Israel declares war

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Didn’t Churchill call WW 2 the “unnecessary war” partially because of the Treaty of Versailles?

He may have.  I’ve always told myself that I ought to get around to reading some Churchill one of these days.  🙂

[mirkwood]

30 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m confident I’m not, but if you say so, sure. 

Trust the experts right?

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Trust the experts right?

Trust the statistics and studies. I’m an evidence guy. Not feelings. Feelings are nice but they can often be wrong. And subjective. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Trust the statistics and studies. I’m an evidence guy. Not feelings. Feelings are nice but they can often be wrong. And subjective. 

 

I'm not going by feelings either.  

 

We busted two trafficking groups in SL County last week.

 

But I guess I don't really have any knowledge on the topic.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

But I guess I don't really have any knowledge on the topic.

I never said that, but since you opened the door I’ll walk in.
 

 I’m sure some cops, while wonderful people and good at their job, believe things that are flat out wrong. Just being a cop doesn’t mean a cop has Godlike knowledge for all things criminal. Same with me and my job. Doctors for theirs. Lawyers for theirs. McDonalds associates for theirs. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I never said that, but since you opened the door I’ll walk in.
 

 I’m sure some cops, while wonderful people and good at their job, believe things that are flat out wrong. Just being a cop doesn’t mean a cop has Godlike knowledge for all things criminal. Same with me and my job. Doctors for theirs. Lawyers for theirs. McDonalds associates for theirs. 

 

I would agree, but I'm also not wrong about the topic.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

 I’m sure some cops, while wonderful people and good at their job, believe things that are flat out wrong.  Just being a cop doesn’t mean a cop has Godlike knowledge for all things criminal. Same with me and my job . . . Lawyers for theirs.

That last part is objectively false.  

Edited October 28, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That last part is objectively false.  

This coming from the guy who didn’t represent me in court because criminal law wasn’t his speciality. 

[LDSGator]

Uh, everyone forget that last post. Things are just fine in the compound down here. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

This coming from the guy who didn’t represent me in court because criminal law wasn’t his speciality. 

That’s why I said I wouldn’t represent you . . . 

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Correct, because I asked for one sentence and you either were unable to do so or deliberately ignored me. 

I did.  If you had read below you'd realize that wasn't the rest of my one sentence answer.  It was putting in context another question for you to answer with one sentence. 

I even clarified that the first sentence was the answer I was giving and then gave a TLDR answer.

13 hours ago, LDSGator said:

@JohnsonJones
 

Lets twist this a bit. I keep hearing about how prevalent human trafficking is. I’ve been told how wrong I am and that it’s everywhere.

I know of several incidents where people have been assaulted at LDS wards and have been criminally convicted. Therefore, I say we should immediately close all wards and no woman or child would be victimized ever again. 

ifyou can throw all Palestinians in the same boat it’s extremely hard to whine when someone does the same to you. 
 

 

I would prefer you answer the question I asked, as it pertains to my thought process.  In the writing above, you miss the context of what I am referring to.  I'm not promoting the wipeout of all Palestinians.  I AM wondering at what point it is justified to simply level Gaza and leave it a smoking crater.  The United States destroyed areas of Afghanistan completely that were larger than Gaza (to put it into context).  Multiple Daisy cutters did crazy damage there at times.  Afghanistan (from what I understand) was hit in more rural areas with those Daisy Cutters though. 

A Majority of Palestinians do not live in Gaza.  If you took out Gaza though, it would still be considered a genocide.

That said, in answer to your question...in our context, probably not because you haven't provided the context of the incidents nor is it a big enough disaster for international news. 

HOWEVER, taking it more in context of what I am talking about, the answer is yes, it could be a good consideration to close down certain wards or even stakes at times.  I have seen incidents where Missionaries did some rather bad things in an area and that area was then closed down for missionaries. 

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I feel like "my side" has fumbled this one pretty badly. A lot of us believe that the Hamas attacks are understandable given the way Palestinians in Gaza have historically been treated, but that doesn't mean that the deaths of innocent civilians is justifiable. The anger and predisposition to violence makes sense, but the attacks on civilians is reprehensible. I think a lot of people on both sides of the issue are failing to see that dialectic. 

 

It's not just the recent attacks that have me pondering this though.  That's just the capstone.  We have incidents where non-palestinians get to Gaza and get brutalized.  They just simply go after people and hurt them.  It's not a safe area.  This isn't Hamas that attack, but the people of Gaza itself.  It's been known not to go in for a while. 

If you can go to one of the safer areas you would have heard some pretty vile rhetoric.  It's not just a few people there, it's widespread.

Now it's spilled out. Some, who have seen the images of what they've done are horrified.  What they did is NOT civilized (war is not civilized, but there are some things which you can at least try to do.  What Hamas did was the exact opposite.  Anything that would be considered against the rules of warfare...they tried to do).  All that wording, all the things they said they wanted to do...they were not joking.  They were absolutely honest over all those years.

Once you see that, you can't unsee.  They do not just want their own place.  They do not just want their own land.  They do not just want to have the Jews out of the area.  They want to massacre and kill the jews in the most horrific manner possible.  They do not appear that they will ever change.  They will just keep coming until they succeed. 

Eventually, if they ever get power (and no one can predict the future, some day it is very likely if they, as a people survive, they WILL get that type of power), they WILL do as they have said they would.  At that point, all we will be able to say is that they told us their intentions and for some reason, we decided to ignore it all.

The closest I can see is some of the Indian Conflicts in the United States that we do not talk about because it paints some of the tribes in a bad light.  These tribes would take and torture settlers.  Their style of warfare was designed around wiping out (we aren't talking about a simple, kill until someone surrenders, they did not accept surrender, they killed everyone.  Think little Big Horn, but it includes any non-combatants as well).  The United States responded in kind (not torture, they'd just kill the tribes).  Situations between Native Americans and the United States were at times just as brutal (genocide was seen as acceptable to a degree.  If you look at the numbers, the United States did a genocide on some of the Indian tribes more successfully than many other genocides done on purpose throughout history (not the most successful, but they killed a LOT of Native Americans, and some tribes were almost wiped out by the US).

So, how does that reflect on what should be done to HAMAS and Gaza?

It boils down to the answer I gave you above.

or even shorter (which I also gave above).

I don't know. 

I am undecided.  I am trying to figure it out currently.  What I've seen over the past two weeks has utterly revolted me.  I don't see how those in Gaza can support Hamas at this point.  I've framed it how I see it and I don't know what the solution is?

I don't think most who say they are supporting the Palestinians and to a degree, Hamas currently, understand what Hamas is or what they've declared or what they actually did (and showed...they showed that everything they said in the past that they intend to do was not just bluster...they REALLY actually mean that, they mean the eradication of the Jewish People). 

I think we give Israel to little credit though.  The US, through past action, has shown they would be far more aggressive towards someone who did this to us on a relatively similar scale.  We would be crying out for blood the day after.  Israel has shown GREAT restraint in what they've done. 

I don't know what the solution is.  I know if I had a rabid dog that was threatening my family what I'd decide to do.  Can I apply the same ideology to this?  I don't know.  It's not an easy question to answer in my mind currently. 

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

know if I had a rabid dog that was threatening my family what I'd decide to do

Shoot the dog, not every single dog that was that breed. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by LDSGator

[askandanswer]

This article suggests that every user of non-renewable energy is contributing to a genocide in numerous low-lieing under-deevloped nations. This particular genocide attracts very little attention because its non-violent and quite gradual. It's an odd form of genocide because while it doesn't kill all that many people, it will have devastating impacts on their places of residence and their history. It won't leave the smoking crates that JJ referred to, it will leave peaceful waves, washing over land where people used to live. It's happening now.

https://www.change-climate.com/Islands_Nations_Genocide_Geographical_Oceans/Islands_A_Z_Index_Nations_Sea_Levels_Rising_Oceans_Genocide_Crimes_Criminals.htm

[LDSGator]

17 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This article suggests that every user of non-renewable energy is contributing to a genocide in numerous low-lieing under-deevloped nations

I’m sort of an environmentalist but this is hyperbolic nonsense that doesn’t help the cause. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 10/28/2023 at 8:26 AM, LDSGator said:

Shoot the dog, not every single dog that was that breed. 

And I've been thinking more on it this weekend.  I think it's not necessarily genocide that's the missing part, but submission.

After World War 2, the reason the rehabilitation of Japan and Germany was possible was because they were so beaten that they were willing to be rehabilitated.

In Vietnam, though we technically beat the tar out of them and won overall, we never forced the North to really submit completely.  We may have accomplished our goals overall, but we didn't have the goal to have the enemy conform to our way of life and thus didn't bring it about.

I think that for a drastic change to happen in Gaza the people of Gaza will have to be so beat down that they are willing for a change to what others want them to change to.  That means the civilians would have to be so adverse to Hamas that they would literally choose something other than Hamas to support.  They would have to be willing to do a complete and total surrender, they'd have to be willing to do whatever the Israeli's would have them do and be adverse to Hamas.

As Japan and Germany show us, that doesn't have to result in a Genocide of the people, but it would probably mean the death knell for some of the organizations (such as HAMAS). 

I suppose the better question then is whether Israel would be able to do what is needed (or allowed to do so, if they wished to and the world would let them...which the world thus far has not been) in order to do this?

How far would they have to go in order to get those who live in Gaza to actually surrender and submit (two different things)?

 

Edit:  Of course, part of that is the modern war and modern mores which try to prevent War from being as ugly as it has in the past.  The problem is, War was ugly in the past to accomplish the submission of others.  It's the ugliness that makes us want to finally be done with it.  To get a submission the horror of it has to be so clear and so near that submission seems to be the only option for survival.

Edited October 30, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

In Vietnam, though we technically beat the tar out of them and won overall

I think I do not agree with this assessment. Some side got the tar beaten out of them, that's for sure. Retreated with tail firmly between legs after carrying on an unjustifiable proxy war for twenty years. Satan laughed and his angels rejoiced; of that, you can be sure.

Meanwhile, back home in the US, political hay was diligently being made, and not just by one side. Had it not been for this horrific "police action", the entire counterculture movement may have fizzled to nothing and decency may have won the day. In recounting the evils of the 1960s that were set in the concrete foundation of our modern society, the impact of Vietnam cannot be overestimated.

[JohnsonJones]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think I do not agree with this assessment. Some side got the tar beaten out of them, that's for sure. Retreated with tail firmly between legs after carrying on an unjustifiable proxy war for twenty years. Satan laughed and his angels rejoiced; of that, you can be sure.

Meanwhile, back home in the US, political hay was diligently being made, and not just by one side. Had it not been for this horrific "police action", the entire counterculture movement may have fizzled to nothing and decency may have won the day. In recounting the evils of the 1960s that were set in the concrete foundation of our modern society, the impact of Vietnam cannot be overestimated.

I guess it depends on WHY you think we were in Vietnam.  Most today seem to believe the very liberal talking points of the Hippies from back then, and by that measure...of course we were not victorious. 

What that talking point misses is their idea of victory was never what we were after in the first place. 

ON the otherhand, We HALTED the advance of Communism overall, prevented world war 3 from happening in reality, won the Cold War, and preserved the freedom of many of the other nations in that sphere of influence.  The only reason we got the North Vietnamese to the table in the first place was we bombed the heck out of them until they capitulated to do so.

At that point, most of the reasons we had to even be there we over.  Our purpose was never to actually take over or to force the other side to accept our way of life.  That was a major difference in how we had fought wars in the past and Vietnam. 

But I digress.  I see things very differently than many of the younger generations since then.

Edited October 30, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

Satan laughed and his angels rejoiced; of that, you can be sure.

They do that during every war. 😞 

Edited October 30, 2023 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I guess it depends on WHY you think we were in Vietnam.  Most today seem to believe the very liberal talking points of the Hippies from back then, and by that measure...of course we were not victorious. 

What that talking point misses is their idea of victory was never what we were after in the first place. 

ON the otherhand, We HALTED the advance of Communism overall, prevented world war 3 from happening in reality, won the Cold War, and preserved the freedom of many of the other nations in that sphere of influence.  The only reason we got the North Vietnamese to the table in the first place was we bombed the heck out of them until they capitulated to do so.

At that point, most of the reasons we had to even be there we over.  Our purpose was never to actually take over or to force the other side to accept our way of life.  That was a major difference in how we had fought wars in the past and Vietnam. 

But I digress.  I see things very differently than many of the younger generations since then.

Since I was in the military during the Vietnam conflict, I have developed some ideas about war.  In our history we have not been kind to civilians during war.  During our Civil War the citizens of Missouri were among the worse treated (perhaps a reason the LDS left or because the LDS left).  War crimes had not been defined – that would be left for the Nuremberg trials.  I would point out that Dresden Germany was not firebombed for military targets.  Neither were Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

As for Vietnam, there was one major railroad, one industrial area and one primary agriculture area in North Vietnam that provided the food needed for the population.  The Vietnam conflict could have been won in a week if the bombing of North Vietnam had been strategic to the infrastructure.   The idea that we bombed the heck out of North Vietnam is a farce – had we dumped the same weight in sand in the Haiphong Harbor we would have done more damage.  I submit that Vietnam was fought over control of the rubber industry – which in the end made not difference at all.

I agree that war is horrible, but I have come to believe it is more horrible to fight a war without an intent to end the conflict (win the war).  I am of the mind that since WWII there has been a lack of intent to end conflicts – mostly blamed on humanitarian reasoning.  Which looks to me to be worse than not being involved, fighting, at all.

It does seem to me that this current conflict in Israel is somewhat of a turn of the tides of war.  The USA is no longer feared, nor are we a country united to put an end to anything.  I speculate that we are entering an era of conflict that will be waged, at least in part, on our own soil.  Things are not happening now as I though things would just 5 years ago. 

My impression is that things are changing and what and where we thought things would be safe (seemingly for the Latter-day Saints) – appear to me to be at more at risk than ever before and that the prophesies of the Last-days are being fulfilled.  Perhaps we will learn what it means that the righteous need not fear.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I'll never not be sobered to read the scriptures where the "good guys" executed people for refusing to hold certain opinions.  

 

Alma 46:  Dealing with a defeated enemy:

Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them. And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

 

Alma 51: During a period of civil war, military-ordered summary executions, without trial, of politicans who wouldn't jump on board with the military's plans.

...when the ... king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, 

...  when Moroni saw this ... he was exceedingly wroth ... he sent a petition ... unto the governor of the land, desiring that he ... give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

... it was granted according to the voice of the people.

... Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.

... there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.

Alma 62: Moroni and Pahoran, also during a period of civil war, dealing out death to the BoM's version of a 'conscientious objector', except this time with trials and the color of law: 

And the men of Pachus ... also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law; ... whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death.

... and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law.  And thus ended the thirtieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; Moroni and Pahoran having restored peace to the land of Zarahemla, among their own people, having inflicted death upon all those who were not true to the cause of freedom.
 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Alma 46:  Dealing with a defeated enemy:

They were given a choice to make peace or continue with their warfare against the Nephites.  They chose warfare.

If they are continuing to be at war, then we can kill enemy combatatnts.  That happens in war time.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Alma 51: During a period of civil war, military-ordered summary executions, without trial, of politicans who wouldn't jump on board with the military's plans.

Remember that the tactics of the King-men were not just showing civil disobedience or peacefully protesting.  

1) They were not participating in the draft (regardless of the details, it was effectively a draft).
2) They had verbalized their explicit intentions to destroy their democratic government as they knew it and replace it with a monarchy - of their choosing.  Obviously, it would consist of people from their movement.

And as far as executions without trial... you may have missed something.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.

Not executions without trial.  But they were kept in jail to await their trial.  That happens in the US judicial system if the preponderance of evidence is strong enough and the nature of the crime is serious enough.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Alma 62: Moroni and Pahoran, also during a period of civil war, dealing out death to the BoM's version of a 'conscientious objector', except this time with trials and the color of law: 

They weren't conscientious objectors.  They were perfectly happy to fight and kill to setup their own government.  They just didn't want to fight for the defense of the nation when it was governed by people they disagreed with.

They would rather the Lamanites do their dirty work to weaken the government and its armies so they could lie in wait to kill off the remnants of the Nephite army to take over after the Lamanite war was over.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

... and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law.

These are very interesting words, are they not?  Again, it wasn't about peacefully expressing disagreement.  It was actively committing treason against their nation.  

Edited October 31, 2023 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If they are continuing to be at war, then we can kill enemy combatatnts.  That happens in war time.

 

If you'll recall, one of the three people who Kyle Rittenhouse shot was pretending to surrender in the hopes that Rittenhouse would let his guard down. When it looked like this was happening, the person went for a weapon. Rittenhouse then very nearly blew their arm off. 

Under international law, "pretending to surrender" is illegal. It can encourage attackers to assume all people attempting to surrender are running a gambit and so refuse to take prisoners. 

[Traveler]

 

On 10/30/2023 at 4:57 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I'll never not be sobered to read the scriptures where the "good guys" executed people for refusing to hold certain opinions.  

..................

Alma 62: Moroni and Pahoran, also during a period of civil war, dealing out death to the BoM's version of a 'conscientious objector', except this time with trials and the color of law: 

And the men of Pachus ... also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law; ... whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death.

... and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law.  And thus ended the thirtieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; Moroni and Pahoran having restored peace to the land of Zarahemla, among their own people, having inflicted death upon all those who were not true to the cause of freedom.
 

 

 

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...............

These are very interesting words, are they not?  Again, it wasn't about peacefully expressing disagreement.  It was actively committing treason against their nation.  

A story about war.  As a youth, the bishop in my ward was a tank commander during WWII.  Most (all) of his action was in Africa and Italy.  When his campaign began there were over 50 tanks in his battalion.  At the end of the war, of the original number, two remained – one was his.   Many were lost because of lack of supplies.  Men were lost from battle, dehydration and starving.  In Italy, when word reached them that that war had ended, my bishop was separated from his unit with a broken-down tank that he was working on in the rain with his fellow tank crew attempting to get it operational.   His uniform was torn and dirty with mud.  He hadn’t had a change for over a month and hadn’t had a real meal – just field rations for weeks.  My bishop recalled that a jeep stopped on the road and a young private got out of the jeep in a clean and pressed uniform with shinney new boots.  The private jumped from clumps of grass to clumps of grass avoiding getting muddy until he arrived at the tank and gave my bishop orders to immediately go home – then reversed his course jumping on clumps of gras to reach his jeep, then drove away.  Recalling this incident my bishop later remarked that he had often thought about that young private and that, that young man most likely had a much different opinion and view about the war than him.

Though I never saw combat action while I was in the army during the Vietnam era.  I knew many that were in combat and some that I considered good friends that were killed.  I never knew of anyone concerned about international law or war crimes when it came to combat action.  Seldom (never) would anyone talk about the details of their combat experience.  I used to be an avid hunter and thought it fun and exciting to kill things.  I do not hunt anything anymore.  I have determined that I would rather be killed by a thief than to kill one, but this does not mean that I will not.

The only people that I know that will criticize the actions of anyone in combat that is in combat for liberty, is someone that has never been in combat.  Those that willingly face combat always think their cause is just.  If I understand the prophesies correctly concerning the violence that will be poured out upon the world and even the Saints of G-d during the final events of the “Last-days” – everyone will have the opportunity to experience some level of bloodshed – one way or another.   How prepared are you if what we are hearing of now is the beginning of what has been prophesied – in particular what is given in the Book of Mormon specific to the Saints.  

Will we remain calm and wait upon the L-rd.  I pray I can.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I never knew of anyone concerned about international law or war crimes when it came to combat action.  Seldom (never) would anyone talk about the details of their combat experience.

My WWII vet father told me war stories.  He marched across Belgium the winter and spring of 1945 after the battle of the bulge.  Stories were usually about how he spent most of the war wet and cold.  And how he liked the German people and saw his counterpart in the German infantry as just a poor schmoe like him trying to keep warm and go home to his family.  When I turned 18, his war stories changed.  When I turned 21, they changed again.  I'm grateful he didn't tell me those stories when I was younger. 

 

42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The only people that I know that will criticize the actions of anyone in combat that is in combat for liberty, is someone that has never been in combat.

That's overwhelmingly my experience too, but I'd have to tell you my dad's story about what he said to the two American artillery officers after a friendly fire accident where they shelled his position and killed his medic.

 

But anyway:

On 10/30/2023 at 4:57 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I'll never not be sobered to read the scriptures where the "good guys" executed people for refusing to hold certain opinions.  

It's healthy and normal to be sobered about such things. 

[NeuroTypical]

Back on topic, I see the Israelis have changed their tactics a bit, to effectively deal with Hamas leaders who surround themselves with innocent lives:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-says-it-fires-israeli-troops-pressing-gaza-ground-assault-2023-10-31/