| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Hamas, like ISIS, is an Islamist not a national movement based on geography. |
Agreed
| Substitute in ISIS for Hamas |
Agreed
Not agreed. ISIS had no roots in Raqqa, they merely conquered it. Hamas is warp and woof in Gaza and got elected to power by the Gazans.
| it does appear that these extremist conservative Islamist groups can be driven out of an area by a determined force with the help of both precision and non precision bombing. |
I can't see how they (even if under another name) can be driven out of Gaza short of the Gazans being driven out of Gaza.
| Academics are now wondering why ISIS (remember them?) have failed to make a come back. |
This is quite an interesting question, leaving aside that ISIS is still around in parts of Syria/Iraq. It hinges on whether Muslims want to be/are prepared to put up with fundamentalism. After all, ISIS ideology is not that far away from either Saudi or Iranian versions of Islam.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
The Ukrainians have just fired some missiles at Belgorod. The Russians have protested to the Security Council about it. Quite right too, this is an intolerable interference in another country's internal affairs. Exactly what the UN was set up to prevent. I demand the other permanent members of the Security Council send troops into Ukraine to stop it happening again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Not agreed. ISIS had no roots in Raqqa, they merely conquered it. Hamas is warp and woof in Gaza and got elected to power by the Gazans. |
I can't see the meaningful difference, the Palestinian support of Hamas is not deeply rooted, it goes back to the 1980s. Hamas was an offshoot of Egyptian brotherhood, seen as a better protector than the PLO, but less of a terrorist option than Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
When they got power, Hamas set about imposing strict rules on women, discouraged western culture, oppressed non-Muslim minorities, imposed sharia law, and deployed religious police to enforce these laws. It formed a tactical truce with PIJ, any civil dissent prior to the war was being crushed. Hamas has not held any elections since coming to power. They had 5 executions in 2022 and ordered another 22. This is not reflective of Gazan or Palestinian culture. It is a group of political/religious fanatics intent on setting up a utopian caliphate, who have designated ordinary Palestinians in their minds as a useful means to an end.
| wiki wrote: | | According to a Human Rights Watch researcher, the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza stepped up its efforts to "Islamize" Gaza in 2010, efforts that included the "repression" of civil society and "severe violations of personal freedom".[6] Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in 2009 that "Hamas is gradually turning the Gaza Strip into a Taliban-style Islamic entity".[7] According to Mkhaimar Abusada, a political-science professor at Gaza's Al-Azhar University, "Ruling by itself, Hamas can stamp its ideas on everyone (...) Islamizing society has always been part of Hamas strategy."[8] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I can't see the meaningful difference, the Palestinian support of Hamas is not deeply rooted, it goes back to the 1980s. Hamas was an offshoot of Egyptian brotherhood, seen as a better protector than the PLO, but less of a terrorist option than Palestinian Islamic Jihad. |
Oh come on, Wiley, Hamas is practically indigenous. As you say, it has a specific local function. ISIS is right out of the wide blue yonder and has no connection with anything other than a general messianic urge.
| When they got power, Hamas set about imposing strict rules on women, discouraged western culture, oppressed non-Muslim minorities, imposed sharia law, and deployed religious police to enforce these laws. |
So?
| It formed a tactical truce with PIJ, any civil dissent prior to the war was being crushed. Hamas has not held any elections since coming to power. They had 5 executions in 2022 and ordered another 22. This is not reflective of Gazan or Palestinian culture. It is a group of political/religious fanatics intent on setting up a utopian caliphate, who have designated ordinary Palestinians in their minds as a useful means to an end. |
There isn't an Arab government anywhere that you couldn't say any of this about. We're not comparing Hamas with the Lib Dems, we're comparing them to ISIS.
| wiki wrote: According to a Human Rights Watch researcher, the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza stepped up its efforts to "Islamize" Gaza in 2010, efforts that included the "repression" of civil society and "severe violations of personal freedom".[6] Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in 2009 that "Hamas is gradually turning the Gaza Strip into a Taliban-style Islamic entity".[7] According to Mkhaimar Abusada, a political-science professor at Gaza's Al-Azhar University, "Ruling by itself, Hamas can stamp its ideas on everyone (...) Islamizing society has always been part of Hamas strategy."[8] |
So, Wiley doesn't like them. Wiki doesn't like them. I don't like them. Maybe the Gazans don't like them. What the hell point are you trying to make?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Oh come on, Wiley, Hamas is practically indigenous. As you say, it has a specific local function. ISIS is right out of the wide blue yonder and has no connection with anything other than a general messianic urge.
|
Hamas have launched an attack from Gaza, the outcome of which was almost certainly going to be a declaration of war from Israel. This is not a war of equals, it's about the equvalent, in the size of military strength (nothing else compares), of, say, Luxemberg launching an attack on France, seizing 250 hostages and then retreating back to Luxemberg. It is clearly a war that, if no other players intervene, Israel should win.
Bibi has declared the expected war and the destruction of Hamas (presumably Palestine Islamic Jihad as well), he has abandoned the previous military paradigm of "mowing the lawn" whenever Hamas or PIJ have launched rockets at Israel. I struggle to see why either Hamas or anybody else is surprised by this new war aim/change of policy (in realist terms).
Raqqa (to Wiley) does seem to be a model for Israel's operation. An Islamic group had taken over a city, and had built an extensive network of tunnels. The US coalition (militias) beat the group by methodically making their way through the city and calling in air strikes or artillery when defenders resisted, by the end 60-80% was uninhabitable. The wisdom from Raqqa is that attackers do not want to go down the tunnels, instead they essentially play whack a mole, ie when the mole emerges, or just before, they use their overwheming air power/artillery to collapse the buildings on the defenders.
Amnesty International wrote a report condeming the US for not using precision strikes in Raqqa.
Wiley agrees that precision strikes are better, but in practice they require the right kit, the right information, the right weather conditions, often at the time the IDF has just come under fire. The idea that you have intelligence so you can take your time and carefully arrange surgical strikes on static bunkers, military installations, is not the case. It's a moving target.
Bibi's aim is arguably realisable as Hamas and PIJ leadership that are still in Gaza have no obvious retreat from Gaza, as Egypt is unwilling to allow Hamas into Egypt (like most Arab states they consider Muslim Brotherhood fanatics). It's not going to be like in Raqqa where ISIS fighters were allowed to leave.
My question from the start is why did Hamas start this? Maybe it's as you describe, as with ISIS it was a messianic urge?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Hamas have launched an attack from Gaza, the outcome of which was almost certainly going to be a declaration of war from Israel. This is not a war of equals etc |
It is an asymmetric war in which one side has certain strengths and weaknesses, the other side other ones. Neither side knows what the ultimate outcome will be-- if they did they wouldn't be in it. This is all completely standard.
| Bibi has declared the expected war and the destruction of Hamas (presumably Palestine Islamic Jihad as well), he has abandoned the previous military paradigm of "mowing the lawn" whenever Hamas or PIJ have launched rockets at Israel. I struggle to see why either Hamas or anybody else is surprised by this new war aim/change of policy (in realist terms). |
The Israeli response has been entirely standard: hit back with disproportionate force to discourage a repetition. (I'm not saying it's a wise policy, I'm saying it's a standard policy in asymmetric wars.)
| Raqqa (to Wiley) does seem to be a model for Israel's operation. An Islamic group had taken over a city, and had built an extensive network of tunnels. The US coalition (militias) beat the group by methodically making their way through the city and calling in air strikes or artillery when defenders resisted, by the end 60-80% was uninhabitable. The wisdom from Raqqa is that attackers do not want to go down the tunnels, instead they essentially play whack a mole, ie when the mole emerges, or just before, they use their overwheming air power/artillery to collapse the buildings on the defenders. |
None of this is relevant because nobody gives a monkeys about Raqqa. Not even ISIS.
| Amnesty International wrote a report condeming the US for not using precision strikes in Raqqa. |
Ditto.
| Wiley agrees that precision strikes are better, but in practice they require the right kit, the right information, the right weather conditions, often at the time the IDF has just come under fire. The idea that you have intelligence so you can take your time and carefully arrange surgical strikes on static bunkers, military installations, is not the case. It's a moving target. |
Right, so bombing's out. I think I get your drift. It reminds me of British war cabinet discussions 1940-1 about whether to invest in strategic bombing.
| Bibi's aim is arguably realisable as Hamas and PIJ leadership that are still in Gaza have no obvious retreat from Gaza, as Egypt is unwilling to allow Hamas into Egypt (like most Arab states they consider Muslim Brotherhood fanatics). It's not going to be like in Raqqa where ISIS fighters were allowed to leave. |
If that's true then Hamas would not have started the war. Since it is manifestly untrue (to me and Hamas anyway) they decided to start the war.
| My question from the start is why did Hamas start this? Maybe it's as you describe, as with ISIS it was a messianic urge? |
I doubt I would have said anything quite so daft. What happened was that Hamas spotted a rock concert was going to be held on the other side of the wire and couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to do what anybody in an asymmetric war dreams of: change the terms of exchange radically in their favour. How many people do you think Hamas is going to lose? Diddley.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
I doubt I would have said anything quite so daft. What happened was that Hamas spotted a rock concert was going to be held on the other side of the wire and couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to do what anybody in an asymmetric war dreams of: change the terms of exchange radically in their favour. How many people do you think Hamas is going to lose? Diddley. |
In 1983, Israel freed more than 4,500 Palestinians for six Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon, held by the Palestine Liberation Organization.
1n 1985 1,150 Arab prisoners were exchanged for three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
1n 2011 in exhange for one Israeli solder Gilad Shalit 1,027 Palestinians were freed, (including Yahya Sinwar, thought to be the architect of October 7th)
In the current war the exhanges have taken place at 1 Israeli to 3 Palestinians, (24 foreign nationals in addition also released by Hamas).
The rate of exchange varies significantly. There are an even greater number of Palestinians now detained than ever, as the Israelis are detaining faster than they are releasing. It also appears that Mossad is targeting the Hamas leaderhip abroad. Saleh al-Arouri has just been killed in Beirut, BBC describe him as "the most senior figure from Hamas to have been killed since the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October.".
You are correct, I don't see the logic to what Hamas has done, but to Sinwar "Operation Flood" "to end the last occupation on Earth" made miltary sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| You are correct, I don't see the logic to what Hamas has done, but to Sinwar "Operation Flood" "to end the last occupation on Earth" made miltary sense. |
That is because you seem to be under the impression that Hamas is some sort of military organisation. This is like saying the Conservative Party is a knocking-on-doors organisation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Here's a fascinating exchange between someone of the utmost brilliance and someone of the utmost woodenness. It concerned this piece from the always reliable and informative, if partisan, Nadin Brzezinski, about the sinking of ships in a Russian port by Ukrainian missiles
| Mick Harper wrote: | I'm not sure these 'spectaculars' are the way forward. They are too 'containable'. If Hamas & Co can launch five thousand drones/rockets, I don't see why Ukraine can't send off fifty thousand. Of course the Russian (government) will go into paroxysms of retaliation, appeals to the Security Council and whatnot but since even the Russian (people) would have to accept it's a goose-and-gander situation, it might lead to an informal joint cessation of aerial civilian-strikes.
Maybe something more. Ukraine needs to change the terms-of-trade somehow and there's no chance of doing that on the battlefield. |
| Sergey L wrote: | | Because humans haven't yet learned the dark magic of conjuring drones out of thin air. That's why. |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You feel Ukraine lacks the resources of Hamas? That's worth knowing, thanks. |
| Sergey L wrote: | You literally said you can't see why they couldn't have 10 times that. Population size matters only to a certain extent; there are numerous bottlenecks, ironically including technological development, which has a minimum dictated by the battlespace. In other words, the Gaza situation is not currently comparable to the situation in Ukraine, and there's a number of factors preventing the Ukrainians from reaching your figure.·
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Ukraine is aiming for a million drones this year. Russia will want more.
The technology is moving so fast that drones are now doing multiple tasks, eg supply troops on the front line, reconnaisance, anticipating attacks, providing evidence of battlefield losses, destroying stranded vehicles, and so on. Given their imporatnace they are also being used to destroy enemy drones. So there is a degree of cancelling out when both sides figure out what the other is now doing with their drones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
If you go backwards the first usage of aircraft was reconnaisance, essentially the aircraft replaced the balloon which replaced the cavalry scout. As World War I began, the value of the airplane was thought to be to detect enemy movements, guide artillery fire, this kind of thing, a bit later pilots were used to drop hand grenades, and finally the bomber was conceived. Drones are now taking over the roles as they are cheap, shooting down is expensive, but they can be jammed, but the problem with jamming is that when the signals are intercepted, your jammers will be targeted. The jamming also blocks out your own drones. Ideally you want an air defence to combat drones, say with other drones, but then both sides are swarming to overwhelm the defenders.
So both side see the solution as more and more drones......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The greatest advance in aviation was the need to build 'fighters' to intercept the reconnaissance aircraft. The former can always shoot down the latter but you need faster fighters to stop their fighters stopping your reconnaissance planes. Cue: the first aerial arms race. This reached such a fever pitch that the reconnaissance aspect was soon relegated to an afterthought.
Bombing was never important in the First World War apart from German Gothas spattering London which led pretty much directly to the creation of the RAF, the world's first stand alone air service. I presume there will soon be the RDF, the Royal Drone Force. The names of ranks and the colour of the uniform are no doubt being discussed as I speak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
British Defence Secretary lashes out
| Shapps vows action against Houthi rebels after British warship attack Sky News |
Fun facts:
* Grant Shapps founded a web publishing business, How To Corp Limited, the existence of at least three people who allegedly provided testimonials -- Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox -- attracted media attention in 2012.
* Google blacklisted 19 of the Shapps' business websites for violating rules on copyright infringement related to the web scraping-based TrafficPayMaster software sold by them.
* Shapps's web marketing business's 20/20 Challenge publication also drew criticism. It cost $497 and promised customers earnings of $20,000 in 20 days. Upon purchase, the "toolkit" was revealed to be an ebook, advising the user to create their own toolkit and recruit 100 "Joint Venture Partners" to resell it for a share of the profits.
* He denied having used a pseudonym after entering parliament and, in 2014, threatened legal action against a constituent who had stated on Facebook that he had. In February 2015, he told LBC Radio: "I don't have a second job and have never had a second job while being an MP. End of story."
* In March 2015, Shapps said he had made an error in his interview with LBC and was "mistaken over the dates" of his outside employment. He said he had "over-firmly denied" having a second job. David Cameron defended Shapps, saying he had made a mistake and it was time to "move on".
* A spokesman for the Houthi rebels declined to comment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
The crucial issue with this warship business is not that the Navy dealt with ten missiles/drones fired at the ship. It's how easily they dealt with them.
The cost of drones is plummeting.
Could the ship have dealt with twenty?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
With been this way before. Ever since the Whitehead torpedo was developed in the nineteenth century it was 'obvious' that the biggest, most expensive of all war weapons -- the capital ship, whether battleship or aircraft carrier -- could be sunk by one or more of the cheapest. The only problem with the torpedo -- or its aerial equivalent, the guided missile -- was the difficulty of getting close enough to launch them. And that means not many of them.
Drones are much easier because they are not 'one of the cheapest', they are the cheapest. I would think a drone is less than the cost of a fifteen inch shell. Imagine the Bismarck or the Ark Royal having to deal with a thousand of them. You could launch a million of them at an American nuclear carrier and still show a profit. Actually a billion wouldn't be far off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
