Hamas Wants Civilian Casualties

[Darth Rotor]

On what basis? Nothing. It's easy to see that a form of personal combat is more selective than simply sitting behind the armor of a tank and firing artillery rounds that blow up anything in the vicinity.

Foot soldiers taking on foot soldiers will of course produce some stray rounds that may hit unwanted targets, but you can hardly compare that to a tank shell.

War is not a game, it is not a sport, it is not a chess match. It is far more bloody when sides are evenly matched, see WW I. It is far less bloody when on side overwhelms the other. See Desert Storm.

Tim, you are speaking false platitudes and foolishness

Gumboot is a fraud. These kind of posters are so transparent. They enter a thread with an air of authority and pretense of being an 'expert'.

He's demonstrates more common sense than you, though he's not always right.

They work on the hope that no one will challenge them. And once shown to be full of nonsense they spew personal attacks.

Irony.

Gumboot said he came here to educate us yet his nonsense proclaiming tank shells are not as indiscriminatory as aimed bullets just shows his arguments are useless.

Nope, you have read something into that, it seams. A tank round and a bullet are very different weapons, with different effects, and different conditions for use by a disciplined force.

Of course if civilian casualties aren't something to worry about then using tank artillery to crack a nut is the easiest option.

A main tank gun is not often used as artillery, since it is a direct fire weapon rather than an indirect fire weapon. This gives is some advantages, and some disadvantages, depends on the tactical situation and aim.

We can see that the safety of Palestinian civilians is not cared about by Israel or a few people on this forum.

The why did the Israelis twice in the last few days stop fighting for three hours to let in humanitarian aid? (As I read it, water and food, not sure what else got in.) What is up with that? Something you appear to overlook is that there is armed combat going on. The sooner you take out the combat elements shooting at you, the sooner the shooting of all sorts stops, which brings on a condition far safer for civilians in the area: all shooting stopping.

Try using a little reasoning power.

DR

 

[gdnp]

War is not a game, it is not a sport, it is not a chess match. It is far more bloody when sides are evenly matched, see WW I. It is far less bloody when on side overwhelms the other. See Desert Storm

I would argue it is far less bloody when one side overwhelms the other, while simultaneously controlling press access. Or at least it appears to be.

How many Iraqi troops died? How many Iraqi civilians?

Gosh, the US military doesn't do body counts any more...

"Don't ask don't tell" is alive and well in more ways than one.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I would argue it is far less bloody when one side overwhelms the other, while simultaneously controlling press access. Or at least it appears to be.

Non sequitur. Controlling the press has bloody eff all to do with the butcher's bill. You seem to be confusing war with the story of war, the reporting of war, and the narrative of war. I was talking about war.

How many Iraqi troops died? How many Iraqi civilians?

It does not matter who did a body count, they are still dead.

Do you understand me now?

Gosh, the US military doesn't do body counts any more...

"Don't ask don't tell" is alive and well in more ways than one.

Dishonesty does not wear well on you, sir.

DR

 

[Texas]

I would argue it is far less bloody when one side overwhelms the other, while simultaneously controlling press access. Or at least it appears to be.

How many Iraqi troops died? How many Iraqi civilians?

Gosh, the US military doesn't do body counts any more...

"Don't ask don't tell" is alive and well in more ways than one.

Whoa wait a minute. There are literally hundreds of hours of press coverage coming out of Gaza and so far it has been 99.99% anti-Israel. Hell the UN is issuing absurd press releases concerning civilian, especially children, deaths based on reports from Hamas and local medics.

 

[gdnp]

Non sequitur. Controlling the press has bloody eff all to do with the butcher's bill. You seem to be confusing war with the story of war, the reporting of war, and the narrative of war. I was talking about war.

It does not matter who did a body count, they are still dead.

Do you understand me now?

Dishonesty does not wear well on you, sir.

DR

If a soldier or civilian dies on the battlefield and no one is there to record it, is he still dead?

In a physical sense, yes.

For propaganda purposes, no.

When it comes to writing the history books? That depends

I suggest you look up estimates of how many died in, for example, the Armenian genocide. The Armenians claim 1 1/2 million. The Turks many fewer.

When one side overwhelms the other it is only less bloody for the side that does the overwhelming. For the side that is overwhelmed, it may be either more or less bloody depending on the predilection of the victors. And the number reported will be less open to outside confirmation, and thus subject to understatement for political purposes. What was the death toll reported by Serbia in Srebrenicia?

 

[shecky]

Whoa wait a minute. There are literally hundreds of hours of press coverage coming out of Gaza and so far it has been 99.99% anti-Israel. Hell the UN is issuing absurd press releases concerning civilian, especially children, deaths based on reports from Hamas and local medics.

99.99%! Poor Israel can't catch a break.

 

[Texas]

99.99%! Poor Israel can't catch a break.

While your sarcasm just killed my keyboard you speak the truth.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

He's (gumboot) demonstrates more common sense than you, though he's not always right.

No he doesn't. His arguments are nonsense. And I've shown that repeatedly.

The sooner you take out the combat elements shooting at you, the sooner the shooting of all sorts stops, which brings on a condition far safer for civilians in the area: all shooting stopping.

Try using a little reasoning power.

DR

The reasoning power that the safety, and in reality the deaths, of 30 innocent civilians are worthy sacrifices for the greater good when it was a couple of hamas fighters shooting at the IDF is not reasonable reasoning power.

What some people here are not recognizing is that those Palestinian people are real human beings with feelings.

Your argument is so transparently biased. The IDF are also combat elements. Are you suggesting that they also should all be be taken out to ensure the shooting stops?

Stop looking at this as an issue of Good v. evil where the IDF are good and Hamas are Evil.

It doesn't work like that. Both sides are fighters. Neither side is any less evil than the other.

This violence isn't dependent upon Hamas stopping shooting. it's dependent on BOTH SIDES Stopping shooting.

The IDF could have stopped shooting and those 30 innocent Palestinians would still be alive now.

Don't tell me to use a little reasoning power that is biased towards the IDF.

 

[gtc]

You are changing your argument to suggest that Israel should have allowed Hamas to fire mortars from that location in order to prevent the deaths of Palestinian civillians in the vacinity.

Putting aside the logic behind that suggestion, does this mean that you concede that Israel couldn't have sent in soldiers on foot to take out the militants without harming significant numbers of civillians?

 

[gumboot]

There is no practical solution to the problem, and it isn't hard to see why.

If you look at the region known as...what shall we call it? It's that chunk of land which is labelled on the maps today as Israel + Palestinian National Authority. (Unless you use the maps drawn by parties in the conflict, in which case it is labelled either "Palestine" or "Israel", but not both.) Most of the people there are in one of two broad classes of ethnic groups, which we'll call Jews and Arabs.

If my quick glance at wikipedia is correct, there are somewhat more Jews than Arabs, but not a lot more.

By my calculations there are 5.4 million Jews and 3.8 million Arabs. In addition you have to consider the 2.9 million Palestinian refugees who currently live in other Arab states, which would bolster the Arab population to 6.7 million.

A naive solution to the problem would be for Israel to annex all the territory that makes up the PNA, and declare everyone who lives there citizens of Israel, and insist that all citizens have equal rights.

For some reason, that seems to be unacceptable.

The question is, to whom? I actually think this would work if the international community allowed it. Currently 1 in 5 Israelis is an Arab, and yet there don't seem to be any Arab parties in the Israeli parliament demanding that Israel cease to exist. They seem quite happy being Israeli Arabs, and are primarily concerned with more hard-line Zionist views.

I suspect that the Palestinians, after a month or two of good healthcare, food, electricity and freedom from Hamas thugs might actually decide Israel isn't so bad after all.

Oh...well then. Carry on. The current war should be over in a week or so. The next one should start this summer, or maybe they'll take a year off.

What do you think of Ehud Barak's peace offer from mid-2000?

 

[gumboot]

What some people here are not recognizing is that those Palestinian people are real human beings with feelings.

You're right, I never realised this before. Thank you for educating me.

 

[Meadmaker]

The question is, to whom? I actually think this would work if the international community allowed it.

You think a one state democracy would work? I would like to think so, but what part of "the international community" wouldn't allow it? Other than possibly the governments of Syria, Jordan, and maybe Iran, I can't see who would oppose it.

I think, instead, that the parties themselves wouldn't let it work. The Israeli Jews want a government that is dominated by Jews. Right now, Jews would have a slim majority in the hypothetical future democracy. However, each side would demand the right to bring more of their side into the region, potentially tipping the balance of power. The Palestinians would demand the right of return for all Palestinian refugees from the Arab-Israeli wars, and their descendants. Meanwhile, the Jews demand the right of return for all those descendants of the refugees from the wars against the Romans.

What do you think of Ehud Barak's peace offer from mid-2000?

Better than nothing. I frankly don't know the details, but in the end, it didn't address the Palestinian refugees, and it left Jerusalem controlled by Jews. I don't have a problem with that, but it seems that some people get all bent out of shape about it.

 

[gumboot]

You think a one state democracy would work? I would like to think so, but what part of "the international community" wouldn't allow it? Other than possibly the governments of Syria, Jordan, and maybe Iran, I can't see who would oppose it.

France, Germany, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, Russia...

Well you get the idea... everyone. The UN has never even entertained the notion of a one-state solution. Partition is the UN baby, and they have been determined to prove it works since day one, despite the mammoth failure it has been.

 

[gumboot]

Better than nothing. I frankly don't know the details, but in the end, it didn't address the Palestinian refugees, and it left Jerusalem controlled by Jews. I don't have a problem with that, but it seems that some people get all bent out of shape about it.

That's not entirely accurate. Israel offered to allow limited return of refugees on a case-by-case basis - reuniting family for example. They also offered to establish an international fund which they would contribute substantially to, which would compensate refugees for lost land. They pointed out that Jews driven from Arab states since 1948 had never been offered a right of return, and had mostly settled in Israel. The suggestion was that the Palestinian refugees should settle in Palestine.

Regarding Jerusalem, Israel wanted to retain sovereignty of East Jerusalem and grant Palestine some authority. Palestine wanted to claim sovereignty and grant Israel some authority.

I personally think Jerusalem should be a permanent international city, administered by the United Nations.

The real problem, as I see it, is lack of negotiation by Arafat. It's not just that he rejected the Israeli offer - he didn't come back with a counter offer. It's standard practise, when you're trying to negotiate an agreement, that you will compromise and there will be back and forward until there is an agreement. If you reject the first offer and end it at that, to me that suggests you're not actually interested in achieving an agreement. The fact that the 2nd Intifada started only 5 months later suggest to me that Arafat had absolutely no intention of making a peace settlement.

 

[geni]

I personally think Jerusalem should be a permanent international city, administered by the United Nations.

While that was the plan at one point I think the UN would have to be more insane than normal to agree to that.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

does this mean that you concede that Israel couldn't have sent in soldiers on foot to take out the militants without harming significant numbers of civillians?

What does 'what' mean?

As long as any fighters don't start deliberately firing at civilians then a fight between them is going to produce a lot less civilian casualties than one side lobbing artillery shells at the other.

 

[HawksFan]

Not only make Jerusalem an international city administered by the U.N., but move the U.N. headquarters there and force the U.N. to be serious about administering it.

 

[WildCat]

What does 'what' mean?

As long as any fighters don't start deliberately firing at civilians then a fight between them is going to produce a lot less civilian casualties than one side lobbing artillery shells at the other.

Riiiiight...

No chance at all of anyone else getting shot!

TFT, you don't seem to have the slightest clue as to how Hamas fights.

 

[maxpower1227]

So while we're on the topic of Hamas and civilian casualties, has anyone been able to dig up the truth on this incident? Is this as it seems, or is it analogous to the recent school incident?

 

[Ragnarok]

How many years of these attacks has Israel had, to perfect a system whereby the second a rocket is launched, instant retribution would be delivered?

If the rabbits knew everytime they popped their head out of the burrow, that nasty fox was going to bite it off, they would have soon learned.( And developed another method of being a nuisance. )

I realise there are a lot of logistical problems in running an 139 sq mile prison, but still.