Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, and?

Did anyone prevent you from posting updates on the fighting up north?

 

 

If I mention HZB or Nasrallah = Off topic

 

If you comment the same = OK

 

Double standards again.

Posted
Just now, Morch said:

 

Asymmetric warfare does not imply all that happened on the Hamas 7/10 attack.

Posted earlier that had they limited the attack to the army bases and capture only soldiers, there would be less issues and backlash.

Yea right, attack the Israelis army directly.

"Israel's highest ranking was for its military, which was placed fourth, behind Russia, the US, and China.  "

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-among-10-most-powerful-countries-in-the-world-in-annual-list/

 

^^^^^See !!, links , you remember those? 

and you want Hamas to attack the Army directly ? 

 

  • Confused 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea right, attack the Israelis army directly.

"Israel's highest ranking was for its military, which was placed fourth, behind Russia, the US, and China.  "

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-among-10-most-powerful-countries-in-the-world-in-annual-list/

 

^^^^^See !!, links , you remember those? 

and you want Hamas to attack the Army directly ? 

 

They punched through in some 30 places along the border and were overrunning military bases and the nearest towns within minutes. 

Yes links:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/12/hamas-planning-terror-gaza-israel/

  • Thanks 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Yep, after the Syrian "barrel bombs" we have this time the Hamas "thermobaric grenades".

 

The Apache helicopters and Merkava's didn't shoot a single shot...LOL

So off topic deflection on Syria then

Posted
6 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

If I mention HZB or Nasrallah = Off topic

 

If you comment the same = OK

 

Double standards again.

 

You make claims - I don't know what you base them on. Not unusual in your case.

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea right, attack the Israelis army directly.

"Israel's highest ranking was for its military, which was placed fourth, behind Russia, the US, and China.  "

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-among-10-most-powerful-countries-in-the-world-in-annual-list/

 

^^^^^See !!, links , you remember those? 

and you want Hamas to attack the Army directly ? 

 

 

You are aware that the first targets attacked on 7/10 were IDF bases and soldiers, right?

That's what i was referring to.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Yep, after the Syrian "barrel bombs" we have this time the Hamas "thermobaric grenades".

 

The Apache helicopters and Merkava's didn't shoot a single shot...LOL

 

Here's an example:

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1060.htm

 

You ongoing campaign to discredit 'barrel bombs' use is dully noted. Assad sends his thanks, I'm sure.

The rest of your post - again, nothing that you can support.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You are aware that the first targets attacked on 7/10 were IDF bases and soldiers, right?

That's what i was referring to.

yes but not limited too. 

They had some success b ut how long do you think that success would had lasted in they persisted in a symmetrical war? 

And could you please answered on of my questions before you move on to another front.

Right or wrong I directly answered every one of yours. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Dont start an asymetric war whilst hiding among civilians.

Where do you start it. On the moon? 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Do you do context when you reply to posts? Or just react to standalone words?

context? 

the claim was made that hamas was killing Israeli children

How is Israel killing killing Palestinian children not in context? 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Where do you start it. On the moon? 

Maybe dont start wars at all? Or are you into killing?

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

yes but not limited too. 

They had some success b ut how long do you think that success would had lasted in they persisted in a symmetrical war? 

And could you please answered on of my questions before you move on to another front.

Right or wrong I directly answered every one of yours. 

 

 

It's kinda hard to follow an argument when the goal posts keep shifting.

If the purpose of the attack was to make a point, to raise awareness, to break a stalemate, or to disrupt normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, then a limited strike on the IDF bases, and capturing soldiers as hostages would have sufficed. It would have humiliated Israel while at the same time resulting in much less international backlash toward Hamas. It would also rob Israel of much international support and justification for retaliatory actions.

 

I did not suggest that Hamas had to go butt heads with the IDF. Nothing about symmetrical warfare. Just that the atrocities part, the attacks on civilians and so forth were not necessary.

 

I've no idea which questions you think I haven't answered. I know you didn't answer mine regarding the two-state solution (both on this topic and another one).

  • Thanks 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

context? 

the claim was made that hamas was killing Israeli children

How is Israel killing killing Palestinian children not in context? 

Intention matters.

Hamas means to murder all Jews, and murders Israeli children because they're Jews.

The IDF targets military targets that are shielded by civilians.

The intention is not to kill anyone but the military targets.

That's war, buddy.

Who started it? HAMAS. 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Q Why don't we get daily updates from the northern 2nd front in Lebanon?

 

A : Thorgal was right from the beginning.

 

Is there a northern front?

Posted
11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Where do you start it. On the moon? 

 

Hamas could have located its facilities in a manner which would lessen the risk for civilians. It could also  have provided for the civilians protection.

Or take into account that the Israeli response would be harsh, and maybe rethink.

 

But as was seen - Hamas leadership actually commented that civilian death are required sacrifices for the cause, and even called on civilians to stay put and face Israel's attacks.

 

Hamas cynically and knowingly use the people of Gaza.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

context? 

the claim was made that hamas was killing Israeli children

How is Israel killing killing Palestinian children not in context? 

 

Yeah, that's what I meant by trying to read the posts you comment on in context.

Scroll back and you'll get it.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

context? 

the claim was made that hamas was killing Israeli children

How is Israel killing killing Palestinian children not in context? 

You still have not answered my question.

 

Given Hamas has the goal of destroying Israel, how should Israel defend itself?

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, sirineou said:

context? 

the claim was made that hamas was killing Israeli children

How is Israel killing killing Palestinian children not in context? 

Because of intend, there is a huge difference

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Maybe dont start wars at all? Or are you into killing?

Yes that's what it is, I am for killing. 

What  is your solution then?  

Don't start a war. If you found yourself in their situation, the took your home and were killing your children. What would you do? Will you bend over and politely ask if they could please use some vaseline 

Attack occurred October 7

here is a report by a reputable organisation date August 28.

"Israeli forces had killed at least 34 Palestinian children in the West Bank as of August 22. "

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children

What's the matter? aren't Palestinian children white enough for you? 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Is there a northern front?

 

Vs. Hezbollah, but on a limited scale.

There are at least two topics supposedly dealing with that, one with little posts, the other with posts about pretty much anything else but.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, that's what I meant by trying to read the posts you comment on in context.

Scroll back and you'll get it.

Have a nice day

Posted
Just now, sirineou said:

Yes that's what it is, I am for killing. 

What  is your solution then?  

Don't start a war. If you found yourself in their situation, the took your home and were killing your children. What would you do? Will you bend over and politely ask if they could please use some vaseline 

Attack occurred October 7

here is a report by a reputable organisation date August 28.

"Israeli forces had killed at least 34 Palestinian children in the West Bank as of August 22. "

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children

What's the matter? aren't Palestinian children white enough for you? 

 

 

I will answer you again.

Back in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.

No settlements, no soldiers, no Israelis, no occupation.

Hamas could have chosen to take the opportunity and develop the Gaza Strip as an example of what the Palestinian State could be like.

What they did instead was stick with their agenda, ideology and charter - turning it into a terrorist base instead.

 

Palestinians have been making bad choices since 1947 (and even earlier). Some acknowledgement of that is in order.

  • Love It 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...