Hamas is bringing up a generation that is brainwashed with hatred towards the other side.
No, that's pretty much on Israel now. That might've been the case decades ago (not literally), but the retaliationstrikes against innocent targets will breed more terrorists than the hamas ever could.
You still haven't responded to the converse- if Israel really didn't care about Hamas, they could do much less to prevent casualties than they're doing.
They would (edit: do less), if they could. As i said. They are pressured into their current behaviour by the international community. They don't chose to be careful. They're being told and punished not to. Israel is isolated, they absolutely can NOT risk embargos or sanctions, it would literally sink the state.
They simply can't kill even more civilians, if they wanted or not. If Israel loses support in the rest of the world, it'll end in a disaster.
Argh, we're going in circles! I DON'T CARE what motivation Israel has for minimizing civilian casualties. Like 4 pages ago, someone (god, at this point, for all I know it was you) said Israel was not trying to minimize civilian casualties. I said they are. Whether they're doing it because they love the Gazans, or because of international pressure, is IRRELEVANT. And it's not "literally"
Hamas is bringing up a generation that is brainwashed with hatred towards the other side.
No, that's pretty much on Israel now. That might've been the case decades ago (not literally), but the retaliationstrikes against innocent targets will breed more terrorists than the hamas ever could.
You still haven't responded to the converse- if Israel really didn't care about Hamas, they could do much less to prevent casualties than they're doing.
They would (edit: do less), if they could. As i said. They are pressured into their current behaviour by the international community. They don't chose to be careful. They're being told and punished not to. Israel is isolated, they absolutely can NOT risk embargos or sanctions, it would literally sink the state.
They simply can't kill even more civilians, if they wanted or not. If Israel loses support in the rest of the world, it'll end in a disaster.
So you're saying that Israel is looking for a "sweet spot" of the most civilians it is able to kill while avoiding pissing off the international community? And this seems more plausible to you than simply "Israel is not trying to target civilians but Hamas militants, which are hiding behind civilians"?
You realize fully that Israel has nothing to gain from hitting civilians. Explain why you think Israel's gripe is with civilians and not Hamas.
Hamas is bringing up a generation that is brainwashed with hatred towards the other side.
No, that's pretty much on Israel now. That might've been the case decades ago (not literally), but the retaliationstrikes against innocent targets will breed more terrorists than the hamas ever could.
edit:
as a ninight bonbon
You still haven't responded to the converse- if Israel really didn't care about Hamas, they could do much less to prevent casualties than they're doing.
They would (edit: do less), if they could. As i said. They are pressured into their current behaviour by the international community. They don't chose to be careful. They're being told and punished not to. Israel is isolated, they absolutely can NOT risk embargos or sanctions, it would literally sink the state.
They simply can't kill even more civilians, if they wanted or not. If Israel loses support in the rest of the world, it'll end in a disaster.
So you're saying that Israel is looking for a "sweet spot" of the most civilians it is able to kill while avoiding pissing off the international community? And this seems more plausible to you than simply "Israel is not trying to target civilians but Hamas militants, which are hiding behind civilians"?
You realize fully that Israel has nothing to gain from hitting civilians. Explain why you think Israel's gripe is with civilians and not Hamas.
Wait. Let's briefly look at a video.
Now that we established what flechette ammo really is and how fucking big the radius is that it maws down, you fully realize that this is a weapon designed to kill indiscriminately as much as possible in front of the tank, correct?
You still wanna argue with me about not using uneccessary force?
I'm not saying Israel is looking for a sweetspot, i'm saying the IDF does as much as they need to. They clearly don't care for civilian life (feel free to make any other argument after watching that tankshell), as you try to paint it. They're forced to care. If there wasn't an international community watching precisely what the IDF is doing, what would you think they'd be doing? (hint, phosphorous might play a role)
edit: fuck me, i'm too dumb to embed
edit2: you're kidding me -,-
edit3: i also never said they deliberately target civilians. I'm saying that your statement "they try to avoid as much as they can" is wrong.
edit: basically, israel will use every weapon they want to as long as it's not banned by law (and sometimes even that doesn't matter, see white phosphorous). Even though the weapon is ruled inhumane.
According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the victim was Nahla Khalil Najjar, 37 years old, but a quick Google search doesn't show any indication that she died from her injuries. Whether or not its usage violates international humanitarian law is currently under debate, but the fact is that there have been no documented civilian deaths of its usage so far. Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians have died from "conventional" weapons like bombs. My point is that we should focus on the big picture here instead of looking at little details like this which are, for the most part, trivial (at least up until the present moment). One incident doesn't add anything to the debate over whether Israeli forces are acting humanely or not - only the numbers should be important.
EDIT:
To the poster above me, I guess that your argument is that, by the very nature of the flechette shell, it is clear that Israeli forces are acting in indiscriminate fashion. But again, this doesn't change the argument at all. Since day one, Israeli forces have been using tactics such as air strikes that have caused massive amounts of collateral damage. That by itself should be enough evidence of how humane this operation has been.
edit: basically, israel will use every weapon they want to as long as it's not banned by law (and sometimes even that doesn't matter, see white phosphorous). Even though the weapon is ruled inhumane.
According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the victim was Nahla Khalil Najjar, 37 years old, but a quick Google search doesn't show any indication that she died from her injuries. Whether or not its usage violates international humanitarian law is currently under debate, but the fact is that there have been no documented civilian deaths of its usage so far. Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians have died from "conventional" weapons like bombs. My point is that we should focus on the big picture here instead of looking at little details like this which are, for the most part, trivial (at least up until the present moment). One incident doesn't add anything to the debate over whether Israeli forces are acting humanely or not - only the numbers should be important.
Did you read what i sourced you?
edit: you clearly didn't. There has been deaths, just not in the recent offensive.
fuck me, i'm going to bed. And no, it's not as easy as a numbers game. By that logic, mustard gas shouldn't be banned, flamethrowers shouldn't be banned and whatnot. They are. For proper reasons.
I will have to end on a brief comment because of the time;
This is the double standard I was talking about. In which other case have you taken the time to review ammo types? No matter how much you think this is "unnecessary force", it's still a war, and Israel wants to strike hard, no doubt. Yet it has still done more than any other nation in the history of warfare to minimize civilian casualties.
On July 24 2014 11:09 RezJ wrote: I will have to end on a brief comment because of the time;
This is the double standard I was talking about. In which other case have you taken the time to review ammo types? No matter how much you think this is "unnecessary force", it's still a war, and Israel wants to strike hard, no doubt. Yet it has still done more than any other nation in the history of warfare to minimize civilian casualties.
See you all tomorrow.
You want me to quote my postings from the MH17 thread where i analysed the weapons of a SU-25, trying to figure out if it was able to hit? Want me to quote myself criticising the use of clusterbombs?
You're a hypocrite, sorry. Get over your victim-complex, i'm not out to get you. But nice dodge, feel free to explain tomorrow how the use of banned weapons and flechettes helps your case.
PS: that victim-complex doesn't work for me btw, i'm german, i have guilt imprinted since preschool. Get your head out of.. the sand.
edit: but if you want, i do the same for the weapons the terrorists use. I doubt that helps your case though.
On July 24 2014 11:09 RezJ wrote: I will have to end on a brief comment because of the time;
This is the double standard I was talking about. In which other case have you taken the time to review ammo types? No matter how much you think this is "unnecessary force", it's still a war, and Israel wants to strike hard, no doubt. Yet it has still done more than any other nation in the history of warfare to minimize civilian casualties.
See you all tomorrow.
You know that's incorrect right? Swords are far more accurate than any smart bomb.
On July 24 2014 11:09 RezJ wrote: I will have to end on a brief comment because of the time;
This is the double standard I was talking about. In which other case have you taken the time to review ammo types? No matter how much you think this is "unnecessary force", it's still a war, and Israel wants to strike hard, no doubt. Yet it has still done more than any other nation in the history of warfare to minimize civilian casualties.
See you all tomorrow.
You know that's incorrect right? Swords are far more accurate than any smart bomb.
Well. Even i don't think swords qualify. -,-
edit:
To the poster above me, I guess that your argument is that, by the very nature of the flechette shell, it is clear that Israeli forces are acting in indiscriminate fashion. But again, this doesn't change the argument at all. Since day one, Israeli forces have been using tactics such as air strikes that have caused massive amounts of collateral damage. That by itself should be enough evidence of how humane this operation has been.
Sorry, just saw it.
No, obviously the quintessence doesn't change, we're in agreement there (i guess, it's late and i kinda lost track). I'm just trying to counter the white-knighting some people here do, trying to paint the IDF as caring organisation. They don't give a shit (nor does the Knesset). Being forced to act in a certain fashion and doing it by themselves are two different things entirely.
edit: you clearly didn't. There has been deaths, just not in the recent offensive.
I did. I learned that a journalist (cameramen count as journalists, right?) as well as several bystanders were killed by Israeli forces using flechette shells in one incident. I learned that children were killed in other incidents. That's terrible. But so far, their usage of flechette shells in the current offensive have not constituted anything beyond the pale. That's my point.
And it really is just as easy as a numbers game, in most cases. Some weapons have been banned for inflicting pain needlessly, but most weapons that are banned are done so because of the potential for collateral damage - the potential for killing innocent people far outweighs the weapon's military effectiveness. That's why mustard gas is banned. The use of flamethrowers is only banned in civilian areas (or against civilians, but that's a no-brainer). Again, the legality of flechette usage in the current operation is up for debate, but it seems that whatever ROE there are concerning flechette shells, they seem to be enough. I'm more worried about ROE for pretty much everything else going on, as the death toll continues to increase.
I'm just trying to counter the white-knighting some people here do, trying to paint the IDF as caring organisation.
flechette ammo itself is not prohibited by international law. What may be forbidden is to use it in certain cases where it may create unacceptable danger for civilians, which may or may not be the case in the Gaza strip.
question for pro-israelis: what would be the number of palestinian victims that would make you stop saying that IDF is minimizing civilian casualties?. 300?, 600?, a million?. i'm asking that because from your points/logic i get that it doesn't matter. IDF could kill millions of palestinians and you'd pat them on the back, claiming that they've tried ... at what point, the realities of what's happening are worth more then trying to.
i wouldn't care if a nation during war is trying to minimize civilian casualties (because there are international treaties/rules/signed accords taking care of and punishing that). i would care if (or when) civilians are dying and if that nation actually succeeded in minimizing civilian casualties.
On July 24 2014 17:03 xM(Z wrote: question for pro-israelis: what would be the number of palestinian victims that would make you stop saying that IDF is minimizing civilian casualties?. 300?, 600?, a million?. i'm asking that because from your points/logic i get that it doesn't matter. IDF could kill millions of palestinians and you'd pat them on the back, claiming that they've tried ... at what point, the realities of what's happening are worth more then trying to.
i wouldn't care if a nation during war is trying to minimize civilian casualties (because there are international treaties/rules/signed accords taking care of and punishing that). i would care if (or when) civilians are dying and if that nation actually succeeded in minimizing civilian casualties.
No, their claim is that in the context of how densely populated Gaza is and how Hamas fights then if the IDF's priority was the safety of its soldiers they would simply bring up artillery and bombard all of Gaza without bothering with troops moving in or smart bombs.
When Russians took Grozny in 2000, and their only interest was minimizing troop deaths, they began the siege in November and entered the ruins of the city in February. In between a city of ~ a million became a ghost town.
On July 24 2014 17:03 xM(Z wrote: question for pro-israelis: what would be the number of palestinian victims that would make you stop saying that IDF is minimizing civilian casualties?. 300?, 600?, a million?. i'm asking that because from your points/logic i get that it doesn't matter. IDF could kill millions of palestinians and you'd pat them on the back, claiming that they've tried ... at what point, the realities of what's happening are worth more then trying to.
i wouldn't care if a nation during war is trying to minimize civilian casualties (because there are international treaties/rules/signed accords taking care of and punishing that). i would care if (or when) civilians are dying and if that nation actually succeeded in minimizing civilian casualties.
No, their claim is that in the context of how densely populated Gaza is and how Hamas fights then if the IDF's priority was the safety of its soldiers they would simply bring up artillery and bombard all of Gaza without bothering with troops moving in or smart bombs.
When Russians took Grozny in 2000, and their only interest was minimizing troop deaths, they began the siege in November and entered the ruins of the city in February. In between a city of ~ a million became a ghost town.
that's not really an answer. i can take that to mean: IDF is doing as much damage as they can but are also wary of possible international sanctions.
you can't compare Russians with Israelis. 2 separate wars over 3 years vs ~70 years of war. Russians are getting and did get shit for pretty much everything they've done; add economic sanctions for some of that shit too. Israelis get nothing but consternated, random opinions in the media. oh, and Grozny had ~400.000 people before the second war.
Hamas is bringing up a generation that is brainwashed with hatred towards the other side.
No, that's pretty much on Israel now. That might've been the case decades ago (not literally), but the retaliationstrikes against innocent targets will breed more terrorists than the hamas ever could.
edit:
as a ninight bonbon
You still haven't responded to the converse- if Israel really didn't care about Hamas, they could do much less to prevent casualties than they're doing.
They would (edit: do less), if they could. As i said. They are pressured into their current behaviour by the international community. They don't chose to be careful. They're being told and punished not to. Israel is isolated, they absolutely can NOT risk embargos or sanctions, it would literally sink the state.
They simply can't kill even more civilians, if they wanted or not. If Israel loses support in the rest of the world, it'll end in a disaster.
So you're saying that Israel is looking for a "sweet spot" of the most civilians it is able to kill while avoiding pissing off the international community? And this seems more plausible to you than simply "Israel is not trying to target civilians but Hamas militants, which are hiding behind civilians"?
You realize fully that Israel has nothing to gain from hitting civilians. Explain why you think Israel's gripe is with civilians and not Hamas.
The argument is that Israel has nothing to lose from killing civilians. They don't give a fuck about International opinion anyway (see West Bank settlements). Israels gripe with civilians is they are on land they want so if they happen to be mixed in collateral is acceptable. Make things unliveable and eventually they leave because it sure as hell won't make the civilans side more with the "People that cut off all your stuff".
I think everytime a Palestinian rocket lands a kill, it gives Israel a good reason to go in and clear out more civilians and box them into a smaller area. Make sure to destroy houses and infrastructure that they can't rebuild.
I think if you want to gain control of an area it's the smart thing to do. It genuinely is a good tactic.
I will add. Hamas are also super bad and equally as responsible. Really the game changer has to come from the Palestinian people to rise against that kind of action. Which will never happen. And less likely to happen as long as Israel fucks with the people.
Daily reminder that Israel has some propaganda agents in social networks and forums. The people you are arguing with are probably part of those drones. Disregard them, and also don't forget that what Israel is doing right now in Gaza is about the same as the Warsaw Ghetto.
Gaza right now is just a prison. Palestiniens cannot move freely anywhere. Economic sanctions destroy what little economy they have. Their choices are either to fight back with handmade ineffective weapons, or die in a state of silence and inhumanity. Anyone, in their situation, would be as desperate. Israel is such an hypocrite state, the only reason why the US and EU defend them is because they require capitals to function, and guess who has that capital? Banks.. Guess which religion most of these banks' owners are of? Yup.
Daily reminder that Israel has some propaganda agents in social networks and forums. The people you are arguing with are probably part of those drones. Disregard them, and also don't forget that what Israel is doing right now in Gaza is about the same as the Warsaw Ghetto.
I've seen Israeli propaganda and most of the people responsible for it would be banned from here within minutes.
Gaza right now is just a prison. Palestiniens cannot move freely anywhere. Economic sanctions destroy what little economy they have. Their choices are either to fight back with handmade ineffective weapons, or die in a state of silence and inhumanity. Anyone, in their situation, would be as desperate. Israel is such an hypocrite state, the only reason why the US and EU defend them is because they require capitals to function, and guess who has that capital? Banks.. Guess which religion most of these banks' owners are of? Yup.
Although i agree that Israel is responsible for this, Hamas could and definitely should be doing something to actually try and protect Palestinians.
I don't believe that Israel is doing everything right either. Illegal settlements, questionable military operations. However, I grew up hearing about a new bombing in the large cities of Israel on a daily basis. Older people might even remember some of the wars, where multiple aggressors tried to wipe out Israel completely based on what I can assume were mostly religious beliefs. They still have to live in constant stress and fear of rocket attacks.
You get an entire country to fight for its survival, and most of the population is most likely heavily traumatized and under way more stress than the average civilian. So I can't blame much either for going overboard when trying to rid themselves of the problem. And don't forget, it is not really up to Israel to make peace when the rockets don't stop flying. And they will keep coming; not just because of a dire economic situation as people here are suggesting, but also because of fanatic and misguided stupid people and religion. If all it took was a crushingly bad economy partially due to another country, then Africa would have gone to war with the western world a long time ago lol.
It is a shitty situation for both sides, and I don't think it is fair to only criticize one side of the war.
EPT
