Citing UN sources, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs says that the “wholly inadequate humanitarian access over the last 4 months” means that the population faces acute food insecurity, with a serious risk of famine developing. “This is unconscionable,” the statement says.
“Freezing or withdrawing funding to UNRWA further exacerbates these risks - States which have done so must urgently rescind this decision and resume funding.”
This is not possible. There is no way to bomb away terrorist, many have tried, none have succeeded. And talking about “the only solution is killing” has a bad taste to it. There is no “only solution” for any problem and bombing sure isn’t solving anything. Hasn’t the past decades.
Be doesn’t want discussion, he wants a platform. I did this with him a few days ago, don’t engage.
Yeah, thanks for the heads up
They did and succeeded. Let’s face it: A main reason why there was pratically no resistance after the surrender in Germany and Japan is that the Allies did make it clear that they wouldn’t hesitate to use means that make what Israel is doing now look like a picknick if necessary. I’m not sure about Japan, but the Nazis had elaborate plans for guerilla warfare after invasion. But brutaltiy of their defeat dissuadeded their supporters from actually committing to that.
Now, Germany and Japan also experienced a second step that made them rather peaceful today and that was an economic revivial that provided opportunties for everoyne and made it possible to rebuild the countries in a new image and we most certainly must strive to make that happen in Gaza, but it all started with a people beaten so badly that it realized that violent resistance was futile.
Edit: There really is a long list of terrorists movements being wiped out with brutal force. In many cases that’s not morally acceptable (take what China is doing in Xinjiang for example), but places from Czechnia to Sri Lanka are reasonably calm nowadays because governmetns litterally bombed their enemies into submission. The question is just whether the end justifies the means.
in Germany it was not the brutality of the allies victory that dissuaded people, it was the totallity of it. The people weren’t stupid so when they saw the massive amount and types of material the alies carted through Germany they knew they lost. The German people were not well of at that point yet here come the US soldiers throwing chocoloate around like ti’s nothing. Stuff like that imprints really hard just how badly you lost.
But yeah with Japan the US had to first display that they were willing and cappable to turn the entire country to rubble before the leadership surrendered.
Yes, that was indeed part of the psychological effect. It’s also why I’d welcome it if Nato joined that war. Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan I read that you’d need about 1 occpying soldier for every 20 inhabitants to prevent any resistance gaining ground. Sending 100k soldiers to that place would work and would allow for tactics that lead to far fewer civilian deaths.
The giving chocolate is also something that works. If heard stories of aid from America from my grandparents more than 70 years after the war. When people are on the brink of starvation it’s quite cheap to buy their loyalty.
deleted by creator
Not wanting civilian infrastructure to be bombed is supporting terrorism? Wow are you absolutist.
deleted by creator
Says the one okay with bombing schools. Thats just not okay in any way shape or form.
deleted by creator
Nooe, right here seems fine. No but you basically said they need to be eradicated, please tell me his that’s different. And you could also elaborate on how you would combat the terrorists if you had it your way.
deleted by creator
you, literally in the same comment chain
deleted by creator
Should I just quote the rest of that comment then? Because you repeat yourself in the next paragraph, you’re even so kind to put a full stop behind the statement that time:
Tell me, where is this mysterious “context” you mention because I just can’t seem to find it between your constant demand/proposal to eradicate all terrorists.
If you bomb all the schools then they can’t hide in them. And if you kill all the school children they won’t need schools. It makes perfect sense!
deleted by creator
It is your point exactly. Or do you honestly think that killing thousands wouldn’t led to more terrorists because of the hate these actions instilled? It happened multiple times you know. And bombing only ever made everything worse.
deleted by creator
Oh, sorry, I took your words and you don’t like that? So sorry. Maybe you shouldn’t have written them in the first place, just a suggestion.
Also, being hostile just makes you seem childish, just a friendly piece of advice.