Israel Under Attack

[AZRedhawk44]

So I'm learning quite a bit about Israel's ethnic groups from this whole thing.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-hamas-war-rages-personal-firearm-activists-see-surge-in-interest/

Never heard of Druze before.  Kind of like Abrahamic Buddhists.  Neat.

Seems the Druze serve in the IDF, but don't have full citizenship rights.  One of those rights being the ability to "apply" to own and carry a firearm.

[WLJ]

Rob Ski over at AK Operators Union, Local 47-74 says

No matter what you feel about Israel attacks, there are some important lessons to be learned from those attacks...

YOU NEED AK NOW! Live or Die!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laryyzZjNvU&t=1s

[K Frame]

And, as anticipated, the Squad's resident Jihadi is condemning Israel's military response to Hamas' wanton slaughter, essentially categorizing it as evil and uncalled for.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-condemns-israels-military-response-hamas-solution-negotiated-peace

Bitch, go pick up a bomb vest and go to Gaza if you're that invested in it.

[Ron]

101st heading to Jordon

https://bnn.network/world/us/us-armys-screaming-eagles-set-to-bolster-forces-in-jordan-amid-regional-tensions/

[Ben]

The apologists were all saying "beheaded babies" was Israeli propaganda. It's now being confirmed by multiple international journalists.

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2023/10/10/journalists-on-the-ground-in-israel-are-confirming-accounts-of-beheaded-infants-n2388380

[dogmush]

101st heading to Jordon

https://bnn.network/world/us/us-armys-screaming-eagles-set-to-bolster-forces-in-jordan-amid-regional-tensions/

Planned long before Hamas got frisky.

[RoadKingLarry]

And, as anticipated, the Squad's resident Jihadi is condemning Israel's military response to Hamas' wanton slaughter, essentially categorizing it as evil and uncalled for.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-condemns-israels-military-response-hamas-solution-negotiated-peace

Bitch, go pick up a bomb vest and go to Gaza if you're that invested in it.

Maybe her and de Selby can share a ride.

[Jim147]

My county just dropped the $100 CCW fee citing Israel and our open border. We have been constitutional carry for years but still waiting for the lefties to scream blood in the streets.

[De Selby]

Maybe her and de Selby can share a ride.

Between the two of us, you’re the only one calling for strikes that kill children. Me, I don’t think killing children - Israeli or Palestinian - is okay. I hold that killing children is wrong no matter what their race.

[cordex]

Between the two of us, you’re the only one calling for strikes that kill children. Me, I don’t think killing children - Israeli or Palestinian - is okay. I hold that killing children is wrong no matter what their race.

For RKLs edification I've compiled a list of times I could find you criticizing Palestinian terror:

[dogmush]

What's the age cutoff where children can be militarized enough to be combatants?

[K Frame]

The apologists were all saying "beheaded babies" was Israeli propaganda. It's now being confirmed by multiple international journalists.

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2023/10/10/journalists-on-the-ground-in-israel-are-confirming-accounts-of-beheaded-infants-n2388380

All of those journalists are Jew loving, Arab hating infidels!

[K Frame]

What's the age cutoff where children can be militarized enough to be combatants?

Well, if you're Hamas...



or...

[Ben]

So we were kinda talking about, "What if the Israeli citizens were armed?". Looks like a data point for, "They would still be alive" has been found:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12616229/Israeli-woman-Inbar-Lieberman-kibbutz-Nir-Hamas.html

It appears to be the only Kibbutz in the area that escaped a massacre. The terrorists faced return fire with some of them being killed, and they ran away. I'm unclear on how the Kibbutz got their guns, given the posts here outlining Israeli gun laws. The woman being lauded as a hero was their head of security. I'm guessing maybe they had an armory and she issued weapons early enough to do some good? Do all Kibbutzs have armories and security forces? If so, you'd think we would have heard of others who fought off the terrorists.

[WLJ]

AOC actually breaking ranks or just playing visible politics?

AOC added in her statement that the rally 'did not speak for thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting both Hamas' horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under the occupation.'

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has broken with members of her far-left 'squad' of Democrat lawmakers to condemn the 'unacceptable' Pro-Palestine rallies in NYC.

'It should not be hard to shut down hatred and antisemitism where we see it,' AOC said in a statement Monday. 'That is a core tenet of solidarity. The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment.'

AOC added in her statement that the rally 'did not speak for thousands of New Yorkers who are capable of rejecting both Hamas' horrifying attacks against innocent civilians as well as the grave injustices and violence Palestinians face under the occupation.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12617209/AOC-FINALLY-breaks-ranks-woke-Squad-members-condemns-appalling-anti-Semitic-rallies-NYC.html

[dogmush]

Well, if you're Hamas...



or...

It's a valid question.  Folks are over here talking about "Killing Children" like child soldiers aren't a thing. Or like Muslim extremists don't have a solid history of using kids to carry out attacks, or, in the case of talking about removing Hamas' ability to wage attacks from Gaza, like Muslim extremists in general, and Hamas and Hazbollah in particular don't start indoctronating and training boys before puberty.

I was responding to DeSelby specifically who had said "Between the two of us, you’re the only one calling for strikes that kill children.".  Since Hamas recruits, trains, and uses children I think that it's a valid question.  At what point are they valid military targets?  Is there an age cut off?  A point in the training?  Is it OK when they are fighting, but not when they are intel gathering and reporting troop movements?

[K Frame]

I recognize it's a valid question. And I posted those pictures to show to what level Islamic Jihad will stoop.

Apparently Rashida Tlaib also believes that infants are legitimate targets, as well...


"Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., ignored questions Tuesday when a Fox News reporter repeatedly asked for comment on a horrific report that Hamas beheaded Israeli babies.

Fox News reporter Hillary Vaughn confronted the far-left "Squad" member, who has criticized Israel for the attack, as she walked through a hallway on Tuesday.

"Congresswoman, Hamas terrorists have cut off babies' heads and burned children alive. Do you support Israel's rights to defend themselves against this brutality?" Vaughn asked. However, Tlaib did not acknowledge the questions.

"You can’t comment about Hamas terrorists chopping off babies’ heads? Congresswoman, do you have a comment on Hamas terrorists chopping off babies’ heads?" Vaugh persisted. "You have nothing to say about Hamas terrorists chopping off babies’ heads? Do you condone what Hamas has done chopping off babies’ heads, burning children alive, raping women in the streets? You have no comment about children’s heads being chopped off?"

Tlaib and her staff entered an elevator without responding."

[Ben]

It's a valid question.  Folks are over here talking about "Killing Children" like child soldiers aren't a thing.

I'm not sure if I'm talking about the same thing you guys are, but to me, there is "killing children" and "murdering children". If Israel is hitting Hamas strongholds and killing innocent women and children because Hamas was using them as shields, or even if Hamas rockets kill children in buildings they target, as tragic as it is, it happens in war, and I think most people recognize that it's a terrible by-product of war.

However, killing children by cutting their heads off, or pouring gasoline on them and lighting them on fire, or any of the disgusting things Hamas (and others throughout history) have done is not war. It is a war crime and a crime against everything civilization holds as decent.

[WLJ]

Related to the above

According to this some in Hamas are having thoughts about kidnapping women and children.
May be more of a conceal about the Iareali response than of any moral issues though

While the prevailing view among Hamas leaders that taking the 150 hostages would create support among the Palestinians and also be a useful bargaining chip for prisoner exchanges, several believe it was a mistake to abduct women and children, the intelligence agencies told The Times.

Some in the leadership are concerned that because this decision has been met with global revulsion along with comparisons between Hamas and the Islamic State, it could provide legitimacy for a harder Israeli strike on Gaza.

However, given that members of Hamas warned yesterday they will not hand over hostages until the fighting ends - a day after they would execute Israeli captives if the airstrikes continued - it's unlikely this faction could convince the others to give up the women and children.

Hamas leaders are split over decision to kidnap Israeli women and children with one faction calling for captives to be released, according to Middle Eastern intelligence agencies
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618045/Hamas-leaders-split-decision-kidnap-Israeli-women-children-one-faction-calling-captives-released-according-Middle-Eastern-intelligence-agencies.html

[dogmush]

I'm not sure if I'm talking about the same thing you guys are, but to me, there is "killing children" and "murdering children". If Israel is hitting Hamas strongholds and killing innocent women and children because Hamas was using them as shields, or even if Hamas rockets kill children in buildings they target, as tragic as it is, it happens in war, and I think most people recognize that it's a terrible by-product of war.

Specifically, in this case,  folks are criticizing Israel for actions that are "killing Palestinian women and children"  as if that is automatically bad.  Again see DeSelby's quote.  I was pointing out that in addition to the collateral damage you mentioned, some of those women and children are legitimate targets.  Additionally, in a place like the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is actively recruiting and grooming parts of the population, the line between "Hamas" and "Palestinian Children" is fuzzy.


Switching gears a little, I am entertained by the *very* persistent framing of the burgeoning ground offensive as "Israel has a right to defend itself from these attacks".  If you got robbed by someone, went home and got your guns, then went to the guy's house, killed him, burned down the house, kicked his family out into the street, and did it all while explicitly stating that you were being violent enough his decendents will remember and be scared, a claim of defense might be hard to argue.  At some point Israel has transitioned to the offense, and is no longer "defending itself from terrorists" and is killing it's enemy.  I won't say Israel doesn't have the right to wage war as they see fit, but the defensive framing in pro-Israeli western media makes me chuckle.

[WLJ]

Gaza's power plant has run out of fuel or is about to run out. Conflicting reports.

Israeli death toll now at 1,200

[Northwoods]

Specifically, in this case,  folks are criticizing Israel for actions that are "killing Palestinian women and children"  as if that is automatically bad.  Again see DeSelby's quote.  I was pointing out that in addition to the collateral damage you mentioned, some of those women and children are legitimate targets.  Additionally, in a place like the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is actively recruiting and grooming parts of the population, the line between "Hamas" and "Palestinian Children" is fuzzy.


Switching gears a little, I am entertained by the *very* persistent framing of the burgeoning ground offensive as "Israel has a right to defend itself from these attacks".  If you got robbed by someone, went home and got your guns, then went to the guy's house, killed him, burned down the house, kicked his family out into the street, and did it all while explicitly stating that you were being violent enough his decendents will remember and be scared, a claim of defense might be hard to argue.  At some point Israel has transitioned to the offense, and is no longer "defending itself from terrorists" and is killing it's enemy.  I won't say Israel doesn't have the right to wage war as they see fit, but the defensive framing in pro-Israeli western media makes me chuckle.

The closer analogy would be you came to find the same group had robbed your house for the umpteenth time and this time they also killed your dog, raped your cat, and then were celebrated by your neighbors for doing so.  Nobody would do anything to stop this from happening again so your only way to defend your home from additional such attacks was to go out and kill the gang robbing your house and the neighbors that support them.

[cordex]

Switching gears a little, I am entertained by the *very* persistent framing of the burgeoning ground offensive as "Israel has a right to defend itself from these attacks".  If you got robbed by someone, went home and got your guns, then went to the guy's house, killed him, burned down the house, kicked his family out into the street, and did it all while explicitly stating that you were being violent enough his decendents will remember and be scared, a claim of defense might be hard to argue.  At some point Israel has transitioned to the offense, and is no longer "defending itself from terrorists" and is killing it's enemy.  I won't say Israel doesn't have the right to wage war as they see fit, but the defensive framing in pro-Israeli western media makes me chuckle.

That's a weak analogy.  The primary reason why our society discourages independent retribution is because our government attempts to maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force.  We don't get to go kill our attacker and burn his house down because we have outsourced that job to the police and courts.  While we joke about Team America World Police and UN blue helmets, there isn't really an analogous world police force that would be expected to exact retributive justice in this kind of scenario.  Absent such a force, even an obviously offensive attack like an airstrike can be done in a justifiable defensive context.  Even considering strictly US defensive law, in some states there can be issues with advancing on an armed attacker rather than retreating which can mark what is in context a purely defensive response as offensive at some arbitrary point that is not consistent between jurisdictions.

Without commenting on the specifics of this particular Palestinian attack or the Israeli response, the idea that the only operation that can be considered "defensive" is one that stops at arbitrary borders or engages a bad guy only while they are in the very middle of doing bad things - as might be expected of a US citizen defending themselves in the context of modern policing - doesn't make sense.

[dogmush]

Was the GWOT a defensive operation?

Edited to add:  Also I'm going to disagree that my analogy was bad.  Hamas got lucky and had a successful terrorist attack.  In the scope of "Threats to the Israeli government" they have zero chance of continuing the offensive, meeting up with troops from the West Bank or Lebanon, or forcing any major policy change by force of arms.  This is the nation state equivalent of a break in and vandalism.

Israel could have rebuilt the walls, hardened and upgraded their cameras and monitoring, installed more interceptors and re-armed the Iron Dome and gone about their life.  I'm not saying they should mind you, but they could have, and that would have been "defending themselves from terrorist attacks".

They have chosen to go on the offensive.

[cordex]

Was the GWOT a defensive operation?

Pieces of it, maybe.  The Iraq war not so much.  Like so many Current Things, the GWOT served as a pretext to do all manner of non-defensive things including some pretty crappy domestic policy.

Edited to add:  Also I'm going to disagree that my analogy was bad.  Hamas got lucky and had a successful terrorist attack.  In the scope of "Threats to the Israeli government" they have zero chance of continuing the offensive, meeting up with troops from the West Bank or Lebanon, or forcing any major policy change by force of arms.  This is the nation state equivalent of a break in and vandalism.

That is even weaker, my dude.

Deadly force is not strictly limited to cases of immediate existential threat, but is regularly allowed in cases of other types of serious felony (grievous bodily harm, rape, arson, etc) including where those felonies threaten other people.  Saying the wanton and intentional murder of a few thousand innocent noncombatants should be considered the national equivalent of a break in and vandalism is ... weird.  But if you're going to be consistent that killing a few thousand innocent people is not a serious issue, then wouldn't you have to analyze Israel's response the same way?  So long as Israel doesn't glass the Gaza strip it's just a proportional slap on the wrist, right?

Regardless, as far as I'm concerned the analogy primarily broke down due to the absence of outsourced retributive justice on an international level, not simply a question of whether it warranted lethal defense in the first place.