Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
In this case the Israelis are allowed to take the attitude that the best form of defense is a good offense, whereas the Palestinians have to behave rather more meekly towards their neighbors.surrey_commuter said:
Better to negotiate from a position of strength, especially when dealing with people whose stated aim is to wipe you out.TheBigBean said:
Yes, I get it, and you are right. Having bombed the hospital already along with a load of other healthcare facilities, UN schools, safe routes etc. they are going to be judged harshly. That seems reasonable to me.surrey_commuter said:
As I summarised before they were terrible people for killing 800 people, then the number did not matter and now the fact they did not do it does not matter.TheBigBean said:
An alternative view is that having ordered a hospital to evacuate three times, hit it at least once, bombed the civilians in the neighbourhood so much that they chose to shelter in the hospital against advice, they may have been falsely accused of killing some civilians. It's basically just distraction from all the other war crimes.surrey_commuter said:So in summary, the Israeli's were terrible people for bombing a hospital and killing 800 people.
Now with the evidence suggesting 800 deaths was exaggerated it does not matter what the total number is.
Further evidence suggests it was not the Israelis but that does not matter because they would have done it anyway.
Seems to me they may as well bomb the next hospital as they can not be judged any more harshly
They will be judged better if they stop bombing and start negotiating, but "it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists" etc.
If I was Israeli I would be strengthening my defences as I would trust nobody other than a jewish state to provide my security.
If I was living in Gaza I would not vote for a bunch of loons who brought that censored down upon me.
Fwiw I think the Israeli actions are largely logical, although often difficult to justify on a moral basis.
It can be more difficult to see the logic behind Hamas (and other islamist groups at times) but I can see how they feel powerless against their neighbors. Clearly their actions are also very difficult/impossible to morally justify.0 -
IIRC, a lot of people voted for Brexit and Tories who claimed they'd make it happen 'properly' because they felt powerless, and ended up with Johnson. And no, I'm not saying Johnson is like Hamas, but when people feel they have no voice, they'll vote for anyone who claims they'll speak up for them, even when it's the party that historically has shafted them.
And there have been no elections in Gaza since 2006.0 -
Think of it like a slave uprising. Someone has lost their freedom, is beaten regularly and has watched their friends and family murdered and their property destroyed. They don't necessarily make the most life preserving moves.Jezyboy said:
In this case the Israelis are allowed to take the attitude that the best form of defense is a good offense, whereas the Palestinians have to behave rather more meekly towards their neighbors.surrey_commuter said:
Better to negotiate from a position of strength, especially when dealing with people whose stated aim is to wipe you out.TheBigBean said:
Yes, I get it, and you are right. Having bombed the hospital already along with a load of other healthcare facilities, UN schools, safe routes etc. they are going to be judged harshly. That seems reasonable to me.surrey_commuter said:
As I summarised before they were terrible people for killing 800 people, then the number did not matter and now the fact they did not do it does not matter.TheBigBean said:
An alternative view is that having ordered a hospital to evacuate three times, hit it at least once, bombed the civilians in the neighbourhood so much that they chose to shelter in the hospital against advice, they may have been falsely accused of killing some civilians. It's basically just distraction from all the other war crimes.surrey_commuter said:So in summary, the Israeli's were terrible people for bombing a hospital and killing 800 people.
Now with the evidence suggesting 800 deaths was exaggerated it does not matter what the total number is.
Further evidence suggests it was not the Israelis but that does not matter because they would have done it anyway.
Seems to me they may as well bomb the next hospital as they can not be judged any more harshly
They will be judged better if they stop bombing and start negotiating, but "it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists" etc.
If I was Israeli I would be strengthening my defences as I would trust nobody other than a jewish state to provide my security.
If I was living in Gaza I would not vote for a bunch of loons who brought that censored down upon me.
Fwiw I think the Israeli actions are largely logical, although often difficult to justify on a moral basis.
It can be more difficult to see the logic behind Hamas (and other islamist groups at times) but I can see how they feel powerless against their neighbors. Clearly their actions are also very difficult/impossible to morally justify.0 -
What they have may not be perfect but through force they have gained a level of security that they are loathe to risk.TheBigBean said:
Think of it like a slave uprising. Someone has lost their freedom, is beaten regularly and has watched their friends and family murdered and their property destroyed. They don't necessarily make the most life preserving moves.Jezyboy said:
In this case the Israelis are allowed to take the attitude that the best form of defense is a good offense, whereas the Palestinians have to behave rather more meekly towards their neighbors.surrey_commuter said:
Better to negotiate from a position of strength, especially when dealing with people whose stated aim is to wipe you out.TheBigBean said:
Yes, I get it, and you are right. Having bombed the hospital already along with a load of other healthcare facilities, UN schools, safe routes etc. they are going to be judged harshly. That seems reasonable to me.surrey_commuter said:
As I summarised before they were terrible people for killing 800 people, then the number did not matter and now the fact they did not do it does not matter.TheBigBean said:
An alternative view is that having ordered a hospital to evacuate three times, hit it at least once, bombed the civilians in the neighbourhood so much that they chose to shelter in the hospital against advice, they may have been falsely accused of killing some civilians. It's basically just distraction from all the other war crimes.surrey_commuter said:So in summary, the Israeli's were terrible people for bombing a hospital and killing 800 people.
Now with the evidence suggesting 800 deaths was exaggerated it does not matter what the total number is.
Further evidence suggests it was not the Israelis but that does not matter because they would have done it anyway.
Seems to me they may as well bomb the next hospital as they can not be judged any more harshly
They will be judged better if they stop bombing and start negotiating, but "it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists" etc.
If I was Israeli I would be strengthening my defences as I would trust nobody other than a jewish state to provide my security.
If I was living in Gaza I would not vote for a bunch of loons who brought that censored down upon me.
Fwiw I think the Israeli actions are largely logical, although often difficult to justify on a moral basis.
It can be more difficult to see the logic behind Hamas (and other islamist groups at times) but I can see how they feel powerless against their neighbors. Clearly their actions are also very difficult/impossible to morally justify.0 -
-
People in Scotland now having to be evacuated by boat as they wouldn’t leave their homes when requested. No doubt there’ll be complaints that they weren’t warned despite the red warning.0
-
By elections - could we be in the narrow window between too early to say and it being old news?0
-
No, I think these are definitively bye elections at this point.1
-
Would you leave your home? I'd have to think pretty hard about it.Pross said:People in Scotland now having to be evacuated by boat as they wouldn’t leave their homes when requested. No doubt there’ll be complaints that they weren’t warned despite the red warning.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Are you arguing that slaves didn't work Sundays and received food and lodging, so shouldn't have complained too much? Plenty did that in the south, as I'm sure you are aware, but it is a view that hasn't passed the test of time.surrey_commuter said:
What they have may not be perfect but through force they have gained a level of security that they are loathe to risk.TheBigBean said:
Think of it like a slave uprising. Someone has lost their freedom, is beaten regularly and has watched their friends and family murdered and their property destroyed. They don't necessarily make the most life preserving moves.Jezyboy said:
In this case the Israelis are allowed to take the attitude that the best form of defense is a good offense, whereas the Palestinians have to behave rather more meekly towards their neighbors.surrey_commuter said:
Better to negotiate from a position of strength, especially when dealing with people whose stated aim is to wipe you out.TheBigBean said:
Yes, I get it, and you are right. Having bombed the hospital already along with a load of other healthcare facilities, UN schools, safe routes etc. they are going to be judged harshly. That seems reasonable to me.surrey_commuter said:
As I summarised before they were terrible people for killing 800 people, then the number did not matter and now the fact they did not do it does not matter.TheBigBean said:
An alternative view is that having ordered a hospital to evacuate three times, hit it at least once, bombed the civilians in the neighbourhood so much that they chose to shelter in the hospital against advice, they may have been falsely accused of killing some civilians. It's basically just distraction from all the other war crimes.surrey_commuter said:So in summary, the Israeli's were terrible people for bombing a hospital and killing 800 people.
Now with the evidence suggesting 800 deaths was exaggerated it does not matter what the total number is.
Further evidence suggests it was not the Israelis but that does not matter because they would have done it anyway.
Seems to me they may as well bomb the next hospital as they can not be judged any more harshly
They will be judged better if they stop bombing and start negotiating, but "it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists" etc.
If I was Israeli I would be strengthening my defences as I would trust nobody other than a jewish state to provide my security.
If I was living in Gaza I would not vote for a bunch of loons who brought that censored down upon me.
Fwiw I think the Israeli actions are largely logical, although often difficult to justify on a moral basis.
It can be more difficult to see the logic behind Hamas (and other islamist groups at times) but I can see how they feel powerless against their neighbors. Clearly their actions are also very difficult/impossible to morally justify.0 -
pangolin said:
Would you leave your home? I'd have to think pretty hard about it.Pross said:People in Scotland now having to be evacuated by boat as they wouldn’t leave their homes when requested. No doubt there’ll be complaints that they weren’t warned despite the red warning.
For flooding, definitely yes. I did for a forest fire - it wasn't actually hard, if the alternative is doing it in the middle of the night in a panic. Staying isn't going to stop the catastrophic event happening to your house (or not).0 -
Why wouldn't you leave?pangolin said:
Would you leave your home? I'd have to think pretty hard about it.Pross said:People in Scotland now having to be evacuated by boat as they wouldn’t leave their homes when requested. No doubt there’ll be complaints that they weren’t warned despite the red warning.
0 -
-
I guess I've never lived in a flood risk area so not had to think about it. I like to imagine I could mitigate some damage, even if it was just moving everything valuable upstairs.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
No me neither. Colleague had a non-flood risk area flood (unseasoanble summer rain after long dry spell - built up at the farm above his house and eventually broke and rushed down and flooded the house).
He said he had about 20 minutes to move as much as he could upstairs but it was very much king cnut and he was better off getting out of there.0 -
There's an untold story here about under investment in flood defences in Scotland.
Dumfries floods annually. So does Peebles. Investment in at least the former has just been voted down. The vox pops in Brechin suggested that it was a relatively common occurrence to flood there also, which is likely why people didn't leave.
Meanwhile, the SNP are doubling the Scottish arts budget and trying to issue bonds that will cost more than borrowing from the UK govt. Such hard choices.0 -
That's the point of red warnings, which the Met Office did. Mitigate what you can, then scarper. But I remember the only red warning we've had (that I can remember) in Devon was for snow, and still people went out in their cars, and, IIRC, one or two people did die.pangolin said:I guess I've never lived in a flood risk area so not had to think about it. I like to imagine I could mitigate some damage, even if it was just moving everything valuable upstairs.
0 -
If people had built their houses on sticks they wouldn't need to move everything upstairs. I know the resident architect strongly disagrees with this approach to mitigation.0
-
"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We live in a flood risk area and have a well-honed schedule for moving stuff upstairs when it looks like it's a genuine "Code Red" and would definitely evacuate if necessary. (Where we live, it's very easy to monitor water levels and crucially, whether levels are rising sufficiently quickly to threaten the defences.) If nothing else, it takes several days for the water to drop, and with no power or plumbing (but with raw sewage in the lounge) staying put would be very grim even vs living out of a suitcase on the floor at a leisure centre etc.pangolin said:I guess I've never lived in a flood risk area so not had to think about it. I like to imagine I could mitigate some damage, even if it was just moving everything valuable upstairs.
Boxing Day 2015 is the only time we've actually had the bags packed, though we've evacuated the kids to grandparents a couple of times when they were primary school age.0 -
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.0 -
And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.wallace_and_gromit said:
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You've watched Water World again haven't you.TheBigBean said:If people had built their houses on sticks they wouldn't need to move everything upstairs. I know the resident architect strongly disagrees with this approach to mitigation.
0 -
I think this is the wrong approach.pblakeney said:
And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.wallace_and_gromit said:
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.
With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.
We need proper investment in flood defences.0 -
Maybe that's what the town upstream has got.rick_chasey said:
I think this is the wrong approach.pblakeney said:
And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.wallace_and_gromit said:
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.
With climate change this stuff is only going to get worse. When it comes to flooding the Dutch are a good model to follow. Just letting houses flood and saying "haha, your fault" is not the right approach.
We need proper investment in flood defences.0 -
This may surprise you but this is very much not the case. Being flooded is an awful experience based on interactions with folk who've experienced it. Boxing Day 2015 and its aftermath was a particularly grim period of history in these parts and you'd need to have the heart of an unsympathetic Tory MP to feel anything other than sympathy for those affected.pblakeney said:
And those people will receive zero fucks of sympathy.wallace_and_gromit said:
You'd think that but there's a house in our village that got flooded in 2008, 2012 and 2015. It's sold twice since the 2008 flood!pblakeney said:"How much are you willing to pay for this house that regularly floods?"
Nothing, I'll buy elsewhere thanks.0 -
The "haha your fault" approach will also mean an increasing load of load being utterly uninsuerable unless we all take on the burden of fortifying the country against the effects of climate change.
The natural disaster equivalent of not treating ill people because they should have known better.0 -
Whitesands in Dumfries is a flood zone; it is low lying at the head of the Nith estuary so combine river flood and high tide timings.... Don't lease a business property there unless you are ok with lower rates and rents vs getting wet now and again. E.g. Frothy Bike Co.First.Aspect said:There's an untold story here about under investment in flood defences in Scotland.
Dumfries floods annually.
Or, as in case of what used to be a bank and is now The Bank restaurant, build higher so your ground floor is 2m+ above the rest.0 -
Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.rick_chasey said:Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.
We need proper investment in flood defences.
Letting houses flood is actually the answer, though in the form of building houses so that flooding isn't a particular issue e.g. by ditching plaster for tanking, raising power sockets, not having living space on the ground floor etc. (Stilts would be an obvious thing to consider from a practical viewpoint.) Obviously, that's more expensive in terms of building, but the premium would be a small price to pay for avoiding the misery of being flooded out of a traditionally designed house.
We gave serious thought to moving after Boxing Day 2015 but decided to stay put. If it comes to it, we'll put the money saved from not moving into redesigning our house if major works are needed following a future breach of the defences. Fortunately, it is on the large side and we could easily sacrifice the ground floor to a garage etc.
0 -
This just sounds like poor flood defences. Holland manages fine.wallace_and_gromit said:
Flood defences can only do so much. Water finds its own level and if there's enough of it, flood defences simply deflect the problem elsewhere.rick_chasey said:Just letting houses flood...is not the right approach.
We need proper investment in flood defences.0
