2023 Israel-Palestine Armed Conflict

[Enig]

Everyone I know that's ever liked Bomber Harris without irony involved was either a 16 year old or sociopathic, just sayin'

 

[toad of the depths]

The problem with that is that Germany was also going into total mobilization at the same time too,("I ask you: Do you want the total war?!...") so sussing out the effects of strat bombing vs total mobilization is an impossible counterfactual, and I say this as a person who leans more towards "strategic bombing was ineffectual" side of the debate.

We have counterpoints in Korea and Vietnam as well, saturation bombardment is marginally more effective than targeted bombardment. NATO et al also discovered that through targeting civilian infrastructure we can achieve similar civilian casualties while plausibly blaming our enemy for not rebuilding it (with the 0 industrial capacity we left him with) during the Iraq wars, so the tactic is ultimately outmoded even for its intended purpose (murdering innocents).

Everyone I know that's ever liked Bomber Harris without irony involved was either a 16 year old or sociopathic, just sayin'

Breadtube moment.

Dresden was in February 1945, Germany surrendered in May, and the last really valuable target, the Ruhr Valley, was captured in April; Hamburg was in 1943, Allied Bomber Command spent 2 years annihilating German cities, they did it so often they came up with a verb for it, hamburgization.

The important point that I'm trying to make here is that the Israelis aren't talking about civilian casualties in Ruhr or Hamburg or Berlin, they're invoking Dresden.

 

[curson]

Ja, different situation. I think you cannot compare either Vietnam/Korea/3. Reich with the problems that the Israelis are facing. Lets see how brave these terrorists are and how their command strcture is working when the Israelis begin to level the ground. Its a very small area, it can be done.

 

[toad of the depths]

Ja, different situation. I think you cannot compare either Vietnam/Korea/3. Reich with the problems that the Israelis are facing. Lets see how brave these terrorists are and how their command strcture is working when the Israelis begin to level the ground. Its a very small area, it can be done.

Israeli leadership invoked Dresden here, not me, so I think the comparison is apt to a degree.

 

[FedPostalService]

Everyone I know that's ever liked Bomber Harris without irony involved was either a 16 year old or sociopathic, just sayin'

I’ve just had a psychological diagnosis on the Farm of Kiwis. We were fighting a total war and needed someone with the will to fight that war. He was one of those people and those who object to him are fat comfy faggots.

 

[Alaric the Visigoth]

Their refusal to move is insane to me.

This is what happens to those who did try and move

 

[toad of the depths]

I’ve just had a psychological diagnosis on the Farm of Kiwis. We were fighting a total war and needed someone with the will to fight that war. He was one of those people and those who object to him are fat comfy faggots.

I'm not the one setting the objective moral groundwork for claiming that shtetl liquidations on the Ostfront were of "human shields" to get to "human animals" (non-uniformed partisans), I'm pointing out where this kind of callous moral argumentation leads. You don't get to play moral particularism on the necessities of war, collective punishment, whose using human shields against who, which civilians are OK targets or which aren't games without exposing yourself to these criticisms. You are either someone who implicitly or explicitly universally endorses killing civilians or you are someone who recognizes that it is wrong in all cases. Moral particularism implodes on itself.

I feel very strongly on this. I don't think dead civilians are OK. They're not right in Gaza, they're not right in Ashkelon, they're not right in the west bank, they're not right in Israel, they're not right in Palestine. Language about collective punishment, human animals, etc etc so forth opens up historical equivalences that either those uttering these phrases disregard or don't care about. If we as a species want to collectively improve, recognizing that certain actions cannot be contextually justified is an important first step. And its a first step that people show their inability to take repeatedly, year after year, day after day.

Ultimately the atrocities you justify committing on others are just justifications for committing atrocities on you. Play at your own risk.

 

[curson]

Definitely no problem to do the Dresden thing....
As long as they also destroy the tunnels....

But it's difficult to fight in ruins, especially for armored vehicles...remember Stalingrad.

 

[Ghostse]

I understand moral objections to turning cities to dust but I don't get people claiming it wasn't effective. Strategic bombing forced the German industry to disperse and by 1945 it was really rough to get material from the factory to the front before it got destroyed. In the last month or two of the war there wasn't really much point to it anymore since making the rubble bounce while maybe being satisfying to some doesn't have much military impact

It also tied up tens of thousands of men and thousand of barrels to shoot at the sky when they could have instead been put on the front to shoot at allied combat troops pushing through Europe. Fighter units had to be pulled from the front to defend the Reich as well.

As others had said: the strategic bombing campaign was not a good use of resources. The goals of fucking with the enemy could have been achieved with smaller bomber formations, the strategic goals of causing the german economy to seize up was only (somewhat) accomplished by adjusting targets.

War economies don't really slow though, they collapse. Germany was making 250 fighters a month until two months before the surrender. The important rail junctions weren't getting hammered until after the landings on the continent.

That said, the "Lol it was pointless and did nothing" camp is also wrong. It did fuck with the war economy, made life harder and did affect production by forcing production to adapt to the possibility of bombs falling on anything in reach. But the high-altitude daytime bombing was not very effective, and medium bombers at lower altitude probably would have been able to do as well or better for less cost in resources and men.

Like nigga we firebombed japan until they gave a conditional surrender, nuked them twice demanding unconditional (an excuse to test the nukes, they weren't that much better than firebombing) and then gave them terms on the surrender and occupation that we probably could've negotiated out of them. To call the allied air campaigns anything less than sociopathic displays of casual disregard for civilians on all sides frankly relieves the strategic air forces of the western allies of blame for a casual disregard of human life.

Counter Point: Japan had hardline generals ready to fight and die to the last man in suicide attacks, giving zero fucks about civilian losses or reprisal or the ultimate futility of those actions because of the importance of honor & the emperor. They were nearly impossible to bring to heel against their will because of WWII Japan's idolization of the Shogunates. Even after two cities got leveled with a new bomb there was still resistance to surrender.

Additionally in most estimates about the fire bombing, the reaction of allied planners was along the lines of "we wanted to cause destruction but have the nips seriously never had to put a fire before? Gawdang."

The fire bombing of Tokyo/Kyoto was because Japanese industry at that point was largely fucked, and a lot of war materiel production, like ammo and uniforms, had been dispersed to people's houses because Japanese war planners knew the industrial centers were going to stop existing now that B-29s could reach the home islands.

 

[Ghostse]

I don't think dead civilians are OK. They're not right in Gaza

You have Palestinians dressing their 4 year olds up in Jihadi gear and teaching them to kill the jew. If population isn't picking up AKs or tryin to suicide the bomb those other, bad semites they are sheltering and feeding them.
What civilians in Gaza?

 

[Echo_Ender]

This is what happens to those who did try and move
View attachment 5432323

Hamas has all-but-openly said that they'll kill Palestinians who try to leave because they're "Betraying the cause", so this is unsurprising.

Their only hope for survival is to hide behind walls of civilization bodies and hope the international community will make Israel stop.

But as many have said, their true leadership hasn't been in Gaza for a long time. They're either living in palaces in Quatar or cosplaying as "Diplomats" in various other neighboring countries that are off limits to bombing/drone strikes.

Unless Israel can get their glowies (Mossad?) to make them have "Accidents", no amount of bombing will kill the enemy leadership.

 

[toad of the depths]

Additionally in most estimates about the fire bombing, the reaction of allied planners was along the lines of "we wanted to cause destruction but have the nips seriously never had to put a fire before? Gawdang."

The USG literally hung men to death slowly who had better excuses in that conflict. Also this is literally Hamas' excuse, "sorry we succeeded too much, sorry about the dead kids."

What civilians in Gaza?

"Israel subjects all men and women to be military reservists, what civilians at the rave?"

We can play this game back and forth, I'm not interested, really, there exist a million sort of plausible reasons a semi-reasonable person can justify killing children/adult civilians with, I'm not even in the barrel that I'd need to scrape with.

Edit: I think people are mistaking the moral point I'm trying to make here for excusing or justifying Hamas activities. I'm not, I'm attempting to rhetorically make a point.

 

[FedPostalService]

I'm not the one setting the objective moral groundwork for claiming that shtetl liquidations on the Ostfront were of "human shields" to get to "human animals" (non-uniformed partisans), I'm pointing out where this kind of callous moral argumentation leads. You don't get to play moral particularism on the necessities of war, collective punishment, whose using human shields against who, which civilians are OK targets or which aren't games without exposing yourself to these criticisms. You are either someone who implicitly or explicitly universally endorses killing civilians or you are someone who recognizes that it is wrong in all cases. Moral particularism implodes on itself.

I feel very strongly on this. I don't think dead civilians are OK. They're not right in Gaza, they're not right in Ashkelon, they're not right in the west bank, they're not right in Israel, they're not right in Palestine. Language about collective punishment, human animals, etc etc so forth opens up historical equivalences that either those uttering these phrases disregard or don't care about. If we as a species want to collectively improve, recognizing that certain actions cannot be contextually justified is an important first step. And its a first step that people show their inability to take repeatedly, year after year, day after day.

Ultimately the atrocities you justify committing on others are just justifications for committing atrocities on you. Play at your own risk.

I am saying this unironically and by no means as some sort of back handed compliment: you are a good human being.

Unfortunately a sad fact of history is that good human beings don’t win wars. In fact they are still trying to compromise as the tanks are rolling over them.

Stay safe, Kiwi bro. I wish you healthy and happiness but please don’t enter into a career of politics.

 

[toad of the depths]

Unfortunately a sad fact of history is that good human beings don’t win wars. In fact they are still trying to compromise as the tanks are rolling over them.

Stay safe, Kiwi bro. I wish you healthy and happiness but please don’t enter into a career of politics.

I have two moods: "democratic society means nobody is a civilian" and "we shouldn't kill innocents. or anybody really." I will say that the 21st century has certainly broadened what is a legitimate military target, but children are always off limits.

Politics can be won without killing civilians and is a preferrable alternative to war, although limited Medieval/Napoleonic style conflicts are the preferrable manner of sorting things out. I say this with dead seriousness, William Tecumseh Sherman is one of the most evil men to have ever lived and his writings on civilian deaths are my primary reason for this claim. The late 1800s and early 1900s normalization of total war and the nuclear umbrella's normalization of guerilla fighting have ultimately created a system of conflict that I think will kill all of humanity.

 

[curson]

As long as the mulims are using child soldiers it´s difficult to draw a line.

 

[Johnny Salami]

View attachment 5431866
archive

View attachment 5431867
i don't get this Hananya Naftali guy, you have a source for these images but instead of posting the originals you post some really shitty AI upscaled ones and then get mad that people point out it has all the hallmarks of AI generation, you'd think after shitting the bed by claiming the IDF bombed the hospital that they would take away all his electronics but nope; still around to keep the JIDF workforce busy by having to defend all his retarded tweets.

I'd respond that every American GI in war that died was probably working class meanwhile the average Jew continues to be enriched by the wars in the mid east. Really makes you think

I think the connection they're drawing is specifically with the Genestealers, with the aggressive mimicry of a host population in order to conquer them from within.


I recall a document given to German teachers telling them to watch out for signs of right-wing thinking in their students. One of these signs was girls wearing traditional braids. Another sign was "children who appear too happy."

Germans are a broken people. Jews will soon pass laws about being pure European. Serves them right but sad at the same time

I remember that as well, but can't find the article unfortunately. So there's a small risk it was satire and I am misremembering it. But considering working out and being healthy is also very nazi, it certainly sounds plausible.

There's definitely been a few articles we've covered in A&H. for example:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/10/health/get-in-shape-summer-dangers-wellness/index.html

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

Couldn't either side just create a viral campaign saying Taylor Swift supports Hamas/Israel and let several million Swifties commit genocide leaving both sides with a squeaky clean conscious?

 

[Ghostse]

"Israel subjects all men and women to be military reservists, what civilians at the rave?"

Lots of non-isrealis there my dude. There were their to have middle east burning man. (And I guess they got it)
Vs. Palestine having lots of Chechens and Syrians there for the express purpose of trying to murder the jews.

This isn't saying the Palestinians weren't done dirty (or that it was largely their own making). But when they try to play hiding among civilian games, they win stupid prizes.

Total War is often the least costly in civilian life.

 

[BikeLock]

View attachment 5430004
Very confirmed now that even though Saint Porphyrius' Church wasn't directly targeted by an Israeli airstrike, that it was severely damaged and people inside died.
Including relatives of a former congressman.

Good, fuck Justin Amash, he's a fuckin' cunt.

 

[toad of the depths]

Lots of non-isrealis there my dude. There were their to have middle east burning man. (And I guess they got it)

I'll bite, of those I've seen identified, they were of jewish heritage and could've migrated to Israel and then joined up, making them potential reservists.

We can play this game circularly, forever. I don't think you've grasped my point, this isn't about whether or not the ravegoers were a legit target (I agree they aren't), its whether or not convincing argumentation can be made to justify their targeting (I think it can, and I'm steelmanning a case I've seen arabs make online before) and that this is the sort of justification people are making RE gazans (it objectively is). I would posit that this thinking is what exacerbates conflicts like this and I going to post very desperately in this vein to try to win people over to what I think is a better view of people generally.

Total War is often the least costly in civilian life.

Franco-Prussian War:

World War 1 saw more than 9 times this in military deaths alone. Please be joking.