125
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
125 points (92.5% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is not possible. There is no way to bomb away terrorist, many have tried, none have succeeded. And talking about "the only solution is killing" has a bad taste to it. There is no "only solution" for any problem and bombing sure isn't solving anything. Hasn't the past decades.
Be doesn't want discussion, he wants a platform. I did this with him a few days ago, don't engage.
Yeah, thanks for the heads up
They did and succeeded. Let's face it: A main reason why there was pratically no resistance after the surrender in Germany and Japan is that the Allies did make it clear that they wouldn't hesitate to use means that make what Israel is doing now look like a picknick if necessary. I'm not sure about Japan, but the Nazis had elaborate plans for guerilla warfare after invasion. But brutaltiy of their defeat dissuadeded their supporters from actually committing to that.
Now, Germany and Japan also experienced a second step that made them rather peaceful today and that was an economic revivial that provided opportunties for everoyne and made it possible to rebuild the countries in a new image and we most certainly must strive to make that happen in Gaza, but it all started with a people beaten so badly that it realized that violent resistance was futile.
Edit: There really is a long list of terrorists movements being wiped out with brutal force. In many cases that's not morally acceptable (take what China is doing in Xinjiang for example), but places from Czechnia to Sri Lanka are reasonably calm nowadays because governmetns litterally bombed their enemies into submission. The question is just whether the end justifies the means.
in Germany it was not the brutality of the allies victory that dissuaded people, it was the totallity of it. The people weren't stupid so when they saw the massive amount and types of material the alies carted through Germany they knew they lost. The German people were not well of at that point yet here come the US soldiers throwing chocoloate around like ti's nothing. Stuff like that imprints really hard just how badly you lost.
But yeah with Japan the US had to first display that they were willing and cappable to turn the entire country to rubble before the leadership surrendered.
Yes, that was indeed part of the psychological effect. It's also why I'd welcome it if Nato joined that war. Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan I read that you'd need about 1 occpying soldier for every 20 inhabitants to prevent any resistance gaining ground. Sending 100k soldiers to that place would work and would allow for tactics that lead to far fewer civilian deaths.
The giving chocolate is also something that works. If heard stories of aid from America from my grandparents more than 70 years after the war. When people are on the brink of starvation it's quite cheap to buy their loyalty.
Not wanting civilian infrastructure to be bombed is supporting terrorism? Wow are you absolutist.
Says the one okay with bombing schools. Thats just not okay in any way shape or form.
Nooe, right here seems fine. No but you basically said they need to be eradicated, please tell me his that's different. And you could also elaborate on how you would combat the terrorists if you had it your way.
you, literally in the same comment chain
Should I just quote the rest of that comment then? Because you repeat yourself in the next paragraph, you're even so kind to put a full stop behind the statement that time:
Tell me, where is this mysterious "context" you mention because I just can't seem to find it between your constant demand/proposal to eradicate all terrorists.
Context:
Now tell me, where in that comment chain do you, explicitly, state that no civilians should be killed in the attempt to remove Hamas from Gaza?
You cannot remove Hamas by means of force without at the same time killing an incredibly large number of innocent civilians. You demanding Hamas has to be eradicated first is, implicitly, stating that you are A-OK with Israel slaughtering innocents in the process.
As you say they are a terrorist organization, they use human shields. You cannot state your argument in some fantasy reality where Hamas and the IDF suddenly play by the rules of engagement.
If you bomb all the schools then they can't hide in them. And if you kill all the school children they won't need schools. It makes perfect sense!
It is your point exactly. Or do you honestly think that killing thousands wouldn't led to more terrorists because of the hate these actions instilled? It happened multiple times you know. And bombing only ever made everything worse.
Oh, sorry, I took your words and you don't like that? So sorry. Maybe you shouldn't have written them in the first place, just a suggestion.
Also, being hostile just makes you seem childish, just a friendly piece of advice.
Going by the remark you close the previous comment with the only person being childish here is you. If your reaction to being called out is demanding the other user delete their account (I'm being favorably with the interpretation here) that says a lot about your ability to handle criticism.
Now I'm going to generously assume you just lack the English language skills to have this discussion in a manner where you can properly articulate your point (because apparently what everyone else here takes away from your comments is not what you think you wrote). Given that assumption I can only give you my well meant suggestion of not engaging in discussions using the English language. If you can't properly articulate your point then there is no point in having a discussion. Discussion only works if communication is bidirectional and clear which is not the case when one side loses half their arguments in translation.