Israel-Palestine escalation live: Gaza under bombardment after Hamas attack

[JimF]

From a purely technological/weapons technology standpoint, this is seriously impressive.

Then you compare it to the previous Israeli strikes on Gaza, and you realise there's never been a clearer illustration of just how brutally inhumane the IDF operate.

"Yes we can fire a rocket through someone's letterbox and limit the damage to just those targeted individuals, but we just prefer to collapse tower blocks onto families"

 

[Drew]

From a purely technological/weapons technology standpoint, this is seriously impressive.

Then you compare it to the previous Israeli strikes on Gaza, and you realise there's never been a clearer illustration of just how brutally inhumane the IDF operate.

"Yes we can fire a rocket through someone's letterbox and limit the damage to just those targeted individuals, but we just prefer to collapse tower blocks onto families"

To be fair, I have no idea who she is, how good HER intel is, and what the actual target was.

This could very easily be Hamas propaganda, taking a shot of a building in Gaza that just so happened to have one apartment blown out, and - while pretending to be pro-Israel - bragging about the accuracy and precision of the IDF and how this sort of surgical air strike is completely within their capabilities, to highlight the fact that every time they blow the roof off some OTHER building, it's because they don't give a shit about Palestinian lives.

I honestly have no clue, and no reason to doubt this post or her claims... but this is clearly a war being fought on a few fronts, and one of them is the war of public opinion. And, if this post is legit, and this is evidence of the IDF launching a missile strike with enough precision to take out one apartment, and ONLY one apartment, in an apartment building, then it's certainly pretty damning... but that's also a reason to be careful jumping to conclusions.

Personally though, surgical or not, if I were the guy living upstairs, I'd be a wee bit nervous about my floor right about now.

 

[ADADAD]

and what the actual target was.

Oh hey, someone starting to think in the right direction.
If the targets are weapon caches and tunnels underneath buildings, taking out the entire building (and only that building) is a precision strike.
Anyways, let the circle-jerk resume.

 

[Drew]

Oh hey, someone starting to think in the right direction.
If the targets are weapon caches and tunnels underneath buildings, taking out the entire building (and only that building) is a precision strike.
Anyways, let the circle-jerk resume.

With all due respect, no. Killing dozens to hundreds of civilians by striking a civilian building to get at something underneath it is about as precise as using a jackhammer to drive a nail.

And an equally awkward question here is, if Hamas feels the need to build an underground tunnel system to move around Gaza, well... you don't build tunnels unless you fear buildings being attacked from there air, so there's also a little bit of a chicken and egg problem here, too.

 

[ADADAD]

With all due respect, no. Killing dozens to hundreds of civilians by striking a civilian building to get at something underneath it is about as precise as using a jackhammer to drive a nail.

And an equally awkward question here is, if Hamas feels the need to build an underground tunnel system to move around Gaza, well... you don't build tunnels unless you fear buildings being attacked from there air, so there's also a little bit of a chicken and egg problem here, too.

They are warned in advance so they can evacuate, while leaving the equipment there.

Poor Hamas can't fire rockets in peace, boo fucking hoo

 

[mpexus]

Poor Hamas can't fire rockets in peace, boo fucking hoo

 

[ADADAD]

How is this related to the above discussion? Or anything really?

 

[soliloquy]

With all due respect, no. Killing dozens to hundreds of civilians by striking a civilian building to get at something underneath it is about as precise as using a jackhammer to drive a nail.

And an equally awkward question here is, if Hamas feels the need to build an underground tunnel system to move around Gaza, well... you don't build tunnels unless you fear buildings being attacked from there air, so there's also a little bit of a chicken and egg problem here, too.

He's just upset that there is a plausible other way to go about this "war". One where there is less blood and death toll remains low.

Him, like IDF are blood hungry and Gaza is a great spot to 'give the people what they want'.

 

[ADADAD]

He's just upset that there is a plausible other way to go about this "war". One where there is less blood and death toll remains low.

Him, like IDF are blood hungry and Gaza is a great spot to 'give the people what they want'.

Oh the call of duty experts have arrived to teach us about how war works. From the makers of "they could have gotten special forces to take out Hamas, similarly to how US took out Bin Laden"...
Please tell me more about the wars with low death tolls in densely populated areas, where terrorists hide behind civilians and tear up infrastructure and hoard aid meant for civilians. We may have a generational strategic genius among us.

 

[Randy]

Oh the call of duty experts have arrived to teach us about how war works. From the makers of "they could have gotten special forces to take out Hamas, similarly to how US took out Bin Laden"...
Please tell me more about the wars with low death tolls in densely populated areas, where terrorists hide behind civilians and tear up infrastructure and hoard aid meant for civilians. We may have a generational strategic genius among us.

I'm not sure about that but we've clearly got one pro genocide scum pig with no tact among us.

 

[mpexus]

How is this related to the above discussion? Or anything really?

Maybe you missed the part:

- There's nowhere to go... probably hard to grasp when you are not the one that has nowhere to flee from Air Bombings

 

[ADADAD]

I'm not sure about that but we've clearly got one pro genocide scum pig with no tact among us.

Which of the Hamas supporters in this thread are you referring to?

 

[tedtan]

I'm not sure about that but we've clearly got one pro genocide scum pig with no tact among us.

Yeah, tell us you’re a genocidal racist without telling us you’re a genocidal racist, ADADAD.

Which of the Hamas supporters in this thread are you referring to?

And leave the fiction elsewhere, too.

 

[narad]

Yeah, tell us you’re a genocidal racist without telling us you’re a genocidal racist, ADADAD.

I don't know what it has to do with this thread, but okay:

 

[tedtan]

I don't know what it has to do with this thread, but okay:

Well played, but see posts 943, 945, 947, and 949 (and probably every other ADADAD post in this thread).

 

[Randy]

Yeah, tell us you’re a genocidal racist without telling us you’re a genocidal racist, ADADAD.

And leave the fiction elsewhere, too.

I mean, it's whatever, I prefer to debate things factually or even theoretically but the guy makes no effort and everything ad hominem. Everything's a "lol you don't know idiot" response, but no facts to counter. If that's how you're going to address people in a legitimate discussion, that's what you're going to get back.

That's beside the fact, yeah, every post is a justification for wanton execution of innocents.

 

[ADADAD]

Well played, but see posts 943, 945, 947, and 949 (and probably every other ADADAD post in this thread).

I see they don't teach reading comprehension in Never Neverland. But hey let's make it an exercise, explain how these posts indicate me being racist or genocidal.

I mean, it's whatever, I prefer to debate things factually or even theoretically but the guy makes no effort and everything ad hominem. Everything's a "lol you don't know idiot" response, but no facts to counter. If that's how you're going to address people in a legitimate discussion, that's what you're going to get back.

That's beside the fact, yeah, every post is a justification for wanton execution of innocents.

You're claiming you can conduct war in Gaza with no casualties with no reasoning or evidence to back it up, which is unsurprising since it's blatantly false. The fact is that the ratio of Hamas casualties to civilian casualties is better than comparable (as much as possible) wars e.g. by the U.S. in the middle east, and that's the most advanced military in the world. Obviously fewer is better, but to what extent is it feasible? And on that topic, claiming that striking an entire building is "genocide" without the intel that informed that strike is talking out your ass. You can watch footage with plenty of secondary explosions which is a sign that there were rockets and ammo stockpiles there, or buildings collapsing lower than they should indicating tunnels. It is also extensively documented that Hamas stores stockpiles and has launch sites in/near civilian buildings and infrastructure, so there's hardly a leap there. Also, Israel informs civilians (and therefore Hamas knows as well) when a building is about to be hit.

You can claim to want to debate things factually or theoretically but if at the same time you're saying you can eliminate Hamas with few or no casualties you're delusional. If you want to suggest a new revolutionary military doctrine, go ahead. Maybe this thread will end up in a textbook.

Meanwhile, Hamas could release more hostages and negotiate additional ceasefire and humanitarian aid, but are not doing so. Speaking of, none of you are discussing the hostages and new information regarding them, e.g. them being raped, abused, denied medical attention, dying in captivity, and being held in homes of UNRWA employees.

 

[narad]

Something I think the "pro-palestine" guys here have yet to actually wrestle with: let's say you have a building with 10 hamas terrorists on the ground floor that you are planning to destroy. Despite the call for all civilians to evacuate the area, there are N civilians known to be elsewhere in the building. You decide you're going to go ahead with the operation only if there are less than:
N = 0
N = 1
...
N = Inf

As N increases, so does the degree to which this act could be considered genocide -- in the limit it is genocide. What values of N is it acceptable to carry this out this attack, what values of N are typical in other conflicts in a comparable situation, and what values of N is it genocide?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Something I think the "pro-palestine" guys here have yet to actually wrestle with: let's say you have a building with 10 hamas terrorists on the ground floor that you are planning to destroy. Despite the call for all civilians to evacuate the area, there are N civilians known to be elsewhere in the building. You decide you're going to go ahead with the operation only if there are less than:
N = 0
N = 1
...
N = Inf

As N increases, so does the degree to which this act could be considered genocide -- in the limit it is genocide. What values of N is it acceptable to carry this out this attack, what values of N are typical in other conflicts in a comparable situation, and what values of N is it genocide?

I think proportionality, which has been brought up a few times already, is something both sides have to grapple with. The international law is, by design, very broad.

But the burden of the answer is usually given to the aggressor, which is why just one side isn't how this works. Though it is how the winner usually writes history.

If you want a useless comparison, in Vietnam US bombings killed about 60,000 civilians over nearly 8 years. In two months the IDF has killed around 20,000. But finding numbers for this sort of stuff is mostly a crap shoot, so I don't think there's going to be perfect 1:1 examples that bolster either viewpoint.

Personally, I haven't seen much in the way of justification from the IDF side for a significant amount of the carnage, outside of fairly generic boilerplate "there were some bad guys/tunnels/arms" but that doesn't mean the targets weren't of value, just that the information shared doesn't jibe with what the apparent outcome is.

 

[narad]

I think proportionality, which has been brought up a few times already, is something both sides have to grapple with. The international law is, by design, very broad.

But the burden of the answer is usually given to the aggressor, which is why just one side isn't how this works. Though it is how the winner usually writes history.

If you want a useless comparison, in Vietnam US bombings killed about 60,000 civilians over nearly 8 years. In two months the IDF has killed around 20,000. But finding numbers for this sort of stuff is mostly a crap shoot, so I don't think there's going to be perfect 1:1 examples that bolster either viewpoint.

Personally, I haven't seen much in the way of justification from the IDF side for a significant amount of the carnage, outside of fairly generic boilerplate "there were some bad guys/tunnels/arms" but that doesn't mean the targets weren't of value, just that the information shared doesn't jibe with what the apparent outcome is.

Sure, and I similarly would have a hard time finding justification in so many deaths as this campaign lingers on. I just think it would be helpful to in some way acknowledge the actual decision process here. I want to know when people are here arguing about what is fair in war, what the actual numbers are. And I think it's unfair and unhelpful to shout "pro-genocide" from the rooftops at everyone who falls arbitrarily along some different point on that spectrum, without also putting forth essentially some equation of where that line should be drawn, or considering what factors are involved in getting them to that number.

Also a technical clarification -- as far as I'm aware from earlier this week, IDF has killed around 16,000 people. Which of these are civilians or hamas fighters remains to be seen. About half of these are women and children, so it is probably safe to consider them civilians and conclude that this has not been a very precise attack, but there are also estimated to be between 20-25,000 hamas fighters, so in a "success", you would also expect some high casualties regardless.