We should demand answers from our own elected representatives.
》 All of these systems have been linked to dozens of illegal airstrikes, including on designated humanitarian sites, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties. None of these systems are necessary to protect Israel from incoming drone or rocket attacks.
When the military spends 2 decades integrating Israel technology because we enabled people to be buying random technology to integrate as a method of building the military, then the result is that we've sold out the military arm to a terrorist nation, Israel. They are strong arming us into doing their bidding because our core systems now run off their servers.
The country is perfectly capable of having its own rotten morals, and outsourcing of all blame to Israel is just excusing the mistakes of American leadership.
> outsourcing of all blame to Israel is just excusing the mistakes of American leadership.
Isn't it really the other way around? Israel is literally outsourcing its war and its war crimes to the US military (the strike on the girls' school was not Israeli but American).
Sure, Israel is getting some bombardment, but the lion's share of retaliatory strikes are being borne by American allies, almost all of whom have now lost trust in the US, and are now being forced to buy stockpiles from the EU and even Ukraine because the Americans came unprepared.
It's telling when the tightly controlled media in those countries lets billionaire magnates openly criticize their country's relationship with the US (not Israel), on national print.
If your friend plans on killing a hooker because he likes the idea of snuff porn, and you pitch in to kill her coworker and her boss so there are no witnesses and so your friend doesn't get hurt and because okay maybe you also enjoy snuff porn when you're in the right mood, then it's a joint venture and you share culpability. Trying to divy up fault (45% or 55%?) is kind of besides the point. Trying to decide who's ultimately responsible (0% or 100%?) is both besides the point and violates every ethical principle we have.
Trump sent half of the US's fleet to the Persian Gulf to mount a war on Iran, in part to distract us from the Epstein Files, in part because he thinks he's a czar who we'll title "The Great" for his territorial expansion since the Nobel committee vetoed "The Merciful". Rubio said that we knew Israel was going to attack Iran, and we would have stepped in to defend Israel from the counterattack, so we decided to just attack Iran ourselves. Hegseth ("Deus Vult" Hegseth) and the general staff apparently are disseminating the view internally that "Trump was anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth", and they are His blessed instruments.
As any empire who eventually fell, the US too will fall because of hubris, thinking they're invincible solely because technology and a big population. Seemingly there is little support for the war, and surely once boots on the ground are deployed, and bodies start having to be flown home, the support will drop even more. Personally the question remained to be answered is if people will actually actively revolt once that starts happening? Given the last year, I'm not so sure about that yet.
Iranians must indeed be thrilled at having their capital bombed and civilian infrastructure in chaos.
Tehran is not a mudhut backwater, it is an actual city of 15M+ people.
As much they could possibly despise their current leadership, they will likely despise a lot more the country that is throwing bombs in their neighborhood. And rightly so.
Right not carpet bombing exactly but multiple days now of bombing a country that has never attacked us with their military. Every time the question is asked "why are we bombing them then" the answer is "just because" or "it's how war is fought" or "we had to kill one guy". So the relentless murder of innocents certainly feels like "carpet bombing".
You are kidding right? "Right not carpet bombing exactly but multiple days now of bombing a country that has never attacked us with their military." Iran conducted thousands of attack against US and coalition forces in Iraq with IEDs made in Iran.
Okay. You’re kidding right? Then you’re proving my point. Their military didn’t directly attack us. How many American made munitions did the US supply to Israel to attack Iran or Palestine or Lebanon or anywhere else Israel decided the Usa was going to attack next?
The start of the war wasn’t started by IED’s supplied to Iraq from Iran during the Iraq war. You’re just moving the goal post to fit the criteria. The war started a several days ago when we bombed the country.
And again as every person with a brain has been saying: if we’re attacking Iran based on indirect attacks, why haven’t we bombed and invaded China or Russia?
Just for clarification who's allowed, and who's not allowed, to have opinions on the morality of the US military? So far the list seems to exclude even American veterans.
It could also be because we don't want a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to put them on European capitals.
It could also be that the whole region is simply tired of their bullshit, and would like to normalize their relations with Israel and generally get on with life without nonsense like Hamas and Hezbollah interfering. Note how Lebanon is seeing this as an opportunity to get rid of Hezbollah once and for all.
> It could also be because we don't want a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to put them on European capitals.
This is laughable. The current US administration would likely jizz their collective pants if Iran did a nuclear strike to a European capital. They can barely hide their hatred of EU and what it represents.
No, fuck this noise. Iran is being bombed by the US and Israel for their own evil reasons. Europe has many failures, but this Iran bullshit is not on us. Go pin this in someone else.
I sure hope we have the freedom to criticize a country conducting genocide and inciting WWIII, in an internet forum in the US of A. Seems like it’s banned in most other places in the US.
Oh but please keep coming here to be a worthless racist who blames immigration for everything; you really make this site the shining beacon of hate and facist right wing ideology that people are proud of around here.
Israel serves the interest of US imperialism. It is a project of Western imperialism that couldn't exist without its support.
The war against Iran is deeply unpopular in the US so leaders try to blame Israel. They are playing on the anti-semitic tropes of certain groups secretly controlling the government. It is important to not fall into this narrative.
If the US had told Israel that they wouldn't support them if they attacked Iran, this war wouldn't have happened.
What we see is a continuation of US imperialism as it has always been. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. There have never been any morals.
The war against Iran serves the geostrategic interests of US imperialism. It is the only country that dared to oppose them, that dared to criticize the genocide in Palestine, that dares to ally with their rivals.
All y'all's conspiracy theories about Israel are just tiresome, and of course, false. Israel has advanced to the point that it likely could exist, or soon will be able to exist, without support of the U.S. The U.S. military likely relies more on Israeli technology than the other way around, and certainly the U.S. military would get nowhere in the Middle East without the IDF's and Mossad's unparalleled military intelligence and planning. Remember that when Israel attacked Iran last year, the IDF was doing fine and taking out targets until that pendejo plastered with orange makeup in the tackily gilded White House, then still deluded with the idea of receiving a Nobel peace prize, screamed at Netanhayu to stop so he could drop a huge bomb and take credit in the gullible (or now captive) U.S. media that he "ended" the war.
Also worth consideration is that the comment by the boozing, former TV host U.S. secretary "of war" that rules of engagement are "stupid" stands in stark contrast to the IDF's scrupulous use of rules of engagement and resort to teams of lawyers to guide its military activities. Remember that the IDF warns residents of buildings it targets and even sends them texts messages to get out before bombing the buildings. Who else does that?
Also incredibly tiresome and patently false is that Israel committed "genocide" in Gaza -- no matter how many "activists" and misguided Western politicians scream that term. Hamas illegally entered Israel on 7 Oct 2023 and massacred more than a thousand Israeli citizens, and kidnapped hundred more, including babies and octogenarians, to be kept in fetid conditions and used as political pawns (or killed). Hamas even played politics with the bodies of Israelis they killed. Hamas raped and killed one young Israeli woman, then paraded her body around in the back of a technical (pickup) to the enthusiastic cheers of Gazans. For such acts of barbarism, Hamas had an approx. 55 to 60-percent approval rating from Gazans. Hamas purposely hid munitions in hospitals and schools then played the victim when those facilities were bombed. Hamas also forced people to stay in the buildings bombed by the IDF to run up their alleged death toll. This is how those depraved cowards play their game.
Did you ever notice when the Western press dutifully announced the Gaza death toll, the source was the "Gaza Health Ministry"? In other words, Hamas -- which allows NO press freedom of any kind -- is free to make up the death toll that forms the basis for mindless screaming of "genocide."
The irony is that Hamas is deftly playing Western liberals. Consider that Hamas's own charter explicitly calls for the death of all Jews -- genocide, anyone -- along with other non-Muslims (so Christians and nonbelievers are next).
On the other hand, the 7 Oct 2023 Hamas massacre turned out to be the most catastrophic miscalculation in modern military history. Every senior officer from Hamas, Hezbollah, IRGC, Houthi and Iran (Khamenei) now is dead.
the 7 Oct 2023 Hamas massacre turned out to be the most catastrophic miscalculation in modern military history.
I'm genuinely unclear on what the calculation was supposed to reveal. What did they think the outcome was going to be?
I'm put in mind of the 9/11 attacks on the US -- arguably, an even bigger miscalculation. At the time, everybody expected there to be follow-ups, and there were none.
The US certainly managed to tie itself up in knots of security theater, but al Qaeda painted a massive target on its own back. I cannot imagine what they thought was going to happen.
As for Gaza, as best I can judge, it was Iran's idea to sacrifice plenty of Gazans in the hopes that Israel would overreact and isolate itself even further from the world. Which is what they got, but that's really a lot of cost for not much benefit. Israel was already quite isolated; it just made the news for a while.
Wow this is the worst hasbara attempt I have seen in a long time.
The irony is that I was actually defending Israel in a sense as I don't make it solely responsible for the Iran war. But you would rather agree with literal antisemites than admit any weakness of the oh so superior people of Israel.
You are completely delusional. Do you really think the Arab states would play ball with with Israel if daddy US didn't force them? The people of the world hate Israel for its crimes against humanity.
You couldn't even defeat Hamas. You had to seek an armistice that only one sides respects: Hamas. You have broken it nearly every day. You still refuse to sent basic aid into Gaza.
> Did you ever notice when the Western press dutifully announced the Gaza death toll, the source was the "Gaza Health Ministry"? In other words, Hamas -- which allows NO press freedom of any kind -- is free to make up the death toll that forms the basis for mindless screaming of "genocide."
uhm
> Israeli officials appeared to accept that some 70,000 Palestinians have died in the war in Gaza. Israel had long disputed the figures from Gaza's health ministry, saying the agency was run by Hamas.
> Consider that Hamas's own charter explicitly calls for the death of all Jews -- genocide, anyone -- along with other non-Muslims (so Christians and nonbelievers are next).
Oh yeah, it says such horrible things like:
> The Palestinian people are one people, made up of all Palestinians, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.
or
> Hamas believes that the message of Islam upholds the values of truth, justice, freedom and dignity and prohibits all forms of injustice and incriminates oppressors irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality. Islam is against all forms of religious, ethnic or sectarian extremism and bigotry.
or
> Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
I know you were not referring to the charter of 2017 but of 1988 because why play fair. But what you said is even a gross misrepresentation of the charter of 1988.
I sadly don't have time to debunk all the other lies that have been debunked thousands of times already.
The day will come when those that commit crimes against humanity will face the consequences.
First, "Palestinians" is a flexible term. When Jews returned in the early 20th century to what now is Israel, the land was called Palestine and they, too, were Palestinians. "Palestinians," at least as it refers to mostly Jordanian descendants who copped the term "Palestinian" for political reasons mid-last century as part of a language to discredit Israel, will NEVER be free, as "freedom" is defined in the West, under their own leadership. That's why I have to laugh at all those westerners who enjoy freedom of speech and press defending a society that has an absolute ban on same. And to LGBTQ+ who support "Palestinians"? I say, buy a one-way ticket to Gaza and enjoy the "rooftop party" that will be prepared in your honor. The Arabs who live in Israel know exactly how "free" their brethren under Hamas rule are, and they also know that they enjoy far greater personal freedoms and rights under the Israeli government than they would in any Arab-run country in the Middle East. How many Israeli Arabs do you see desiring to emigrate to Gaza? Or the "West Bank"? Or try Arab-controlled nations? Why might that be? Could it be that under allegedly "apartheid" Israel, they know they have it much better (e.g. 1/3 of the doctors in Israel are Palestinian? how would that happen under "apartheid")?
As to any "acceptance" of 70,000 dead in Gaza: First, how is any particular number "proof" of genocide? How many of the alleged 70,000 were combatants? I'll bet the Hamas "Health Ministry" hasn't released that little gem, and even if they did, would you actually believe them? How many were civilians? How many of those civilians were used as human shields while their leaders demonstrated their cowardice by partying in luxury apartments in Doha rather than standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their so-called fighters? IOW, to the extent there were civilian casualties, what portion of the death count consisted of civilians whom Hamas's cowardly leadership forced to remain in buildings that were bombed? That statistic, too, I do not expect to hear from Hamas. Also, why is the number of dead in Gaza so important as to get daily news coverage in the Western media, animating those falsely screaming "genocide," when Russia is busily bombing and killing Ukranians, yet we're not treated to the same sort of breathless daily tally? Where are the screams of "GENOCIDE!" against Russia? Hmmm.
I love this: "You are completely delusional. Do you really think the Arab states would play ball with with Israel if daddy US didn't force them?" First, I love the personal attack. Keep up the good work. Second, while the U.S. may have given normalization between Israel and Morocco, UAE and Sudan a push (or more?), those ties have strengthened on their own. You may not wish to recognize that Israel is a research and technology powerhouse. However, for example, Israel and Morocco have developed ties with interchanges of science and technology in the areas of agriculture and defense, among others, much of which occurred when Biden, not Trump, was president. These ties strengthened because the nations considered it beneficial to engage in the interchanges based on the merits of what each nation had to offer. Israel also now is assisting Sudan with water-management technology and has joint ventures with UAE in defense. If you can produce any evidence that "big daddy forced" these ventures and technology exchanges, go for it. Finally, Israel was developing diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in 2023. No doubt this development freaked out Iran, which has been funding Hamas for decades. But I'll bet you've convinced yourself that the timing of the barbaric and cowardly 7 Oct 2023 attack was mere coincidence!
As to which Hamas charter to cite, Hamas leaders when commenting on the 2017 charter "fell short of formally repudiating the original 1988 charter," sayeth Wikipedia. Again, feel free to produce evidence that Hamas explicitly repudiated the portion of the 1988 charter that calls for wiping out ALL Jews and other non-Islam believers. The 7 Oct 2023 attack is clear evidence that they did not repudiate that cause. Why else would they kill and kidnap and torture and rape and parade and /or withhold the dead bodies of Jewish civilians, instead of focusing on the IDF? They their hatred (and specific targeting) of Jews and their depravity by celebrating and cheering the murders, kidnappings and rapes.
Also: when chanting "from the river to the sea," as western protesters are wont to do, do these geniuses understand that they are calling for the very sort of genocide that is baked into Hamas's 1988 charter? Does no one get the irony of accusing a nation of "genocide," then parading through the streets and yelling for the genocide of the people of that nation?
True, the IDF did not "defeat" Hamas. All you can do with an enemy like that is set it back, which the IDF did succeed in doing. Hamas not only is a band of cowards, incompetents and criminals, but it is a band of irrational true believers, making them all the more difficult to eradicate completely. To their credit they are master manipulators (until debunked - remember the claimed hospital bombing incident quickly blamed on Israel until it was shown that the pendejos killed their own people with their own ill-fired missile?), but they sure as hell suck at governing. Like true welfare queens they depend on mass funds from Arab nations, Europe and, ironically, U.S. taxpayers and instead of investing those funds in the betterment of the people of Gaza, they built hundreds of KM of terror tunnels (where they hide like rats and held the living and dead of those civilians they kidnapped), acquired all manner of weaponry to be used in hopes of wiping out Israel, and fired a never-ending stream of missiles at civilian targets in Israel. Though the IDF gave them a boost, it would be up to the people of Gaza to "defeat" Hamas, they leadership they chose in the first place. It is a sad that they cannot pull together the will to do so and pick leaders that will actually govern with even a modicum of competency.
Exactly. Normally u would think that the Security Services would see tRump as unsuitable for President because he's compromised by a foreign power. However, the Zionists tentacles are deeply embedded within the US Govt including the CIA et al. Schumer deliberately delayed the vote until after this attack because he too is a Zionist. MAGA were deeply naive about the influence the Zionists have on US Govt departments.
Not really, I think it was more that Iran thought the US could control Israel, so they said 'if Israel betray the ceasefire agreement, we will hit your bases'.
The US probably asked Israel to not betray the agreement, Israel as usual betrayed the agreement, said to the US 'we will attack during the negotiations', probably because it was effective the last few times they did, and the US couldn't force them to stop, so they had to preemptively strike.
Do you agree there is a meaningful difference between the US feeling forced to follow Israel because of their own political choices, and the US being controlled by Israel ? The outcomes are the same, but acknowledging why and how the US got themselves involved is key if people don't want this kind of situation again.
Israel completely depends on USA. USA are the ones with all the power in that particular relationship. There is no way for Israel to force USA. USA has a lot of ways to force Israel.
USA can be convinced to do something by Israel, but not forced.
Prior political choices prevent the US from saying to Iran "Sorry that Israel attacked you, that's unfair, please don't attack our base, we won't fund Israel military anymore, and we remove the embargo".
Hence, since during the previous ceasefire, Iran told the US "If Israel break the ceasefire again, we will attack your ME bases", US was "forced" into preventive strikes against Iran military installations, and into an offensive war, without any preparation.
I'm not a huge fan of this US admin _at all_, but in this very case, the amateurism isn't caused by the childishness and the whininess (is that a word? i mean constant whining and victimization) of the US admin and their overall lack of skills, but by the fact they were forced into it without preparations.
Is that argument more clear? I feel you talked past my argument which is probably my fault since i have trouble expressing myself without thinking for hours beforehand
I dont find that believable argument at all. USA in fact can not attack along of Israel. Nothing prevents then from removing embargo, tho that is not relevant.
USA can tell Israel to not attack. Full stop. It can even tell Israel they will give them less support. And dont tell me that Trump administration would be afraid to pressure or even bully other goverment. If USA did not wanted this war, it would not happened.
Third, USA had option of approaching negotiations seriously. It simply did not.
> US was "forced" into preventive strikes against Iran military installations, and into an offensive war, without any preparation.
This is nonsense. It was not preventive attack, it was active first strike attack against opponent that is not much threat right now.
USA was not in defense. It was not forced to attack either.
So, what was the actual threat supposed to be about? Israel will stop defend USA? Common.
But to your other point, they both lie often and confidently. If they are nerveus, they probably just thought they look like idiots (regardless of whether they are saying the truth).
I completely agree. It's a good thing we're in a multipolar world now. The US (and its vassal states) have ruled terribly and the world suffered much over it. Sadly, there is still a lot of propaganda that needs to go away.
A great world leader would spread genuine peace. Not corrupt other countries, start wars and shed blood. The USA has failed to even keep its own citizens safe and secure. All I worry about is that they will drag a lot of other countries with them while they are falling.
So how can you completely agree if even you worry?
I worry more. I am certain, for all bad things the US did, the multipolar world will be much much worse. You think the other power players are better? No way.
Less and less likely they’ll drag others down, the first trump presidency was a warning, it’s gonna suck in the rest of the western world but we’ll survive.
The US hasn't been perfect, but you can hardly say we've ruled the world terribly. Because who has ever ruled it better?
We helped Europe and Asia rebuild after WWII instead of conquering them. To the extent that our previous enemies in Germany and Japan now have some of the strongest economies in the world.
There have certainly been wars, often with dubious justification or horrific results, but good luck finding any superpower in history that hasn't gotten into bad wars. Unlike the US, most of the time those other superpowers used war for territorial expansion, like Russia is doing in Ukraine today.
You can dream of your utopian world order all you want, but at some point you have to judge the US against the alternative instead of the almighty.
I love the DS9 reference. But it also reminds me of Hamilton:
You'll be back, time will tell
You'll remember that I served you well
Oceans rise, empires fall
We have seen each other through it all
And when push comes to shove
I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!
The idea that the world was better off under American rule is so deeply ironic that my brain is breaking.
Yes, that's what the US has been doing for decades after all.. After all, they could easily (attempt to) arrest them without killing them.
Fortunately, it's becoming more of a multipolar world. The neocons (just like yourself) have no morals.
This genocide reveals how much Israel truly controls the US government and other Western countries. I am beyond appalled this is allowed to happen.
The last couple of months also showed that international rules and agreements don't mean anything - they are in fact only there to please the Western countries, until they throw it in the bin when it is convenient to them.
Anyone who isn't from the West, hell even Southern Europeans, are taking note. There is no rights and freedoms for us. All this for to support a bully of a fundamentalist state and a bunch of theocratic kingdoms/emirates.
I've got to wonder if Israel is one the pillars propping up Trump along with China and Russia. It would make perfect sense with its relation to the Epstein files (in which Trump is likely mentioned every other paragraph).
I'm not saying the Democrats have done great by Gaza, but I feel like the point we're at - irrefutable genocide through starvation - there would at least be significant pressure to stop attacking humanitarian convoys.
All I can really say about the current situation is that it would be a great time for the EU to step up, demonstrate some international leadership, and forcibly deliver aid under the guard of military force.
That simply will never happen. As outspoken as EU countries are, they are not inclined to act beyond the diplomatic equivalent of a strongly worded email. It's a fantasy to think that any single EU nation would risk a shooting war with Israel by trying to deliver aid without permission, and they absolutely could never reach a consensus on doing it as a unit.
> genocide reveals how much Israel truly controls the US government and other Western countries
Nonsense. Israel has influence because a lot of American voters make Israel one of their ride-or-die issues. If that support shifts, the influence does, too.
> last couple of months also showed that international rules and agreements don't mean anything
Did you miss Russia invading Ukraine, America invading Iraq and China annexing Tibet? Or the ongoing genocides in Burma, Sudan and recently-concluded one in Ethiopia? (I think.)
> I hope all these countries understand the vast majority of US population is not okay with this
Where are the protests against the current regime in the US? I see more support rather than outrage. If the US in its current state was any other third-world shithole, you'd be invaded by 2003 US.
How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden in World War 2? If people like you were listened to back then, you would be speaking German right now and I wouldn't be here.
Germany was still launching ballistic missiles at England a month after Dresden.
It’s a false analogy, the conventional war is long over and hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore.
The equivalent would be the allies refusing to occupy Berlin and still bombing it well into 1946 despite the war being won.
Allies also had a rather clear plan on what goals they want to achieve and why. Israeli government seems to have no idea what do they want to achieve and how (besides extending Netanyahu’s political career..)
> hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore
They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory. "Destroy military assets and get out" can sometimes be a useful strategy, but it's a pretty short term solution.
> what goals they want to achieve and why
The goal seems to be occupation of the entire strip, to make it difficult for Hamas (and PIJ etc) to operate effectively.
It is not possible to be a member of significant minority, this would be a fallacy. But, I'm not as good as AI in explaining this and thus looked it up in Google:
While "significant minority" is
not an established logical fallacy, it can be used to commit two related fallacies: the appeal to minority and a flawed variation of the appeal to popularity (ad populum). This rhetorical tactic exploits the audience's biases by using the status of a group, rather than evidence, to argue for a claim
> They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory
If so its only because Israel decided to allow them to maintain that control.
> but it's a pretty short term solution.
Exactly, that seems to be Israel’s strategy. If they actually destroyed Hamas the rightwing government in Israel would lose the bogeyman keeping them in power (that’s why they were propping up Hamas for years).
If we hadn't bombed these cities we might not have won the war. Arguably we didn't have to nuke Japan but chose to over the cost of the lives of our own soldiers (including my grandfather a marine in the pacific). War involves doing horrific things you don't want to do and wouldn't normally do (look at Israel's actions pre Oct 7th versus post, this sort of war is not the natural state for Israel). War requires you lean on the side of doing too much damage versus limiting your military actions. War requires you take maximal actions, unlike policing where we try to use minimal. If the US fought Japan how people want Israel to fight the government of Gaza, I would not exist, my grandfather would have died storming Japan. It would have been a more moral victory, but it is very hard for any society to choose sacrificing their 18 years olds in a conflict initiated by the other side, when war strategy dictates that other paths/actions be taken, paths with less of your 18 year olds dead and a higher chance of reaching your goals. War by it's naturing is fought maximally, not as a police action.
This is also not a gentleman's war. A neighboring government supported by their citizens who joined in spontaneously, launched a surprise attack that killed 1000+, and indiscriminately maimed/raped/tortured thousands more, while broadcasting video of themselves kidnapping random 6 year old girls to the world, neighboring citizens who phoned home to their parents to brag 'I killed 10 jews today'.
War sucks. War is horrific. Which is why it sucks Hamas, the government of Gaza, chose this war. Why it sucks Hamas structured things for the war to proceed, with maximal civilian damage and casualties. Why it sucks Hamas chose to use civilian hostages abducted during the murder/rape/maiming of thousands. No country can just let their citizens be abducted and held captive like Hamas choses to do, intentionally ratcheting up the pressure/tempo of the war that they initiated.
But allies stopped bombing Germany after they occupied it?
They had rather specific goals and were willing to directly occupy Germany at great risk and cost instead of continuing to bomb its civilians for an indeterminate amount of time while they starved to death..
Gaza is getting 3,004 calories of energy per day per person.
Official rations in Germany varied from 800–1550 calories per day. 800 airdropped, 1550 the amount post occupation. Are you arguing Israel should fully occupy and partition Gaza, like the allies did in Germany, and cut from the 3004 current calorie target to the 1550 one used by the USA in occupied Germany?
What is different here? Germans in occupied Germany received LESS food than Gazan do today. Are you saying you want less food to go into Gaza because Gaza is getting twice the calorie targets of what the USA targeted for occupied Germany? Germany was fire bombed (much much worse than the bombing in Gaza) and given 1/3 to 1/2 as much food going on years after the conflict ended. I'm really confused what you are pushing for? I thought people wanted more food into Gaza, not severely less like how the USA treated occupied Germany.
It sounds like you are saying Israel would be more just if they firebombed Gaza then partitioned it into smaller pieces isolating residents to those areas, and cut food in half from what Gaza is getting fed today? And that's ignoring the mass mass rapes that occured in Germany. What you are arguing for would be very, very bad.
Putting aside its accuracy, your 3004 calorie count is for the first half of last year. Famously, of course, the food situation in Gaza is much worse now in 2025 than in 2024, starting with the fact that Israel allowed in zero (0) food for months this year. How does that fact change your opinion?
Again I am not condoning what Israel is doing, I am simply continuing the discussion of if the US treated occupied Germany better than Israel is treating Gaza DURING wartime (the US was worse than I list here during wartime), which I don't think the US did. War is absolutely horrible. It took almost a year for the US to allow aid agencies to bring in food for starving German children. It sucks. It sucks the government of Gaza chose to start this war, chose the path to all this suffering. Germans were still on starvation diets in 1947, 2 years after the war ended. Child mortality in Germany was double western Europe until 1948. That is war. War sucks. Fuck Hamas for choosing war.
While WW2 ended in May 1945, relief organizations were not allowed into occupied Germany with supplies for starving children until mid 1946
Which months did Gaza not receive any aid? I see statements like this from the UN:
"Within the enclave, the World Food Programme (WFP) has food stocks sufficient to support active kitchens and bakeries for up to one month, as well as ready-to-eat food parcels to support 550,000 people for two weeks, Mr. Dujarric said."
implying their is future risk, not that there were months with zero aid given out. There were months Germany did not receive new aid shipments as well, but existing aid was still given out. It looks like July of this year aid was down due to Hamas, not Israel. Again remember we are talking post war Germany versus active conflict Gaza where Hamas USES these sorts of things as weapons.
Looking around the GHF food boxes contain 42500 calories for 5.5 people for 3.5 days, making it 2207 calories a day. Still significantly higher than what the US occupation fed to Germans, the comparison that was brought up as 'better'.
So again, they are better off than occupied Germany was in the 1000-1500 calorie occupation/immediate post war 1945–46 years.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying war completely sucks, but that Israel is doing more than the USA did for Germany at the end of and immediately following WW2, the example that was presented to me as being better.
"The German infant mortality rate was twice that of other nations in Western Europe until the close of 1948."
"In early 1946, U.S. President Harry S. Truman allowed foreign relief organizations to enter Germany in order to review the food situation. In mid-1946, non-German relief organizations were permitted to help starving German children.[19] The German food situation became worst during the very cold winter of 1946–47, when German food energy intake ranged from 4,200 to 6,300 kJ (1,000 to 1,500 kcal) per day, a situation made worse by severe lack of fuel for heating."
"Herbert Hoover reported that in the fall of 1946, starvation produced a 40 percent increase in mortality among Germans over 70"
"Also, once it became clear there would be no rising, as threatened by the Nazis during the war, food controls were relaxed." - showing access to food was political on the US side.
"U.S. occupation forces were under strict orders not to share their food with the German population; these orders also applied to their wives when they arrived later in the occupation. The women were under orders not to allow their German maids to get hold of any leftovers; "the food was to be destroyed or made inedible"
"Your soldiers are good-natured, good ambassadors; but they create unnecessary ill will to pour 20 liters [5 U.S. gallons] of leftover cocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy among my countrymen."
I think we've exhausted this discussion. Objectively occupied Germany had much much lower daily calories than ongoing combat Gaza. The US waited a year before aid agencies could help starving children. The US troops destroyed food IN FRONT OF starving Germans as part of policy for a year.
It looks like during a two month pause in fighting stocks were built up in Gaza. From reading the articles while there were fears, it looks like food was handed out continuously. I can't find calory counts, be if they dropped by half from the target 3000 calories they would still by at the high end for Germans during periods of US occupation (1000-1500 calories a day).
I would argue waiting a year before the USA allowed aid agencies to feed starving children after the war still puts the US occupation in Germany in a worse situation, the fact infant mortality was double in Germany for 3 years after the war, the fact that target calories were 1/3-1/2 for Germans than for the people in Gaza today.
Germans were at much greater risk as the 1000-1500 calories level doesn't leave as much room for issues as Gaza's 3000 calorie one. In addition Germany had really harsh winters during this period which would need more calories than Gaza.
I think we've explored this topic to it's end. I think objectively the occupation of Germany post war by the US was worse than what Israel has done during an ongoing war to feed Gaza. It's horrific that the government of Gaza chose to start this war and chose to head down the path to all the suffering that war can create.
These were major food providers in Gaza. If they had run out of food, I can't imagine that "food was handed out continuously." You are welcome to prove me wrong and find a major provider still providing food in ample quantities in early May.
I don't understand your point with the comparison with Germany. What the US did was barbaric and cruel. Maybe what Israel is doing to Gaza is the 8th circle of hell instead of the 9th, but who cares?
This is not WW2. This is much closer to the 2001 war in Afghanistan.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They can stage terror attacks their conventional military capacity is insignificant. Much like US vs the Taliban.
Also it’s not like there isn’t anyone willing to supply enough food and other resources needed by the Gazan population (unlike in postwar Germany, the situation in France, Benelux etc. wasn’t that great in 1945 either.) it’s just that Israel is heavily limiting that.
This is not WW2. This is much closer to the 2001 war in Afghanistan.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They can stage terror attacks their conventional military capacity is insignificant. Much like US vs the Taliban. Also it’s not like there isn’t anyone willing to supply enough food and other resources needed by the Gazan population (unlike in postwar Germany) it’s just that Israel is heavily limiting that.
this is all very well-put, but when it comes down to it, Israel is deliberately prolonging this war, has been provoking it for years, and is not acting in the self-defense you're implying. Netanyahu is out of a job and maybe facing prison the second this war ends, nakedly promoted Hamas over a more reasonable power the best he can, and has aggressively pushed illegal settlements. and more than anything, is living on land that was Palestinian within living memory. none of this was true in WW2. you can blame Hamas all you like, but all you're doing is rewarding Israel's strategy to demonise and make Palestinian statehood unpalatable
also, and primarily, if you have any awareness of Japanese history whatsoever, you should be able to know that the nuking of Japan was the special case of all special cases. personally I think they should have just nuked somewhere in rural Japan first to make their point, and then gone for a population centre if that had failed to work, but that's beside the point, which is that Japan did not believe it could be beaten. any time they had been threatened historically, they had triumphed dramatically, often with the weather or random luck seemingly on their side. this sounds silly, but it's true. they needed to be shocked out of their arrogance. the same is not true of Hamas.
also your "war should be fought with maximum force" and--by implication--brutality is just complete bullshit and you've not actually made any effort to justify it other tham just saying that it's true
reply