NOHOME
MegaDork
10/10/23 9:47 a.m.
Why?
There was only ever going to be one guaranteed and predictable response to the Hamas attack. Israel was going to kick the E36 M3 out of Gaza with zero regard for collateral damage. The entire western world would demand it and there would be to pause to consider other options due to politics.
And they were correct, first point to Hamas.
So, knowing they were going to get the response they wanted, what is Hamas' long game? Is this just a way to recruit the next generation of victim/haters who lost everything to the evil west? Or is there an actual attainable military victory to be had?
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/10/23 10:07 a.m.
In reply to NOHOME :
As I noted earlier, this is about derailing the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement that the US has been working toward for some time now. If concluded, that deal would leave both the Palestinians and the Iranians in a substantially worse position than they currently are, and both benefit from maintaining pressure on Israel while tying Saudi Arabia's hands by forcing them to publicly back the Palestinians for domestic political reasons. Saudi Arabia correctly sees Iran as the greatest threat it currently faces, but when Arab support to the Palestinians dried up after Camp David, the Iranians became the patrons of Hamas and other movements, and uses them to pursue its interests; the Palestinians, having no other options and certainly having plenty of animosity toward Israel and the Arab powers they feel have sold them out, are usually happy to oblige.
NOHOME said:
Why?
There was only ever going to be one guaranteed and predictable response to the Hamas attack. Israel was going to kick the E36 M3 out of Gaza with zero regard for collateral damage. The entire western world would demand it and there would be to pause to consider other options due to politics.
And they were correct, first point to Hamas.
So, knowing they were going to get the response they wanted, what is Hamas' long game? Is this just a way to recruit the next generation of victim/haters who lost everything to the evil west? Or is there an actual attainable military victory to be had?
Who stands to benefit from tensions and conflict in the middle east? Who benefits best from a "Moslems vs Jews vs the west"?
- Iran - well, Saudi and Israel were on the cusp of peace, likely a casualty of this conflict. Iran is already suffering under internal pressures on human rights type issues, a new conflict allows their culture war to have an excuse.
- Muslim extremists in general - poke them, they hit us, we can claim aggrieved status and get more recruits and power.
- Russia? *Distraction* might drive some combatants into their arms, just because the other side
- China? Same as Russia, plus the west distracted from whats happening with Taiwan is a good thing for them. Might be able to get some middle east development contracts in the aftermath.
02Pilot said:
Noddaz said:
In reply to Javelin :
What if the real motive was to lure in a CSG and hit it to show the world how vulnerable the US is.
That seems like a very high-risk/low-odds play, but let's say they sink it. What's the endgame? How does it advance Hezbollah's (who are much more capable of even attempting such a thing than Hamas) objectives? "Show(ing) the world how vulnerable the US is" doesn't really seem like much of a benefit to the Palestinians. Do they think the US is going to slink home and lick their wounds? I don't, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near southern Lebanon if such an attack were attempted, let alone successfully.
It does sound like a movie plot. But in the short term, the USA is nothing but predictable.
Mr_Asa
UltimaDork
10/10/23 11:19 a.m.
For some reason this heating up concerns me more than Russia/Ukraine.
Not sure what leads me to that.. The players on both side are more unstable?
Noddaz said:
02Pilot said:
Noddaz said:
In reply to Javelin :
What if the real motive was to lure in a CSG and hit it to show the world how vulnerable the US is.
That seems like a very high-risk/low-odds play, but let's say they sink it. What's the endgame? How does it advance Hezbollah's (who are much more capable of even attempting such a thing than Hamas) objectives? "Show(ing) the world how vulnerable the US is" doesn't really seem like much of a benefit to the Palestinians. Do they think the US is going to slink home and lick their wounds? I don't, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near southern Lebanon if such an attack were attempted, let alone successfully.
It does sound like a movie plot. But in the short term, the USA is nothing but predictable.
What worries me more is what CBG we sent. This has the Ford which is still plagued with little issues like self defense and launching and catching aircraft. If we had sent a Nimitz class group in I wouldn't think twice about it. Sending in the untested Ford who spent all summer fixing issues is problematic to me.
02Pilot
PowerDork
10/10/23 11:25 a.m.
bobzilla said:
Noddaz said:
02Pilot said:
Noddaz said:
In reply to Javelin :
What if the real motive was to lure in a CSG and hit it to show the world how vulnerable the US is.
That seems like a very high-risk/low-odds play, but let's say they sink it. What's the endgame? How does it advance Hezbollah's (who are much more capable of even attempting such a thing than Hamas) objectives? "Show(ing) the world how vulnerable the US is" doesn't really seem like much of a benefit to the Palestinians. Do they think the US is going to slink home and lick their wounds? I don't, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near southern Lebanon if such an attack were attempted, let alone successfully.
It does sound like a movie plot. But in the short term, the USA is nothing but predictable.
What worries me more is what CBG we sent. This has the Ford which is still plagued with little issues like self defense and launching and catching aircraft. If we had sent a Nimitz class group in I wouldn't think twice about it. Sending in the untested Ford who spent all summer fixing issues is problematic to me.
It is the only carrier in the Med right now, so it wasn't really a choice so much as the only available option.
NOHOME
MegaDork
10/10/23 11:29 a.m.
Apexcarver said:
NOHOME said:
Why?
There was only ever going to be one guaranteed and predictable response to the Hamas attack. Israel was going to kick the E36 M3 out of Gaza with zero regard for collateral damage. The entire western world would demand it and there would be to pause to consider other options due to politics.
And they were correct, first point to Hamas.
So, knowing they were going to get the response they wanted, what is Hamas' long game? Is this just a way to recruit the next generation of victim/haters who lost everything to the evil west? Or is there an actual attainable military victory to be had?
Who stands to benefit from tensions and conflict in the middle east? Who benefits best from a "Moslems vs Jews vs the west"?
- Iran - well, Saudi and Israel were on the cusp of peace, likely a casualty of this conflict. Iran is already suffering under internal pressures on human rights type issues, a new conflict allows their culture war to have an excuse.
- Muslim extremists in general - poke them, they hit us, we can claim aggrieved status and get more recruits and power.
- Russia? *Distraction* might drive some combatants into their arms, just because the other side
- China? Same as Russia, plus the west distracted from whats happening with Taiwan is a good thing for them. Might be able to get some middle east development contracts in the aftermath.
So if we see this as Hamas being paid to act as a catalyst for this complex set of (predictable) reactions, it does kind of make sense.
Willing to bet that Hamas leadership was on a retreat outside of the Gaza Strip while this was all going down.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Oh I know. I'm just hoping that our leadership has a backup in play coming in from the other side of the Suez.
My conspiracy side wonders if it isn't a little part of the timing as well. The only carrier we have in the area isn't battle tested nor at 100%. It's silly but coincidences bother me.
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Because it has more players in the background pulling strings that are less than stable? Did Iran get its nuclear program running? That could get real bad real fast if they did.
saw something a little bit ago that they're being assaulted on the north as well from the Syrian side.
Apexcarver said:
NOHOME said:
Why?
There was only ever going to be one guaranteed and predictable response to the Hamas attack. Israel was going to kick the E36 M3 out of Gaza with zero regard for collateral damage. The entire western world would demand it and there would be to pause to consider other options due to politics.
And they were correct, first point to Hamas.
So, knowing they were going to get the response they wanted, what is Hamas' long game? Is this just a way to recruit the next generation of victim/haters who lost everything to the evil west? Or is there an actual attainable military victory to be had?
Who stands to benefit from tensions and conflict in the middle east? Who benefits best from a "Moslems vs Jews vs the west"?
- Iran - well, Saudi and Israel were on the cusp of peace, likely a casualty of this conflict. Iran is already suffering under internal pressures on human rights type issues, a new conflict allows their culture war to have an excuse.
- Muslim extremists in general - poke them, they hit us, we can claim aggrieved status and get more recruits and power.
- Russia? *Distraction* might drive some combatants into their arms, just because the other side
- China? Same as Russia, plus the west distracted from whats happening with Taiwan is a good thing for them. Might be able to get some middle east development contracts in the aftermath.
If things escalate one of the biggest winners could be the American military/weapons industrial complex.
bobzilla said:
In reply to 02Pilot :
Oh I know. I'm just hoping that our leadership has a backup in play coming in from the other side of the Suez.
My conspiracy side wonders if it isn't a little part of the timing as well. The only carrier we have in the area isn't battle tested nor at 100%. It's silly but coincidences bother me.
A US carrier at less than 100% will still kick the ever loving dogE36 M3 out of 97% of the global militaries all by itself. We get a lot for the literal truckloads of cash we lavish on the military.
In reply to KyAllroad :
It does. Until it doesn't. We are almost always still fighting the last war and they are not infallible. A carrier that can't launch or retrieve planes quickly is a liability
I feel for all who just wants to work a job to support their families. On all sides. We met someone from the area who immigrated to the US just for a decent living.
It sucks for all of those people. And there are a lot of them.
bobzilla said:
In reply to Mr_Asa :
....Did Iran get its nuclear program running? That could get real bad real fast if they did...
The Iranian nuclear program has been running for a long time, it has never stopped. They are still processing uranium into weapons grade that last I hear, but should be rather close by now if not done. No actual weapons that I know of, since testing of those, which would be necessary, would become rather obvious.
They of course have been working closely with Russia (trading weapons etc), but I don't think there is any information that Russia is helping them with their nukes. Not sure the Russian necessarily want them to have them.
The point where the Iranians are ready to create and test actual bombs becomes the critical point. What does Israel do? They of course are keeping a very close eye on it (as much as they can). Of course, once they have weapons, the Iranians are in the same position other nuclear power are in. You have the power, but also the justification to be hit with that same power (which Israel very much has).
Some initial... rather horrific news (I guess there is a small chance this is not entirely accurate). The depth at which you have to descend to get to this point is hard to understand. The Russian atrocities in Bucha did not even get close to this.
Babies Killed, Beheaded in Israel by Hamas at Kfar Aza: Israeli TV
Babies were killed in Israel by Hamas at the kibbutz Kfar Aza, and some of them were beheaded during the surprise attack on the residential community, according to a reporter on the ground for i24 News.
The written i24 news report, by journalist Nicole Zedek says, “About 40 babies and young children have been taken out on gurneys — so far.”
https://heavy.com/news/babies-killed-beheaded-in-israel-by-hamas/
In reply to aircooled :
My only concern is with Iran, why would they need to test? They have the "membership" to send one way kayaks into an active engagement and if it works awesome we killed the enemy and if not oh well we will try again. NEXT!
I think we as a whole make the mistake of thinking of these places and people as if they were playing the same game as the rest of us. Fortunately the rest of us aren't actively trying to slaughter women and children and all the other attrocious things they're doing. That's not normal in a civilized society. If one can see these acts and actively defend them they need psychiatric help.
Questions about why Hamas does what they do must be answered through an extremist lens. They do not value human life the way we do and they are not constrained by politics. One dead Israeli is worth one dead Hamas or perhaps more, and one dead Israeli is certainly worth far more non-Hamas Palestinian women and children, who have little value to begin with. Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in the Quran. So 1000 Israeli deaths is a huge accomplishment to them, and they care little about retaliation which will disproportionately affect people they care little about.
In reply to aircooled :
I was alluding to that news but wasn't going to bring it up. And to think there are people right here protesting their support for this. Free country (here) and all but those people need berkeleying help.
In reply to bobzilla :
Well... I guess you could assume your bomb works, but it not be ideal to go through the trouble of setting of an attack to have non-exploded bomb sitting somewhere or one that just scatters a bit of nuclear material around. Also the threat of a demonstrated weapon is far higher than a claimed threat, and the threat is 90% of the usefulness of a nuke (for countries that value their existence). A demonstrated ability to use nukes, in the modern world, is effective a "cannot be invaded" card. It's what is making sure no foreign troops ever enter Russia currently.
Dirty bombs of course are an option (just blowing up nuclear material to spread it over an area), but they are not instantly destructive, and there is no need to use weapons grade plutonium for that.
In reply to aircooled :
Like I said, you're using rationality. Something I don't think they have much of.
tuna55
MegaDork
10/10/23 1:20 p.m.
I wonder is this (Hamas attack) is desperate acts after much of the world finally seems to be recognizing Israel, following Nikki Haley as Ambassador and the strong words she issued against antisemitism, and also the Abraham accords.
