Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[Renegade7]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why do you think your sources are more valid (or at least as valid) the state department. Your sources appear to be Hamas’ word.

 

It's the Washington Post, New York Times reported the same thing.

 

Why do you insist on being right when I insist it's too late to matter anymore?

 

There won't be a ceasefire, Hamas wants a break, Israel wants a break.  The point of the ceasefire from countries like us or Egypt don't matter anymore.

 

Are you happy?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Why do you insist on being right when I insist it's too late to matter anymore?

 

I don’t insist on anything. I am. You were choosing to put all of the blame on Israel. Then when you were presented with evidence that refutes your position you decided it doesn’t matter. That IS the kind of antisemitic undercurrent that flows through any discussion about Israel’s actions. 

 

Having a fact based discussion is important to me.
 

 

[Jabbyrwock]

17 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Why do you insist on being right when I insist it's too late to matter anymore?

 

PULL UP RENEGADE PULL UP!

 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I don’t insist on anything. I am. You were choosing to put all of the blame on Israel. Then when you were presented with evidence that refutes your position you decided it doesn’t matter. That IS the kind of antisemitic undercurrent that flows through any discussion about Israel’s actions. 

 

All the blame?

 

No, I pointed out Isreal pissed off Egypt, written statement from their Egypt's own government.

 

You insisted they weren't really pissed off.

 

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Having a fact based discussion is important to me.

 

Opinion.

 

You've already made up your mind and said clearly you want Israel to finish off Hamas by invading Rafar while nearly entire world is saying "hold on a second".

 

I have to look at all of your responses through that prism when you're right and when you're wrong.

 

You never gave a source anyone changed the deal at last minute.  Your jus insisting it was deal Israel would never agree to ao they are absolved from their actions until they get what they want.

5 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

PULL UP RENEGADE PULL UP!

 

 

Sure.  Logging off.

[TradeTheBeal!]

After ten years of stacking LLLs like a Daniel Jones/Wes Unseld Jr love child, CC84 finally nets an elusive W.

 

What a time to be alive.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You insisted they weren't really pissed off.

 

No, I didn’t. Could you quote me where I said that?

 

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You've already made up your mind and said clearly you want Israel to finish off Hamas by invading Rafar while nearly entire world is saying "hold on a second".

 

 

No, I said they should go into Rafah and they should do it responsibly by setting up evacuation zones and humanitarian corridors, which they haven’t done.

 

 Perhaps I haven’t said it in every single post I made about Rafah, but if you go through the posts my opinion on Israel’s actions are clear.

Of course, my position is that Israel shouldn’t agree to a permanent cease fire without going into rafah unless Hamas leadership surrenders.

 

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You never gave a source anyone changed the deal at last minute. 

The state department said as much. Now, last minute? No. Neither sides position changed. The deal that Hamas accepted wasn’t the deal that Israel offered. The deal that Israel would accept wasn’t the deal that Hamas Offered.

[Fergasun]

These negotiations are gonna be worse than when the GOP negotiates.  

[Renegade7]

36 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

No, I didn’t. Could you quote me where I said that?

 

 

Sure.

 

8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The move is an attempt to appease Egypt who doesn’t want an influx of Palestinians crossing into Egypt when the battle starts.

 

If that's not what you meant, I don't get the double down with the article you posted from February like two posts later.

 

36 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

No, I said they should go into Rafah and they should do it responsibly by setting up evacuation zones and humanitarian corridors, which they haven’t done.

 

 Perhaps I haven’t said it in every single post I made about Rafah, but if you go through the posts my opinion on Israel’s actions are clear.

Of course, my position is that Israel shouldn’t agree to a permanent cease fire without going into rafah unless Hamas leadership surrenders.

 

Got it, noted.

 

Quote

The state department said as much. Now, last minute? No. Neither sides position changed. The deal that Hamas accepted wasn’t the deal that Israel offered. The deal that Israel would accept wasn’t the deal that Hamas Offered.

 

Bet, acknowledging that wasn't true is cool. 

 

Border was closed two days ago. Will Israel facilitate reopening it to allow aid to go through now that they have control of the Gaza side? I'm not holding my breath. But this is one of those situations I actually want to be wrong.

Edited May 7 by Renegade7

[TradeTheBeal!]

Gotta be the most pathetic, flaccid, astroturfed election year psyop of all time.  It’s like a multi-part Mr. Show bit.

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Sure.

 

 

If that's not what you meant, I don't get the double down with the article you posted from February like two posts later.

 

No where did I say Egypt was happy. I said the opposite actually in a follow up post. What I did say was Israel was trying to belay Egypts fears of a migrant crisis. You can comprehend the difference between the two statements?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Bet, acknowledging that wasn't true is cool. 

 

I never said it was changed at the last minute. That is something you made up in your own head.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Border was closed two days ago. Will Israel facilitate reopening it to allow aid to go through now that they have control of the Gaza side? I'm not holding my breath. But this is one of those situations I actually want to be wrong.

 

No, I don’t think they will.

[Renegade7]

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

No where did I say Egypt was happy. I said the opposite actually in a follow up post. What I did say was Israel was trying to belay Egypts fears of a migrant crisis. You can comprehend the difference between the two statements?

 

 

Belay their concerns by doing something they asked Israel not to do?

 

I do get the difference, you don't do something someone asks you not to do thrn do it anyway and claim they did it to help them out.

 

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I never said it was changed at the last minute. That is something you made up in your own head.

 

I see...way I took this post was Egypt and Hamas changed the deal that was being worked out with Israel:

 

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It wasn’t a ceasefire Israel ever would agree to. No ceasefire agreement was ever made. Israel agreed to a temporary ceasefire and Hamas and Egypt changed it to a permanent ceasefire. The difference is material.

 

My takeaway was only that Hamas agreed to what was being sent over the fence after working with Egypt and Jordan...that's what they announced and Israel instead took the Gaza side of border crossing even after Egypt asked them not.

 

That was my concern from get-go.

 

Your post from State Department makes sense, Egypt sounded desperate to get something out in hopes of slowing this down and failed.

 

I unfortunately have to take our governments public statements on this matter with grain of salt given they admittedly are using more stern and strong language in private with Israel. So forgive me for being skeptical when they insist no one agreed to anything, even if it's true.

 

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

No, I don’t think they will.

 

Something we agree on, even if it's bad.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

After ten years of stacking LLLs like a Daniel Jones/Wes Unseld Jr love child, CC84 finally nets an elusive W.

 

What a time to be alive.

Yup. And I was seeing the same news elsewhere when it broke - there was nothing agreed to by either party as their demands are the opposite. 
 

and Egypt has been pretty don’t give a **** about the Palestinians for a while. It was Egypt that kept that border crossing closed when all this began, and only opened it to aid after lots of pressure. They’ve always had to balance what they want/think and what they say publicly. The Palestinians are not much liked by the rest of the region which is why the only help they get is to be made an international incident against western democracies every several years. 
 

Hamas is essentially using them as human shields. And the blame is cast on the Israeli’s. 
 

also I don’t know if Israel did that to please Egypt (makes total sense as an option) or if they are just enclosing the area. Either makes sense and the result is the same so doesn’t much matter. 

[Destino]

2 hours ago, Fergasun said:

These negotiations are gonna be worse than when the GOP negotiates.  

The fact that this is a negotiation is absurd.  Hamas has no standing to negotiate anything, they’re beaten.  I’d understand this process if Hamas still had the means of exacting a heavy toll on Israel if the conflict continues, but they don’t. 

[Larry]

8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Hamas should surrender. I’m sure if the leaders of Hamas were to turn themselves in (to the ICC for example, where they could have a fair trial) there would be no assault on Rafah. Think about all the lives that could be saved if they just did the right thing.

 

Just out of curiosity, should the leaders of Israel surrender themselves to the same court?  

 

Why or why not?  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Belay their concerns by doing something they asked Israel not to do?

 

Egypt doesn’t want a war at their border. But refugees pouring across their border would probably require a military response from Egypt for the reasons the article I posted this morning mentioned.

 

They asked Israel not to do it because they don’t want a war at their border, and this is a step in that direction. So it doesn’t make them happy. But Israel is trying to avoid forcing Egypt’s hand.

 

 

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

You don't do something someone asks you not to do thrn do it anyway and claim they did it to help them out.

 

That literally happens all the time.

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

That literally happens all the time.

 

 

So it's right to do that all the time? Or whenever one feels like it?  Can justify it?

 

That's one opinion, certainly another to when it's appropriate or not.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

45 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just out of curiosity, should the leaders of Israel surrender themselves to the same court?  

 

Why or why not?  

It’s a more complicated question than your gotcha question implies. 
 

Ultimately I think leaders who commit war crimes should be prosecuted.

But Israel’s leaders are government officials. Hamas leaders are not. So that does give them greater authority to act in defense of their state. 
 

I supposed if the ICC is willing to round up the leaders of Hamas, the ayatollah in Iran, Xi in China, your American president of choice, ect then after all those people get their fair trial we can work our way down the list to Israel.

[Captain Wiggles]

10 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

But Israel’s leaders are government officials. Hamas leaders are not. So that does give them greater authority to act in defense of their state. 

 

Curious if you think having greater authority also should include having greater responsibility? (Ducking for cover)

 

11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I supposed if the ICC is willing to round up the leaders of Hamas, the ayatollah in Iran, Xi in China, your American president of choice, ect then after all those people get their fair trial we can work our way down the list to Israel.

 

Is Bibi Netanyahu included in that ect or nah? (Ducks again for cover)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

48 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Curious if you think having greater authority also should include having greater responsibility? (Ducking for cover)

 

Your first responsibility is to the security of your country, not international law.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Is Bibi Netanyahu included in that ect or nah? (Ducks again for cover)

Yea, that’s what I said. well, perhaps he is first in line after the ect. The ect was there for you to add your favorite war criminal. 

[Renegade7]

Finally, some good news.

 

U.S. paused shipments of thousands of bombs to Israel amid Rafah rift  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/07/biden-delays-weapons-israel-rafah/

 

Quote

The Biden administration paused the shipment of thousands of weapons to Israel, including controversial 2,000-pound bombs, amid mounting concern about the country’s plan to expand a military operation in southern Gaza that could dramatically increase the conflict’s death toll, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

“Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere else to go,” said a senior administration official, explaining the U.S. decision to pause the weapons shipments. “We are especially focused on the end-use of the 2,000-pound bombs and the impact they could have in dense urban settings as we have seen in other parts of Gaza.”

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Finding out that Macklemore’s real name is Benjamin Hammond Haggerty might be as close as I’ll ever come to a real life “his real name’s Clarence” moment. 

[tshile]

20 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Just out of curiosity, should the leaders of Israel surrender themselves to the same court?  

 

Why or why not?  

Theoretically - yes. 
 

in reality given how war crimes tend to actually work - no. They’re the victor. The only question is how far they are required to go. One option would be for Hamas to surrender to the ICC, and Israel stop now. 
 

I’m sure Israel would just execute them. But if Hamas wanted to save Palestinians they’d surrender. But like most groups in control waging war, they don’t actually give a **** about the people, and will fight for as long as they are allowed to. 
 

their leaders don’t even have the balls to be physically in the Gaza Strip. They rattle their sabers from Qatar (or wherever they are. ) They're cowards talking a big game from safety while all these people die. 

Edited May 8 by tshile

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[tshile]

From an election strategy stand point - I find it interesting to think about how that nets out. Biden draws the line at moving into rafah, but only in terms of no longer supplying weapons (lol money is another can of worms but ignoring for now.). I’m so lost in terms of demographics across the country that are impacted by this - but it certainly seems possible you don’t placate enough on the Palestinian side to make up for what you lose on the Jewish side. Or maybe you do. Or maybe really there’s like 3 states total where the calculus even matters and it’s not that difficult to make it a net improvement. 
 

It’s also entirely possible this is purely a US-centric decision and has nothing to do with election ramifications. I just find it interesting working through them from that angle. 

Edited May 8 by tshile

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, tshile said:

From an election strategy stand point - I find it interesting to think about how that nets out. Biden draws the line at moving into rafah, but only in terms of no longer supplying weapons (lol money is another can of worms but ignoring for now.). I’m so lost in terms of demographics across the country that are impacted by this - but it certainly seems possible you don’t placate enough on the Palestinian side to make up for what you lose on the Jewish side. Or maybe you do. Or maybe really there’s like 3 states total where the calculus even matters and it’s not that difficult to make it a net improvement. 
 

It’s also entirely possible this is purely a US-centric decision and has nothing to do with election ramifications. I just find it interesting working through them from that angle. 

 

I get the position of wondering the calculus of cost vs benefits in this decision.

 

End of the day it's the right one.

 

So much of the world looks at us as enabling Israel, that includes several Jews and Palestinians in our country that can or cannot vote.

 

Jus have to ask what matters more here: "why we did it" or "that we did it".  Maybe I'm biased here, but i do believe history will remember that we drew this line more then why we finally did.

 

Hopefully it saves lives, that's a more important why then votes...but that's jus my opinion.

Edited May 8 by Renegade7