placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: No comment after that pathetic off topic: I guess sharing the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times. You doubted the NY Times report. I called you on it. Just continuing your denialism when it comes to the war in Gaza. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, placeholder said: You doubted the NY Times report. I called you on it. Just continuing your denialism when it comes to the war in Gaza. Do you believe everything in the NYT is always factual and correct? Pointing out factually that they did not name the commanders, pointing out factually from the Time in Israel that the IDF dispute this makes puts me in the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times Did you miss that I post articles from the NYT often on here myself? Again before you take this further off topic I have no wish to debate this further with a poster who resorts to personal insults to deflect from credible news that disagrees with an article he posted from whatever media outlet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, placeholder said: As for me not knowing the man, his family etc...your point is truly bizarre. It wasn't me but rather you making guesses about his judgement based on his personal circumstances. Your reproach is obviously better directed at yourself. Also, as I pointed out, Eisenkot's opinion was hardly his alone. Did you skip over the part about senior IDF commanders agreeing with him? Has grieving over the death of Eisenkot's son skewed their thinking too? And if you read my comment with just a little bit of care, you will see that I didn't assign emotionalism at all to the formulators of the strategy: "As for the strategy, a likely explanation for this is that the Israeli War Cabinet, whose plan this is, has decided that freeing the hostages is less important than eradicating or crippling Hamas. And I suppose a rational case could be made to support that strategy." As for grief and rage making Israelis susceptible to believing that such a plan would be effective...it's clear that's what most Israelis have been feeling. I've already posted data about the awful things said about Arabs enjoying much popularity in Israel. And the awful and mostly unpunished violence waged against them. I don't see how otherwise, in the absence of said grief and rage, someone can believe that both waging total warfare and rescue of the hostages are reconcilable. In support of my thesis I should note, that with the passage of time as the outrage in Israel ebbs, rationality about this issue seems to be on the rise again as evidenced by the growing Israeli opposition to the government's approach to restoring the hostages to Israel. Rubbish. You make some faux outrage comment, then proceed to make the exact same comment yourself - now trying to waffle your way out of it. You pretending to 'take offense' when it's nothing whatsoever to do with you, is despicable. Everything goes when you try to score points. I already noted that these sentiments were present for a while now. My original comment was that it was not a new thing. It does not, however, imply that everyone is on the same page, or got to the same page at the same pace. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: Do you believe everything in the NYT is always factual and correct? Pointing out factually that they did not name the commanders, pointing out factually from the Time in Israel that the IDF dispute this makes puts me in the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times Did you miss that I post articles from the NYT often on here myself? Again before you take this further off topic I have no wish to debate this further with a poster who resorts to personal insults to deflect from credible news that disagrees with an article he posted from whatever media outlet. The article in question isn't about a report gathering information from various sources and weighing evidence. This is about interviews with 4 senior IDF commanders. So, I believe that when the Times says it interviewed 4 senior IDF commanders, it did interview 4 senior IDF commanders. And when it reports their opinions I believe that their opinions are being reported accurately. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, Morch said: Rubbish. You make some faux outrage comment, then proceed to make the exact same comment yourself - now trying to waffle your way out of it. You pretending to 'take offense' when it's nothing whatsoever to do with you, is despicable. Everything goes when you try to score points. I already noted that these sentiments were present for a while now. My original comment was that it was not a new thing. It does not, however, imply that everyone is on the same page, or got to the same page at the same pace. Thanks for your careful non-analysis. It is to laugh. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 58 minutes ago, placeholder said: I guess sharing the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times. You seriously believe that reporters for the Times are making this up? 24 minutes ago, placeholder said: You doubted the NY Times report. I called you on it. Just continuing your denialism when it comes to the war in Gaza. That would be you with your NYT worship. Like it never gets things wrong. Never retracts. corrects or whatever. A certain hospital 'bombing' earlier in this campaign comes to mind. You cannot address the point made, which is legit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, placeholder said: Thanks for your careful non-analysis. It is to laugh. You can't cover your 'stumble' with this nonsense deflection. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, placeholder said: The article in question isn't about a report gathering information from various sources and weighing evidence. This is about interviews with 4 senior IDF commanders. So, I believe that when the Times says it interviewed 4 senior IDF commanders, it did interview 4 senior IDF commanders. And when it reports their opinions I believe that their opinions are being reported accurately. Got it, so when you believe the report its ok, when I point out a differing contextual and factual account with another credible link its....................... I guess sharing the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 9 minutes ago, Morch said: That would be you with your NYT worship. Like it never gets things wrong. Never retracts. corrects or whatever. A certain hospital 'bombing' earlier in this campaign comes to mind. You cannot address the point made, which is legit. But I did address it. As I pointed out, there's a huge difference between trying to get confirmation of events that occur in the field, especially in the case of an event like the one you cited, and an article that reports on interviews with 4 senior field commanders. Not a lot of room there for confusion and contradiction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 11 minutes ago, Morch said: You can't cover your 'stumble' with this nonsense deflection. When you specifically address the points I raised in a rational rebuttal, I'll get back to you. What you wrote here is worthless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: Got it, so when you believe the report its ok, when I point out a differing contextual and factual account with another credible link its....................... I guess sharing the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times. If you're referring to the official IDF reports you regularly relay here, allow me to point out that the IDF is an interested party to the conflict and claims it makes about the success of campaign are inherently suspect. I believe Morch made a point that somewhat deflated on of their claims. If it is the case that you believe the IDF reports assessing its progress, that just puts you deeper in the amen corner. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Just now, placeholder said: If you're referring to the official IDF reports you regularly relay here, allow me to point out that the IDF is an interested party to the conflict and claims it makes about the success of campaign are inherently suspect. I believe Morch made a point that somewhat deflated on of their claims. If it is the case that you believe the IDF reports assessing its progress, that just puts you deeper in the amen corner. that just puts you deeper in the amen corner. More personal attacks and it will be reported, enough of this off topic nonsense 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: that just puts you deeper in the amen corner. More personal attacks and it will be reported, enough of this off topic nonsense I don't think categorizing where your opinions put you counts as a personal comment. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Back on topic. Interesting vid on the hostage and IDF subject. Disclaimer if you disagree with it, its ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Personally I hope that this option comes through Egypt, Qatar and the United States have been serving as mediators between Israel and Hamas in weeks of intermittent talks to secure the release of more Israeli hostages. https://www.timesofisrael.com/eisenkot-gantz-said-to-urge-hostage-deal-for-long-halt-to-war-pm-gallant-opposed/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 38 minutes ago, placeholder said: I don't think categorizing where your opinions put you counts as a personal comment. This is not categorizing where my opinions are, it is false personal insults I guess sharing the Amen Israel corner with right wing denialists has jaundiced your view of the NY Times. that just puts you deeper in the amen corner. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 3 hours ago, placeholder said: But I did address it. As I pointed out, there's a huge difference between trying to get confirmation of events that occur in the field, especially in the case of an event like the one you cited, and an article that reports on interviews with 4 senior field commanders. Not a lot of room there for confusion and contradiction. You did not. You waffled. You did the bow-before-the-NYT bit. You do not know who the officers are, what are their roles in the IDF and what exactly was said. It's a report, like any other. You choose to make it into something else. As Netanyahu just proved, there's a whole lot of room for confusion and contradiction. Try harder, sunshine. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 3 hours ago, placeholder said: When you specifically address the points I raised in a rational rebuttal, I'll get back to you. What you wrote here is worthless. You have no point. And I couldn't care less whether you 'get back to me', actually prefer that you don't. What I wrote was on par with the merit and value of your dishonest comments. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Interesting to see what the bizarre demands are from Hamas terrorists for the release of hostages. The prime minister said that in exchange for releasing the hostages, “Hamas is demanding the end of the war, the exit of our forces from Gaza, releasing all the murderers and rapists of the Nukhba [forces] and leaving Hamas intact.” Netanyahu added that “if we agree to this, our soldiers will have fallen in vain. If we agree to this, we cannot guarantee security for our citizens. We cannot bring the evacuees home safely, and the next October 7 will be just a matter of time. I am not able to agree to such a fatal blow to Israeli security, and therefore I cannot agree to that.” https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-no-full-palestinian-state-no-surrender-in-exchange-for-gaza-hostages 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post metisdead Posted January 22 Popular Post Share Posted January 22 Some posts with nothing other than trolling emojis as a reply contravening our Community Standards have been removed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 IDF generals in Gaza: Tactical accomplishments aren't translated to strategy https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjsuia5fa Some think like that, some think otherwise (as linked in previous posts) - but seems like there's a general sentiment that the country's leadership lacks a coherent strategy. I concur. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 On 1/21/2024 at 12:01 PM, Bkk Brian said: Back on topic. Interesting vid on the hostage and IDF subject. Disclaimer if you disagree with it, its ok. It's not so much a matter of disagreeing as there being so little of substance there to contend with. She's very evasive. Lots of meandering and generalizations and comments that don't really address the issue. She reiterates that Israel would have to pay a huge price for such a deal. And than claims that even if Israel did agree, Hamas wouldn't honor the deal. How does that even make sense? If Hamas didn't return the hostages what would stop Israel from starting up again? Who is this person? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 minutes ago, placeholder said: It's not so much a matter of disagreeing as there being so little of substance there to contend with. She's very evasive. Lots of meandering and generalizations and comments that don't really address the issue. She reiterates that Israel would have to pay a huge price for such a deal. And than claims that even if Israel did agree, Hamas wouldn't honor the deal. How does that even make sense? If Hamas didn't return the hostages what would stop Israel from starting up again? Who is this person? Who is this person? Not so difficult now was it? Wanna know a little more? Colonel (Ret.) Miri Eisin https://ict.org.il/ourteam/eisin-miri-col-ret/ I agree with her, but then she has stated fact. She does not believe Hamas. They did indeed break a previous hostage deal. Of course that does not mean Israel will not still try for another as it is right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, placeholder said: It's not so much a matter of disagreeing as there being so little of substance there to contend with. She's very evasive. Lots of meandering and generalizations and comments that don't really address the issue. She reiterates that Israel would have to pay a huge price for such a deal. And than claims that even if Israel did agree, Hamas wouldn't honor the deal. How does that even make sense? If Hamas didn't return the hostages what would stop Israel from starting up again? Who is this person? Hamas did not honor the last agreement. What's complicated to understand about that? Same goes for past instances. Hamas banks on Israel either not being able or unwilling to 'start up again'. As for who is this person: Miri Eisin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miri_Eisin Who are you? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 A post and a reply contravening our Community Standards has been removed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Morch said: Hamas did not honor the last agreement. What's complicated to understand about that? Same goes for past instances. Hamas banks on Israel either not being able or unwilling to 'start up again'. If you're referring to Hamas not allowing the Red Cross to visit the hostages, it's not at all clear that there ever was an agreement in place: "Mr. Netanyahu said that a deal brokered in late November to exchange hostages for Palestinian prisoners included a provision for the I.C.R.C. to visit all the remaining hostages held in the Gaza Strip, but that aspect of the deal was not confirmed by the other parties." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-hostages-red-cross-lawsuit.html And whatever the case there may be, as I pointed out, if Hamas didn't return the hostages, what would prevent Israel from resuming its campaign? And you didn't at all address the main point I raised: namely that Miri Eisen (thanks for the gratuitously hostile note identifying her) didn't exactly address in a focused way the issue of the irreconcilability of Israel's 2 goals in this war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Way off topic post has been removed here is the topic title in case you have forgotten: Israel and Hamas fight house-to-house battles across Gaza 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 @placeholder No, I'm referring to Hamas breaking the terms of the last hostage exchange deal. What you 'pointed out' was already addressed. Try reading again. You have no main point. She doesn't say what you want to hear, or doesn't echo what you think, so you try to discredit her. As for 'hostile' - you brought up the 'who is this person' bit. Well, this person is 'a bit' more informed than yourself, with a wee bit more hands on experience in related matters. Hence, 'who are you?'. I'll help you with that - you're an anonymous poster on a Thai internet forum. It's bad enough that you imagine posters should post about what you want to talk about, and frame their comments to fit your arguments, now it seems like you extend this to....everyone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, Morch said: @placeholder No, I'm referring to Hamas breaking the terms of the last hostage exchange deal. What you 'pointed out' was already addressed. Try reading again. You have no main point. She doesn't say what you want to hear, or doesn't echo what you think, so you try to discredit her. As for 'hostile' - you brought up the 'who is this person' bit. Well, this person is 'a bit' more informed than yourself, with a wee bit more hands on experience in related matters. Hence, 'who are you?'. I'll help you with that - you're an anonymous poster on a Thai internet forum. It's bad enough that you imagine posters should post about what you want to talk about, and frame their comments to fit your arguments, now it seems like you extend this to....everyone? More evasion from you. Those 4 generals contended that the 2 goals of defeating Hamas and getting the hostages back are not compatible. Eisin did at length go on about not trusting Hamas and no deal with them should be attempted. What she never did was to address the issue of whether or not those 2 desired outcomes are mutually exclusive. What she offered were reasons not to negotiate with Hamas. That's a different issue. She never addressed how it is that Israel can accomplish both goals. No doubt that Eisin is a very accomplished person. Which makes it even more dubious, given her failure to explain how the desired outcome was possible, that either she or those Israelis in command of the war effort have an answer for it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, placeholder said: More evasion from you. Those 4 generals contended that the 2 goals of defeating Hamas and getting the hostages back are not compatible. Eisen did at length go on about not trusting Hamas and no deal with them should be attempted. What she never did was to address the issue of whether or not those 2 desired outcomes are mutually exclusive. What she offered were reasons not to negotiate with Hamas. That's a different issue. She never addressed how it is that Israel can accomplish both goals. No doubt that Eisin is a very accomplished person. Which makes it even more dubious, given her failure to explain how the desired outcome was possible, that either she or those Israelis in command of the war effort have an answer for it. What were the names of those 4 generals, only the IDF have no record of this. Its amazing how one person (Eisen) does not have all the answers to this and how you are so critical of her but then again, not so amazing I guess. The bonus is at least you have her name now eh.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now