Most of the IDF casualties listed seem to be from the rockets.
Most IDF casualties don't list the exact cause. Of the cases which are attributed to rockets, only one incident on the page you linked to indicated Katyusha rockets. The anti-ship missile was also a rocket. So are the anti-tank missiles used against infantry. But you didn't say all forms of rockets (nor would that argument be significant): you specifically said Katyushas.
Why should the IDF hold Israeli lives at higher regard than Lebanese lives?
Because that's their job. That's why they're the
Israeli Defense Force. They are drafted from the Israeli population, they are paid by Israeli taxes, and they are answerable to the Israeli government, which is elected by Israeli citizens. The idea that
any national military won't be interested first and foremost with protecting its own citizens is quite frankly insane.
During the conflict the top estimated number of active combatants against the IDF were about 1,000.
Estimated by whom? Because that doesn't match what I've read. I've only seen that number as the number of "hard core" Hesbollah fighters,
not the total.
You've seen "pictures" of such vehicles. Not the vehicles themselves or the actual strike.
And you've only seen pictures of the ambulance that supposedly got hit. And we've both only seen pictures of men on the moon.
There are hundreds of types of bombs used in airstrikes
In the world? Yes. That a given military has which are capable of performing precision strikes? No. That number is
considerably smaller. And a good number of those would have left little beyond twisted steel and four scattered wheels to indicate the target was even a vehicle to begin with. So no, the number of candidate precision munitions from Israel really
isn't very large.
Unless the strike goes right through the vehicle without detonating.
If it detonated under the vehicle, why aren't there signs of massive damage to the bottom of the vehicle? And if it didn't detonate, where are the remains? And why did they say it detonated, causing an explosion
with fire, if it just punched through the vehicle and hit the road without exploding?
It significantly damaged the interior.
No, it didn't. That's all cosmetic damage. There is NO buckling of the floor or the walls of the vehicle. Compare that to pictures of known air strikes.
The missile could have detonated under the ground and the shrapnel could have came from the ambulance itself.
If it detonated underneath the vehicle, the floor should be buckled upwards. But it isn't. There's NO signs of damage coming from underneath the vehicle.
It's not some blog by some random anonymous person. I don't have the time to learn all there is about ballistics or the event that occurred so I'll stick with believing the reputable organizations opposed to some conspiracy theorist.
And you don't have time to learn about typeface analysis from anonymous bloggers, so you'll trust Dan Rather too. And Reuters, while we're at it. Oh, but then they spoiled it by having the integrity to admit they were duped by cheap photoshopping from a stringer who piggybacked on their reputation to push Hezbollah propaganda.
And why is HRW credible in the first place? Do they have a track record of forensic or ballistics analysis? No, they don't. Is there really anything to this credibility which you assign them beyond high visibility and agreement with their politics? Is there really any reason to think that they cannot be duped either?
