Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
why would they shoot into a building they have a military base in
I'm no expert in military strategy but if there was an opposing army trying to enter your base of operations it might make sense to try and deter them. Setting up snipers in and around the base is a no brainer.
ok then why shoot? seems to completely contradict the "human shield" argument the IDF loves to spout if they're just wiping out their "shield".
I'm no expert in military strategy but if there was an opposing army trying to enter your base of operations it might make sense to try and deter them. Setting up snipers in and around the base is a no brainer.
setting up a perimeter of snipers but having them face inwards lmao
Do you think pro-Palestinian identifying members of this board wanted Hamas to wage a 9/11 level attack on civilians? THAT is fucking deranged.
idk about this board but I think there are plenty of ppl who think this and if u think Israel is an illegitimate state that illegally settled on stolen lands it’s very easy to see why ppl would think it’s a reasonable thing to do to “fight back”
My main point is, within this sphere of inforoo which may lean more left, rummy showed at least 5 examples of people who don't want death. Pale Hose stating it down to 2, was supposed to be a lowering of the clear anti-war rhetoric most of us are actually displaying. And that pisses me off.
I guess they're running outta children to exterminate as Israel's turned to the second worst tier of terrorists: quadriplegics and the elderly. Granted, this isn't as horrific as ripping up a piece of paper, but perhaps it's close.
Did you ever consider for a moment that the sniper referenced in the Doctors Without Borders tweet might be Hamas militant? Do you think that the IDF are the only ones putting civilians in Gaza in harms way?
I'm sorry but weren't you literally JUST claiming that you want to join us in expressing despair/anger/devastation re: the Palestinian genocide occurring right now? seems pretty damn odd to me that you claim that one moment and then use the next moment to generate unfounded What Ifs that serve to point the finger back at Palestine instead of Israel, the ones genociding them.
Per your claimed approach, shouldn't you be taking this opportunity to emphasize how horrific it is that this innocent quadriplegic and innocent elderly woman have been murdered? But instead your FIRST post in response to it is "hey i bet it was hamas!!!!"
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
I'm no expert in military strategy but if there was an opposing army trying to enter your base of operations it might make sense to try and deter them. Setting up snipers in and around the base is a no brainer.
setting up a perimeter of snipers but having them face inwards lmao
I'm no expert in military strategy but if there was an opposing army trying to enter your base of operations it might make sense to try and deter them. Setting up snipers in and around the base is a no brainer.
ok then why shoot? seems to completely contradict the "human shield" argument the IDF loves to spout if they're just wiping out their "shield".
I'm not there so I would be speculating. I think the most likely scenario no matter which side fired the shot, is that the intended target was missed.
idk about this board but I think there are plenty of ppl who think this and if u think Israel is an illegitimate state that illegally settled on stolen lands it’s very easy to see why ppl would think it’s a reasonable thing to do to “fight back”
My main point is, within this sphere of inforoo which may lean more left, rummy showed at least 5 examples of people who don't want death. Pale Hose stating it down to 2, was supposed to be a lowering of the clear anti-war rhetoric most of us are actually displaying. And that pisses me off.
You should also go back and re-read my post. I never said that only 2 posters "don't want death".
Did you ever consider for a moment that the sniper referenced in the Doctors Without Borders tweet might be Hamas militant? Do you think that the IDF are the only ones putting civilians in Gaza in harms way?
I'm sorry but weren't you literally JUST claiming that you want to join us in expressing despair/anger/devastation re: the Palestinian genocide occurring right now? seems pretty damn odd to me that you claim that one moment and then use the next moment to generate unfounded What Ifs that serve to point the finger back at Palestine instead of Israel, the ones genociding them.
Per your claimed approach, shouldn't you be taking this opportunity to emphasize how horrific it is that this innocent quadriplegic and innocent elderly woman have been murdered? But instead your FIRST post in response to it is "hey i bet it was hamas!!!!"
I said that I "encourage the discussion about the current situation in Gaza to continue. If someone posts something I take issue with, I will continue to speak up."
I take issue with automatically assuming that every civilian who is collateral damage of this war is killed by Israel. We know that Hamas is exchanging fire with the IDF in and around the hospital, this is well documented. If you can't consider the possibility that Hamas is also killing innocent civilians than I don't think you are being honest about what is happening in Gaza right now.
mostly not so bad over there rn, tbh. if you're paying attention to Real News like our friend Pale Horse. who needs clean water to drink or electricity to power a hospital or unspoiled food to eat? for every 100 innocent Palestinians that the Israeli military heartlessly murders, there miiiight be 1-2 who die from Hamas intervention instead, and so we must be sure to continue to raise that important truth.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
r ppl on here more pro palestine or anti war, genuine question. i think those are diff things
im very much both. yes they are different things but also i do imagine lots of people have an overlap of feeling strongly about both as i do. what has been happening to palestenians at the hands of israeli govt for decades is horrendous even when it wasn't precisely a "war;" the things happening right now are even more horrendous, as it has expanded to "war" (aka genocide).
i havent brought my religious/spiritual identity into this but most people on here who im irl friends with already know this -- i identify as quaker (an agnostic quaker but quaker nonetheless) and it is primarily because of the pacifistic tenants.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
I'm not there so I would be speculating. I think the most likely scenario no matter which side fired the shot, is that the intended target was missed.
seems like you're bending over backwards to imagine a scenario where IDF didn't shoot into a hospital
Two sides are exchanging fire around a hospital. It doesn't exactly take mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that both sides are likely to hit innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire.
r ppl on here more pro palestine or anti war, genuine question. i think those are diff things
im very much both. yes they are different things but also i do imagine lots of people have an overlap of feeling strongly about both as i do. what has been happening to palestenians at the hands of israeli govt for decades is horrendous even when it wasn't precisely a "war;" the things happening right now are even more horrendous, as it has expanded to "war" (aka genocide).
i havent brought my religious/spiritual identity into this but most people on here who im irl friends with already know this -- i identify as quaker (an agnostic quaker but quaker nonetheless) and it is primarily because of the pacifistic tenants.
ya so do u think a war that would lead to palestine overthrowing israel and taking back the land would be net good or net bad compared to ceasefire rn and everything going back to the way it was pre Oct 7.
edit: obvi both are insanely unlikely but just curious on how ppl see things
r ppl on here more pro palestine or anti war, genuine question. i think those are diff things
Anti-war and conflicts made by past regimes, often times toned in white supremacy and magistrates.
But there is a solid group of us that are also pro-Palestinian and disagreed for a very long time with the tactics of Israel. But also are intelligible enough to understand that they can't save geo-political choices made. Israel is there, most of us wanted either a solid two state solution or even better a one state (but those dreams evaporated a while ago).
r ppl on here more pro palestine or anti war, genuine question. i think those are diff things
Anti-war and conflicts made by past regimes, often times toned in white supremacy and magistrates.
But there is a solid group of us that are also pro-Palestinian and disagreed for a very long time with the tactics of Israel. But also are intelligible enough to understand that they can't save geo-political choices made. Israel is there, most of us wanted either a solid two state solution or even better a one state (but those dreams evaporated a while ago).
Just My Opinion
sure but if u want to rectify the second thing that requires a war that would overthrow israel is the way I see the logic. i would love a two state solution but that feels as likely as jill stein winning the presidency in 2024
seems like you're bending over backwards to imagine a scenario where IDF didn't shoot into a hospital
Two sides are exchanging fire around a hospital. It doesn't exactly take mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that both sides are likely to hit innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire.
Ah Yes, because sniper rifles actually act like machine guns.
im very much both. yes they are different things but also i do imagine lots of people have an overlap of feeling strongly about both as i do. what has been happening to palestenians at the hands of israeli govt for decades is horrendous even when it wasn't precisely a "war;" the things happening right now are even more horrendous, as it has expanded to "war" (aka genocide).
i havent brought my religious/spiritual identity into this but most people on here who im irl friends with already know this -- i identify as quaker (an agnostic quaker but quaker nonetheless) and it is primarily because of the pacifistic tenants.
ya so do u think a war that would lead to palestine overthrowing israel and taking back the land would be net good or net bad compared to ceasefire rn and everything going back to the way it was pre Oct 7.
edit: obvi both are insanely unlikely but just curious on how ppl see things
I think a war that would end with that result would take tens of thousands of deaths. But even if you go back to October 6th, nothings better. There's still gonna be another attack eventually. It's not like October 7 came out of nowhere, it's the most likely end result of the conflict and would be going back in time.
If there was an option that guarantee a ceasefire permanently and peace in the region forever, I would take that but I'm not sure that's what you're asking.
im very much both. yes they are different things but also i do imagine lots of people have an overlap of feeling strongly about both as i do. what has been happening to palestenians at the hands of israeli govt for decades is horrendous even when it wasn't precisely a "war;" the things happening right now are even more horrendous, as it has expanded to "war" (aka genocide).
i havent brought my religious/spiritual identity into this but most people on here who im irl friends with already know this -- i identify as quaker (an agnostic quaker but quaker nonetheless) and it is primarily because of the pacifistic tenants.
ya so do u think a war that would lead to palestine overthrowing israel and taking back the land would be net good or net bad compared to ceasefire rn and everything going back to the way it was pre Oct 7.
edit: obvi both are insanely unlikely but just curious on how ppl see things
Communication Studies major says this is bad faith questioning. The choices have never been Palestinians taking over Israel - just following years of history here - so asking a net good or bad question is inconsequential because that underplays the issues of Palestinian citizens.
im very much both. yes they are different things but also i do imagine lots of people have an overlap of feeling strongly about both as i do. what has been happening to palestenians at the hands of israeli govt for decades is horrendous even when it wasn't precisely a "war;" the things happening right now are even more horrendous, as it has expanded to "war" (aka genocide).
i havent brought my religious/spiritual identity into this but most people on here who im irl friends with already know this -- i identify as quaker (an agnostic quaker but quaker nonetheless) and it is primarily because of the pacifistic tenants.
ya so do u think a war that would lead to palestine overthrowing israel and taking back the land would be net good or net bad compared to ceasefire rn and everything going back to the way it was pre Oct 7.
edit: obvi both are insanely unlikely but just curious on how ppl see things
this is a question that i feel like i could write an entire essay on since my answer cant be a simple reflection, it wouldnt suffice. i cant respond in full right now mid work day, but i mean in an ideal world i see the best solution being a ceasefire where things DONT then go back to how they were pre october 7th, given how much has been revealed now even to those who weren't paying attention before [oct 7]. Israel has committed war crimes and should be held responsible; with a ceasefire, they should not be allowed by the UN to return to business as usual. but as we know the US ambassador has voted across pro Israel lines that have squashed attempts at offering humanitarian aid and solutions to Palestine, sooooooo....djkfhgfjkwerwe
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
ya so do u think a war that would lead to palestine overthrowing israel and taking back the land would be net good or net bad compared to ceasefire rn and everything going back to the way it was pre Oct 7.
edit: obvi both are insanely unlikely but just curious on how ppl see things
I think a war that would end with that result would take tens of thousands of deaths. But even if you go back to October 6th, nothings better. There's still gonna be another attack eventually. It's not like October 7 came out of nowhere, it's the most likely end result of the conflict and would be going back in time.
If there was an option that guarantee a ceasefire permanently and peace in the region forever, I would take that but I'm not sure that's what you're asking.
thats not what I am asking you are right. its a tough Q, which is why this thread has so many posts. it would be much more than tens of thousands of deaths I would guess. I would guess it would be an elimination of the israeli people who sure seem wiling to fight to the end for that land, stolen or not.
Do you really believe that somehow only Israeli fire is hitting civilians? Hamas is exchanging fire in and around a hospital but the IDF is to blame for any and all civilian casualties? Do I have that right?
Also, there isn't enough fuel to power the hospital but there is somehow enough fuel to fire rockets into Israel?
I think a war that would end with that result would take tens of thousands of deaths. But even if you go back to October 6th, nothings better. There's still gonna be another attack eventually. It's not like October 7 came out of nowhere, it's the most likely end result of the conflict and would be going back in time.
If there was an option that guarantee a ceasefire permanently and peace in the region forever, I would take that but I'm not sure that's what you're asking.
thats not what I am asking you are right. its a tough Q, which is why this thread has so many posts. it would be much more than tens of thousands of deaths I would guess. I would guess it would be an elimination of the israeli people who sure seem wiling to fight to the end for that land, stolen or not.
I just have a really hard time imagining what it would look like but I'll take the ceasefire. The question really boils down to (for me) what's gonna cause the least suffering overall. If this conflict ends with a Palestinian victory and land reclaim, that seems like the option that would involve the most death within the next few years. At the same time, how many people are gonna die in the next 10, 20, etc. years when the conflict inevitably continues after a ceasefire. Is the ceasefire option preventing more death or is it prolonging it? Creating new generations and bringing new life into this world just to have them wiped out again might create a higher death toll than option A. That's also not even factoring in the suffering that isn't death.
and my answer above isn't even considering the "moral" element of what side I think is in the right.
I get the point of the question but I'm not sure there's a perfect way to slice it even from a complete "save as many lives as possible" angle. Again, I'll take the ceasefire but at the same time, it feels like prolonging the inevitable to some degree.
