Sleep is for the weak II

Original post by Sophsha

Argentina ❤️

NEYMAR SUPPORTING ARGENTINA!

what is life :frown:

1405274859652.jpg71.5KB

Reply 2581

Ahahaha.

man I hate german pedo smiles.
scares me! :redface:

Reply 2582

In simple terms, no :s-smilie:

Reply 2583

getjob5

Original post by missfats

NEYMAR SUPPORTING ARGENTINA!

what is life :frown:

What a bae ❤️

Reply 2584

OP

Original post by samba

In simple terms, no :s-smilie:

But you can't deny the fact that the death toll is much higher in Palestine than in Israel.

Reply 2585

OP

Yh I know

Ahhh :colone:

Reply 2586

The problem is kinda complex, so this will basically be brief and not 100000% accurate. After the 3 Israeli boys were kidnapped and murdered, some ******** [assumedly Israeli] kidnapped and murdered a Palestinian boy. Hamas are losing support on the ground, and are completely out of allies internationally; even Iran has turned their back on them. And you have Salafi (ISIS type, real bad eggs) forces/influences/support starting to rise in Gaza. So Hamas need to gain some sort of support, or risk losing control. Meanwhile you have these Salafi types [who are not openly affiliated with Hamas and outwardly hate them/could very well hate them privately] gaining support, firing rockets at Israel, and basically showing that 'extreme radicalism and terror' can get results. So Hamas can't afford to be seen as weak basically, internally. They need to find some external and internal support. So they are forced to escalate.

Meanwhile in Israel, the political system is basically kinda transient - if you're not seen as good enough at defending, you're kicked out. So they have very little political capital to not respond, and importantly too, not to get soldiers kills. Meanwhile, they have to be seen as tough on Hamas, whilst obviously they don't want to defeat them and cause a power vacuum. Meanwhile they have very little current human intelligence in Gaza [the bedouin, druze, and israelis make up the majority of humint and that doesnt work for obvious reasons in gaza]

-----

So you're left with Hamas escalating with these rockets, or letting these rockets be fired and attributed to them.
Hamas living in a very urban environment, whereby the only way other than airstrikes would be ground forces.
Israel are forced to respond with airstrikes
Hamas respond further, when they feel they haven't gained enough public opinion
Israel sends in ground troops, more people, and troops die.
Ceasefire announced whilst both sides hate each other that little bit more.

Reply 2587

Original post by Rosie786

But you can't deny the fact that the death toll is much higher in Palestine than in Israel.

Nope, but that's merely because Israel have far better defense and weapon systems, and because the targets are in urban areas, hidden in hospitals etc etc, not because they are 'trying' to kill people. (they are clearly trying to prevent it. If you've ever seen what a hellfire is capable of doing to a building that's easy to realise)

What do you think the death toll in Israel would be if the Palestinians had the Israeli weapons? A million maybe?

Reply 2588

And I answered you. Humint is far from good enough, and the effect of mass special forces casualties would escalate it to whole new levels. This is the only play, from the point of view of both sides.

Reply 2589

OP

Original post by samba

Nope, but that's merely because Israel have far better defense and weapon systems, and because the targets are in urban areas, hidden in hospitals etc etc, not because they are 'trying' to kill people. (they are clearly trying to prevent it. If you've ever seen what a hellfire is capable of doing to a building that's easy to realise)

What do you think the death toll in Israel would be if the Palestinians had the Israeli weapons? A million maybe?

Well you can't start killing people based mainly on assumptions that if they had Israeli weapons then the death toll in Israel will be more. That's like taking the utilitarian approach which I don't agree with at all. Unless in special circumstances.

Reply 2590

OP

Ok my fellow germany suporter :dancing:

Reply 2591

Original post by Rosie786

Well you can't start killing people based mainly on assumptions that if they had Israeli weapons then the death toll in Israel will be more. That's like taking the utilitarian approach which I don't agree with at all. Unless in special circumstances.

How is that 'killing people based on assumptions?' They are eliminating targets as a response for rocket strikes on their civilians.

It's not an assumption anyway. If every rocket fired was a Jericho3, or even Jericho2, Israel and Jordan would no longer exist. Hell, even if they were firing Popeyes, Israel and Jordan wouldn't exist.

Reply 2592

Original post by samba

Nope, but that's merely because Israel have far better defense and weapon systems, and because the targets are in urban areas, hidden in hospitals etc etc, not because they are 'trying' to kill people. (they are clearly trying to prevent it. If you've ever seen what a hellfire is capable of doing to a building that's easy to realise)

What do you think the death toll in Israel would be if the Palestinians had the Israeli weapons? A million maybe?

I've said this before and will say it again, I believe that the international community should class hamas as an illegitimate president on the grounds of dictatorship and terrorist activity. The UN are capable of doing this as previous encounters with people like him i.e gaddafi.

Majority of Palestinians (or isrealis) do not want more civilians hurt just because of hamas and his joke frenzy of followers. Thus it is inconvenient of isreal to instead of taking international efforts to eradicate hamas and his followers, but rather kill innocent children ALL because of hamas.

It's apparent what the problem is. If we replace "Hamas" with a president who is willing on behalf of Palestinians to negotiate a peace treaty. This is properly the only way, we should be seeing the lives of Palestinians aswell as isrealis.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2593

OP

Original post by samba

How is that 'killing people based on assumptions?' They are eliminating targets as a response for rocket strikes on their civilians.

It's not an assumption anyway. If every rocket fired was a Jericho3, or even Jericho2, Israel and Jordan would no longer exist. Hell, even if they were firing Popeyes, Israel and Jordan wouldn't exist.

You have the same type of thinking like when the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were 'eliminating targets'

I say that was bull to the sheeeez. But everyone has their own opinions.

Reply 2594

Arieisit

3

Wooo, things are serious in here and out of my scope of knowledge too :lol:

Reply 2595

How fast does an aircraft move? How fast does an operative in hostile territory move? How flexible is the guidance on a missile? How flexible is the guidance from an operative?

And if they could get operatives in to at least sight the missiles, they would anyway. It's a non starter as it's not possible.

Original post by missfats

I've said this before and will say it again, I believe that the international community should class hamas as an illegitimate president on the grounds of dictatorship and terrorist activity. The UN are capable of doing this as previous encounters with people like him i.e gaddafi.

Majority of Palestinians (or isrealis) do not want more civilians hurt just because of hamas and his joke frenzy of followers. Thus it is inconvenient of isreal to instead of taking international efforts to eradicate hamas and his followers, but rather kill innocent children ALL because of hamas.

It's apparent what the problem is. If we replace "Hamas" with a president who is willing on behalf of Palestinians to negotiate a peace treaty. This is properly the only way, we should be seeing the lives of Palestinians aswell as isrealis.

The problem is neither Israel or the Palestinians can afford for Hamas to be destroyed or eliminated at the moment. The groundswell is for Salafi (ISIS) forces, and if they came to power the problems for the people would be FAR worse. Other nations [jordan/egypt] would get involved and civilian casualties would rocket up :s-smilie:

Basically it's a lose lose on all sides. If Hamas got crushed, it would be worse though I think. Can you imagine Sisi showing the same restraint as Israel does?

Reply 2596

Original post by Rosie786

You have the same type of thinking like when the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were 'eliminating targets'

I say that was bull to the sheeeez. But everyone has their own opinions.

That's a really dumb comparison. As the Japanese had offered unconditional surrender, it was specifically targetting civilians to warn to Soviet Union of the devastation of nukes, and people like Doug McArthur even said they were entirely unnecessary. You basically just compared bombings designed to cause maximum civilian casualties by using the most devastating weaponry available to this, gg.

Ironic really, because Israel have the capability to do that. They don't. I wonder why.

Reply 2597

toonervoustotalk

20

I am watching the football on BBC because of no breaks and i am a supporter of iseral.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2598

That awkward moment that if you all watch ITV, the bbc will still show the match because it's not based on viewership but TV licence.

SO STOP PAYING YOUR TV LICENCE.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2599