Off Topic (4 Viewers)

[Pat Hartman]

Their distro has been a disaster, I don't need to have a solution in hand to point it out.

I think the Israelis should step away and not bother trying to help the citizens of Gaza. Gaza is not their responsibility. Israel left Gaza to the Palestinians over 20 years ago and this is what they have done with it. First they elected Hamas to govern them and the "constitution" they signed up for specified killing all the Jews. Hamas destroyed the businesses and housing that the Israeli settlers had created and when they needed more money, dug up the water pipes to make rockets. So, even though Gaza is connected to the Israeli water system, water is hard to come by because Hamas has destroyed the distribution network.

Let Hamas be solely responsible for distributing the aid. That way the citizens will die sooner from starvation and at some point the only people left alive will be only Hamas. Some agency brings the goods to a border station and transfers the load to a different truck and the driver goes away. All the west does is keep track of how much food and medicine they dropped off so Hamas can't lie about it as they forcibly starve their own population. How's that for a solution?

 

[Isaac]

I think the Israelis should step away and not bother trying to help the citizens of Gaza

I am quite sure you do!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

While I see doing so as bad PR for the Israelis, Pat is right that Gaza citizens who won't evacuate the area really are not the IDF's problem. After a few warnings, if you don't leave a known war zone about to be targeted, you must have a death wish or perhaps a martyr complex.

 

[Isaac]

While I see doing so as bad PR for the Israelis, Pat is right that Gaza citizens who won't evacuate the area really are not the IDF's problem. After a few warnings, if you don't leave a known war zone about to be targeted, you must have a death wish or perhaps a martyr complex.

Well sure, in a situation with refusal to evacuate, if given time to do so - but it's kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Your choices are to stay home and hope you stay lucky, or venture out into an unknown with whatever you can carry on your donkey's back and not knowing if there will be food or medicine where you are going - Imagine you just walked out of your house to a new part of town. No food, no supplies? ? I mean you make it sound so easy, like "Just move". These people aren't exactly in a situation where they can just whip out the credit card and rent a truck and rent a new place.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

but it's kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Exactly the point. So pick the damnation more likely to get you closer to your end goal. Which means beat the tar out of Hamas.

 

[Steve R.]

Well sure, in a situation with refusal to evacuate, if given time to do so - but it's kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Your choices are to stay home and hope you stay lucky, or venture out into an unknown with whatever you can carry on your donkey's back and not knowing if there will be food or medicine where you are going - Imagine you just walked out of your house to a new part of town. No food, no supplies? ? I mean you make it sound so easy, like "Just move". These people aren't exactly in a situation where they can just whip out the credit card and rent a truck and rent a new place.

It is up to the Palestinians to make the decision to reject Hamas, to release the hostages, and to surrender. They started the conflict, now they have the opportunity to rectify that mistake and are rejecting it. It seems that they prefer endless conflict and martyrdom (with never ending images of sacrificial dead babies). The Palestinians, had they been interested in peace, could have turned Gaza into something similar to Singapore.

PS: It appears that none of the Arab countries want to take in Palestinian refugees to end this humanitarian crises. As a side note, Jordan in 1971 had a bloody civil war to expel Palestinians from Jordan. Unfortunately they went to Lebanon, founded Hezbollah and created civil war there.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I am quite sure you do!

But you don't understand why because you think the Israelis are the bad guys because the NYT prints pictures of starving children who are not starving at all but in fact suffering from a disease. And then when called out on it buries the retraction on page 99999.

Please, read some history. What other attacked country has ever tried to feed and care for the citizens of their attacker and Israel gets nothing but grief for doing it?

 

[Isaac]

But you don't understand why because you think the Israelis are the bad guys because the NYT prints pictures of starving children who are not starving at all but in fact suffering from a disease. And then when called out on it buries the retraction on page 99999.

Please, read some history. What other attacked country has ever tried to feed and care for the citizens of their attacker and Israel gets nothing but grief for doing it?

Never said the Israelis were the bad guys as if only them. But you still have to do what's right and razing the entire community isn't right, nor forcing 2 MM people into starvation just to get a few.

 

[Steve R.]

@Isaac: The Palestinian case is an example of selective morality, where the Palestinians are "supported" based on antisemitism. The world has not been concerned about being morally "right" when Israel can't be blamed. Again, the Palestinians started the conflict and committed war crimes; many people apparently have amnesia concerning that.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac: The Palestinian case is an example of selective morality

I agree there is that going on as well, and it's a shame we aren't equally outraged by what happens in Africa and other conflicts.
Perhaps the difference is that in Africa we have virtually no chance of influencing the outcome (short of boots on the ground, anyway) whereas with Israel, a few words one way or the other can make them be a bit more careful in other words we have influence in that situation

 

[Pat Hartman]

While I see doing so as bad PR for the Israelis, Pat is right that Gaza citizens who won't evacuate the area really are not the IDF's problem. After a few warnings, if you don't leave a known war zone about to be targeted, you must have a death wish or perhaps a martyr complex.

The reason the Israelis try to save the citizens, including sending them warnings of impending bombing is because Hamas is actually keeping them hostage. They literally cannot evacuate the targeted area.

The Palestinians, had they been interested in peace, could have turned Gaza into something similar to Singapore.

The world certainly gave them billions with which to do it. What did Hamas (the ruling government) do instead? They stole the aid and sold it to the citizens and spent the money on bombs they used to kill Israeli citizens. Then they destroyed functioning businesses and homes that the Israelis were forced to abandon when the Israelis withdrew in 2004 and when they needed even more money, they tore up the water pipes to use them to build makeshift rockets.

The citizens of Gaza are between a rock and a hard place. They made their bed and there is no way out for them unless they abandon Hamas. No Arab country will take them in as refugees. All the neighboring countries have learned their lesson. They tried to take over Jordan after they left Israel willingly in 1948 and were expelled so they took over Lebanon and turned it from a peaceful free Christian country to a Muslim country controlled by Hezbollah. Everyone knows that the hatred the Palestinians are raised with does not translate well into peaceful living in a host country. The Israelis are doing their best to try to save them but the Israelis are not going going to simply lie down and die. They will fight to the death to keep their homeland.

 

[Pat Hartman]

many people apparently have amnesia concerning that.

Antisemitism is at an all time high. It is fostered in our colleges and supported all over the world. For the sake of the Oppressor/Oppressed narrative, the Jews seem to be "white" and the oppressors and so are always wrong.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Ordering Asian food when your high

https://twitter.com/x/status/1964091585018138996

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thanks, AB, for posting this.

It would seem that some Liberal couldn't stand someone who repeatedly and very publicly exposed the many fallacies of the Leftist causes. We will of course have to find out who did it and what reasons fueled the attack. But it certainly seems like someone had enough of Charlie Kirk. Talk about the ultimate in censorship!

For those not aware, it is now on the news that Charlie Kirk was killed by a sniper during one of his public appearances. If you don't know who he is, search YouTube for his video confrontations at colleges across the USA and other venues. He was a conservative speaker who demolished liberal viewpoints, and was very effective in getting his points across. This is how far the Leftists will go to silence someone who was a threat to them because of his excellent logic and his effectiveness at rebuttals of Leftist arguments.

 

[ColinEssex]

For those not aware, it is now on the news that Charlie Kirk was killed by a sniper during one of his public appearances.

There is an average of 125 people shot and killed every day in the USA. This bloke is just one of those. Don't worry though, there will be another hundred or so shot and killed tomorrow.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Whoa! The prodigal son has returned.

Part of me knows you are correct, Col, but it is still a very tough loss. The guy was popular among conservatives, eloquent, and potentially someone who COULD have run for President based on his political stance.

For the record, though, a VERY large percentage of the gunshot victims on any given day will be gang members for whom gun laws are things to be ignored anyway.

Charlie Kirk was a victim of some notoriety. In an interview with the US Senator from Utah (where the shooting occurred), Charlie reported he had gotten a very high number of threats and pushback from the students after announcing he had been booked to appear in one of his open forums. Looks like someone was dead serious about his appearance.

 

[ColinEssex]

For the record, though, a VERY large percentage of the gunshot victims on any given day will be gang members

Oh phew! That's OK then, there's me thinking they were real people who live within their lovely white picket fence.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Gang violence is a separate and distinct problem in many countries around the world. Some Caribbean nations are having massive gang problems, and a friend of mine from Sao Paolo, Brazil reports that some parts of that city are unapproachable. There are the Islamic R*PE gangs in England, or at least this forum has discussed them. Some of the problems in Gaza include gangs that attempt to hijack the food trucks before they reach the refugees. Violent gangs are everywhere. Not all of them use guns, but all of them DO use violence.

I posted as I did, not because I downplay the value of lives lost to any source, but because from a purely statistical viewpoint, gun death causes are hard to assign. Part of the problem in estimating gang deaths is that often the underlying cause is not known. All you have is a body killed by a bullet and the shooter is nowhere to be found. Was it a gang-related shooting, a domestic disturbance, or an accident? Mass shootings account for 1% of gun deaths per year and about 58% of a year's gun deaths are suicides.

@ColinEssex - you will note that I didn't treat your question as irreverent or irrelevant - or even irritating. It represents a very serious problem and betrays a massive breakdown in society. The Democrats have long bemoaned what they see as a loss of "their democracy" - but killing a conservative voice does not seem consistent with a democratic attitude. If the liberal side of the country has gone this far, the irony is overwhelming. The Liberals are the ones who wanted to take guns away from people - but when they find someone who can out-argue them, ... they turn to gun violence to silence their highly effective critics.

 

[ColinEssex]

@ColinEssex - you will note that I didn't treat your question as irreverent or irrelevant - or even irritating.

I didn't ask a question.
Col