principle remains the same though. 
Before anyone asks, the principle being the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage.
 

It is. I didn't make a judgement about whether they were right or wrong. 

That's for us all to weigh up individually. 

[kent_white]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

How many would the Hamas/other terrorists have gone onto kill?

If we were at war and we had the opportunity to remove 9 twats who were seeking to kill as many of our own as possible, then (as unfortunate as it is) it's a no brainer to take them out with some innocents lost too.

Moreover, having monitored and delayed the action to minimise such losses, then I would support our forces totally. 

I think we all know the terrorists would do the very opposite and seek to kill as many men, women and children as possible, and would monitor a target to ensure maximum numbers were available. 

I don't know how many they'd have gone on to kill. I doubt they would have been able to kill any Israeli civilians though. Perhaps some military personnel?

And the decision was made that that their deaths were worth sacrificing a few Palestinian children for. 

[BobyBrno]

3 minutes ago, kent_white said:

It is. I didn't make a judgement about whether they were right or wrong. 

That's for us all to weigh up individually. 

Fortunately, me and you don’t have to make these decisions. (Right or wrong) Imagine having the ultimate authority or responsibility to press that red button (is it red?) 

One day, someone will make that call. Hopefully, me and thee will be well gone by then. 🤞

[kent_white]

4 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Fortunately, me and you don’t have to make these decisions. (Right or wrong) Imagine having the ultimate authority or responsibility to press that red button (is it red?) 

One day, someone will make that call. Hopefully, me and thee will be well gone by then. 🤞

I'm reading a book about nuclear war at the moment. And how it might likely unfold if it ever does. 

Basically we go from one nuke being launched to Armageddon in just under 45 minutes. 

The scariest part is - when they war game different scenarios, whichever way the first nuke flies - the end result is full scale engagement between all major parties. 

And that includes if a solitary nuke was launched from North Korea. 

This is in the event of an ICBM being launched - not a tactical nuke. But I think the thinking is that once that taboo has been broken - and M.A.D. has been dismissed as a doctrine - then all hell will break loose. 

Anyway, have a lovely weekend! 🚀🚀🚀😁😁😁

[royal white]

2 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

Isn’t that always the dilemma in war? 
Taking it to the extremes of comparison, how many innocent deaths would have been acceptable to eradicate Hitler, Stalin, etc.etc. etc. before they came to power.

I and you know little about the targets killed by the Israelis. It may bring the war to an early end. It may prolong it. 
The principle remains the same though. 
Before anyone asks, the principle being the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage.
 

Unfortunately some people can’t grasp this. Every war you can think of this has always been the case. For some Reason folk get a little more upset when Palestinians are the victims. All very strange 

Edited June 7, 2024 by royal white

[kent_white]

14 minutes ago, royal white said:

Unfortunately some people can’t grasp this. Every war you can think of this has always been the case. For some Reason folk get a little more upset when Palestinians are the victims. All very strange 

I just get a little twitched when countries intentionally bomb schools with children in them. 

Call me old fashioned if you like! 

[royal white]

24 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I just get a little twitched when countries intentionally bomb schools with children in them. 

Call me old fashioned if you like! 

Not old fashioned. Just proving my point 👍

[kent_white]

Quote isn't working for some reason. But no, it doesn't prove your point at all. Your point being that you think I'm only concerned because it's Palestinian children who've been exploded.

I'd be equally twitched if Hamas bombed an Israeli school with children in it. Or if the Ukrainians bombed a Russian school with children in it. Or if we ever bombed a school with children in it. 

Basically I'm just not a big fan of bombing schools with children in them. Irrespective of the nationality of the school children or the nationality of the country launching the bombs. 

[royal white]

17 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Quote isn't working for some reason. But no, it doesn't prove your point at all. Your point being that you think I'm only concerned because it's Palestinian children who've been exploded.

I'd be equally twitched if Hamas bombed an Israeli school with children in it. Or if the Ukrainians bombed a Russian school with children in it. Or if we ever bombed a school with children in it. 

Basically I'm just not a big fan of bombing schools with children in them. Irrespective of the nationality of the school children or the nationality of the country launching the bombs. 

Crazy hey, there was  famine a couple of week back according to posters on here and now they’re back in school, go figure. Theres been plenty of wars over the year plenty of schools attacked, hospitals, parks, shopping centres. Where was the outrage/upset then? Apologies if I’ve missed it. 

[Zico]

3 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

the unfortunate consequence of collateral damage.

 

So in response to one day of 1200 deaths and 250 hostages, is the death of 37,000 over 8 months incidental?

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

It was a former UN school building, for what that's worth

[kent_white]

1 minute ago, royal white said:

Crazy hey, there was  famine a couple of week back according to posters on here and now they’re back in school, go figure. Theres been plenty of wars over the year plenty of schools attacked, hospitals, parks, shopping centres. Where was the outrage/upset then? Apologies if I’ve missed it. 

So your point is that we should be outraged and upset about people launching missiles at Palestinian schools with children in them, but only if we're equally outraged and upset about people launching missiles into schools with children of other nationalities in them too? 

Have I understood that correctly?

If I have, then we're in agreement aren't we? 🤝👍