|
On July 31 2014 07:08 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 06:52 Sn0_Man wrote:On July 31 2014 06:39 EtherealBlade wrote:Can't you get over Hamas and realise it doesn't matter what these people do they are getting slaughtered? Opinions on strategic bombing of large, densely populated cities in world war 2? Nuking japan? Is that more or less horrible than the projected millions of (civillian) deaths involved in ending the war via invasion? Show nested quote +On July 20, around 2:20 am, 16-year-old Anas Mahmoud Hussein Muammar from Rafah went out onto the second-floor balcony of his home to join his older brothers for a cup of coffee. Soon after, an Israeli drone-fired missile directly targeted him and his brothers, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International Palestine. His brothers were killed instantly. Anas suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead at Abu Yousef An-Najjar Hospital about 10 minutes later. One of many cases - it's been suggested that Israel could just use smaller warheads on their drones to avoid collateral damage, since they call these targeted killings and precision strikes anyway, but it looks like they don't care. Is the magnitude of the threat really demanding to flatten entire neighbourhoods and kill so many?
From the videos on reddit I've seen, they seem to be pretty indifferent to collateral damage. One of the videos I saw had them leveling 4 or 5 multistory buildings over a couple minutes, most of them with only a couple hits.
|
On July 31 2014 07:52 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:08 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 31 2014 06:52 Sn0_Man wrote:On July 31 2014 06:39 EtherealBlade wrote:Can't you get over Hamas and realise it doesn't matter what these people do they are getting slaughtered? Opinions on strategic bombing of large, densely populated cities in world war 2? Nuking japan? Is that more or less horrible than the projected millions of (civillian) deaths involved in ending the war via invasion? On July 20, around 2:20 am, 16-year-old Anas Mahmoud Hussein Muammar from Rafah went out onto the second-floor balcony of his home to join his older brothers for a cup of coffee. Soon after, an Israeli drone-fired missile directly targeted him and his brothers, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International Palestine. His brothers were killed instantly. Anas suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead at Abu Yousef An-Najjar Hospital about 10 minutes later. One of many cases - it's been suggested that Israel could just use smaller warheads on their drones to avoid collateral damage, since they call these targeted killings and precision strikes anyway, but it looks like they don't care. Is the magnitude of the threat really demanding to flatten entire neighbourhoods and kill so many? From the videos on reddit I've seen, they seem to be pretty indifferent to collateral damage. One of the videos I saw had them leveling 4 or 5 multistory buildings over a couple minutes, most of them with only a couple hits.
The misinformation coming out from both sides is super stronk right now.
|
On July 31 2014 07:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously the law of the jungle like "we'll just settle where we please" argument is, in today's world, really awful. If you argue this way this would justify how Russia has been bullying their neighbours around, which is just completely unacceptable.
But the "They're occupying Arab land" is just as awful as faulty. 50% of the Jews in Israel originate from the middle-east. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews)
Combine that with the 20% Arab population and that leaves you with 7 out of 10 people being 'local' natives. That makes for a pretty bad colony in my opinion. This is why the map you posted yesterday is terribly misleading.
All state lines aside, if you're going to make an honest map of the region you're going to end up with a really messy patchwork rug. They aren't natives, similar to how Igor Strelkov is not a native Ukrainian. Just because you only had to hop one country over to colonize doesn't really change the fact that you're colonizing. See: Russia-backed separatists. That is because there is a relatively clear distinction between Russians and Ukrainians. Jews and Arabs have both been owned and lived on the land in question for thousands of years. Russian separatists want to fuck with Ukraine for political reasons,they're Kremlin proxies, it's not a genuine struggle between two people. One is a geopolitical struggle about the political alignment of Ukraine, it is mainly between governments, not people. This is hardly comparable to the middle-eastern conflict.
By your own argument, if a bunch of muslim arabs from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon conquered Israel and put the Jews in camps it wouldn't be a "colony" because they're "natives", who coincidentally have a stronger claim to the term "native" when it comes to both Israel and the surrounding countries. Your argument is ridiculous. You have run out of things to say so you come up with a bunch of horrible justifications off the cuff that almost invoke godwin's law on their own.
|
Norway28556 Posts
On July 31 2014 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So at what point are atrocities so horrible that morality becomes a factor? You just said only children view foreign policy through the lens of morality. Where's the breaking point?
Either morality is a factor, or we accept the holocaust as like, "alright". Good question. When has the world ever joined together to stop some kind of immoral action taking place somewhere? The only instance that immediately comes to mind is Bosnia, and I posit to you that that only occurred because it was taking place right in Europe's backyard, which was strategically unacceptable. Think of all of the other genocides/atrocities that have been ignored in Africa and Asia over the past fifty+ years. Clearly morality didn't do much to motivate countries in those cases. Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But actions of our leaders depends on the voice of the population. We are talking about democratic countries here. Only through people accepting your point of view - that morality is not a factor - can morality continue to not be a factor. Eh, sorta. Foreign policy is one arena in which the government -- even in democratic countries -- is given wide berth to do what it needs (wants) to do.
I'll grant you that morality in foreign policy has in reality been and will realistically continue to be a factor that basically decreases as distance increases. The closer to your back yard, the more appalled (or afraid?) you are by a conflict and the horrors that take place. I can't really criticize a population for that nor a state's leadership, we can't fix everything and we can't grief over everything, so it's natural that there's some prioritization, and obviously then you prioritize preexisting relations. And yes, I agree, generally a population accepts some moral transgressions as long as it is for the greater good of the fatherland or whatever.
But I question firstly, the notion that morality is not a factor. This is not historically true; propaganda, a tool every government employs when waging war to increase domestic support, always plays on morality. During World War 1, German atrocities towards Belgium civilians was a major factor in building domestic support in England. And American involvement, while not fully explainable by idealistic theory, certainly has elements of it, if nothing else in terms of building public support. During World War 2, the US wasn't really given a choice whether to join in or not, but once you joined, the atrocities committed by your opponents was certainly a factor in building public support - you were saving the free world..
As for WW1 propaganda, there are other elements to the propaganda of course, but both sides of the conflict were pretending that they were the morally superior faction. The fact is, most people are not comfortable supporting an actor they themselves see as immoral - which is why you don't see most supporters of Israel claiming that whatever we are mightier so we can do whatever they want - the prevailing argument is that Hamas is even more immoral than Israel. For most people, considering Israel the more immoral part of the conflict is exactly why they side against them. You see the same in Russia/Ukraine, although Russia mostly just cares about being perceived as morally just by their own population.
And public support IS important. During Vietnam, you lost the war because you lost the public support, granted probably more because so many soldiers were coming home dead than because Americans considered it an immoral war, but once again, it was certainly a factor.
Secondly, I question the notion that the current level of morality being a factor is static. I think if we as citizens become more morally conscious, so will our leaders. It certainly won't change if we don't want it to change though.
|
On July 31 2014 08:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 31 2014 07:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So at what point are atrocities so horrible that morality becomes a factor? You just said only children view foreign policy through the lens of morality. Where's the breaking point?
Either morality is a factor, or we accept the holocaust as like, "alright". Good question. When has the world ever joined together to stop some kind of immoral action taking place somewhere? The only instance that immediately comes to mind is Bosnia, and I posit to you that that only occurred because it was taking place right in Europe's backyard, which was strategically unacceptable. Think of all of the other genocides/atrocities that have been ignored in Africa and Asia over the past fifty+ years. Clearly morality didn't do much to motivate countries in those cases. On July 31 2014 07:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But actions of our leaders depends on the voice of the population. We are talking about democratic countries here. Only through people accepting your point of view - that morality is not a factor - can morality continue to not be a factor. Eh, sorta. Foreign policy is one arena in which the government -- even in democratic countries -- is given wide berth to do what it needs (wants) to do. I'll grant you that morality in foreign policy has in reality been and will realistically continue to be a factor that basically decreases as distance increases. The closer to your back yard, the more appalled (or afraid?) you are by a conflict and the horrors that take place. I can't really criticize a population for that nor a state's leadership, we can't fix everything and we can't grief over everything, so it's natural that there's some prioritization, and obviously then you prioritize preexisting relations. And yes, I agree, generally a population accepts some moral transgressions as long as it is for the greater good of the fatherland or whatever. But I question firstly, the notion that morality is not a factor. This is not historically true; propaganda, a tool every government employs when waging war to increase domestic support, always plays on morality. During World War 1, German atrocities towards Belgium civilians was a major factor in building domestic support in England. And American involvement, while not fully explainable by idealistic theory, certainly has elements of it, if nothing else in terms of building public support. During World War 2, the US wasn't really given a choice whether to join in or not, but once you joined, the atrocities committed by your opponents was certainly a factor in building public support - you were saving the free world.. As for WW1 propaganda, there are other elements to the propaganda of course, but both sides of the conflict were pretending that they were the morally superior faction. The fact is, most people are not comfortable supporting an actor they themselves see as immoral - which is why you don't see most supporters of Israel claiming that whatever we are mightier so we can do whatever they want - the prevailing argument is that Hamas is even more immoral than Israel. For most people, considering Israel the more immoral part of the conflict is exactly why they side against them. You see the same in Russia/Ukraine, although Russia mostly just cares about being perceived as morally just by their own population. And public support IS important. During Vietnam, you lost the war because you lost the public support, granted probably more because so many soldiers were coming home dead than because Americans considered it an immoral war, but once again, it was certainly a factor. Secondly, I question the notion that the current level of morality being a factor is static. I think if we as citizens become more morally conscious, so will our leaders. It certainly won't change if we don't want it to change though.
Propaganda is an important tool of the government insofar as it can arouse public support on moral grounds for a given government action, but it still is not the basis on which the government is taking that action. For example, during WW1, the American press published all sorts of anti-German propaganda, but that's not why the Americans ultimately got involved in the war at the behest of Woodrow Wilson. It was not a decision made on moral grounds. It was a very strategic, cold calculation based largely upon economic considerations. Likewise, with Vietnam, American action there sure as shit had nothing to do with morality, though admittedly, the "immorality" of America's involvement certainly contributed to the lack of support for the war at home.
The point is that nations don't act on morality when it comes to foreign policy. Hell, there are all sorts of immoral things that the US, Russia, China, and pretty much every other nation partakes in, almost always without consequence. Clearly, decisions are being made based upon other -- more tangible -- considerations.
|
Norway28556 Posts
Clearly the government cares about public support or it wouldn't invest in propaganda.. It's not basis for an action, but sufficient public resistance can keep them from going down a particular road. If you look at the Iraq invasion, while many countries (including Norway) supported it despite public resistance, there were also countries that did not. Spain changed from being a member of the coalition of the willing to being outside it following an election. Basically, foreign policy isn't close to being a majority rules kind of thing, and people are mostly accepting of that, but no democratic government wants to go against the wishes of 80% of the population. I'm not saying morality is the dominant factor in foreign policy, although I wish that were the case, but to claim that it is not a factor at all seems like some mental gymnastics to legitimize supporting a strategic partner you yourself consider immoral.
|
On July 31 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:44 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 07:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously the law of the jungle like "we'll just settle where we please" argument is, in today's world, really awful. If you argue this way this would justify how Russia has been bullying their neighbours around, which is just completely unacceptable.
But the "They're occupying Arab land" is just as awful as faulty. 50% of the Jews in Israel originate from the middle-east. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews)
Combine that with the 20% Arab population and that leaves you with 7 out of 10 people being 'local' natives. That makes for a pretty bad colony in my opinion. This is why the map you posted yesterday is terribly misleading.
All state lines aside, if you're going to make an honest map of the region you're going to end up with a really messy patchwork rug. They aren't natives, similar to how Igor Strelkov is not a native Ukrainian. Just because you only had to hop one country over to colonize doesn't really change the fact that you're colonizing. See: Russia-backed separatists. That is because there is a relatively clear distinction between Russians and Ukrainians. Jews and Arabs have both been owned and lived on the land in question for thousands of years. Russian separatists want to fuck with Ukraine for political reasons,they're Kremlin proxies, it's not a genuine struggle between two people. One is a geopolitical struggle about the political alignment of Ukraine, it is mainly between governments, not people. This is hardly comparable to the middle-eastern conflict. By your own argument, if a bunch of muslim arabs from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon conquered Israel and put the Jews in camps it wouldn't be a "colony" because they're "natives", who coincidentally have a stronger claim to the term "native" when it comes to both Israel and the surrounding countries. Your argument is ridiculous. You have run out of things to say so you come up with a bunch of horrible justifications off the cuff that almost invoke godwin's law on their own.
No, I am not advocating to 'put people in camps' and I don't know how you got this from my post. What I am saying is that if you're going to tie a country's legitimacy to the degree to which the people of the country are 'natives of the land' then you should at least recognize that 7 out of 10 people in Israel, Jewish or Arabian, are in fact not 'European settlers'
|
On July 31 2014 08:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 07:59 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 07:44 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 07:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously the law of the jungle like "we'll just settle where we please" argument is, in today's world, really awful. If you argue this way this would justify how Russia has been bullying their neighbours around, which is just completely unacceptable.
But the "They're occupying Arab land" is just as awful as faulty. 50% of the Jews in Israel originate from the middle-east. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews)
Combine that with the 20% Arab population and that leaves you with 7 out of 10 people being 'local' natives. That makes for a pretty bad colony in my opinion. This is why the map you posted yesterday is terribly misleading.
All state lines aside, if you're going to make an honest map of the region you're going to end up with a really messy patchwork rug. They aren't natives, similar to how Igor Strelkov is not a native Ukrainian. Just because you only had to hop one country over to colonize doesn't really change the fact that you're colonizing. See: Russia-backed separatists. That is because there is a relatively clear distinction between Russians and Ukrainians. Jews and Arabs have both been owned and lived on the land in question for thousands of years. Russian separatists want to fuck with Ukraine for political reasons,they're Kremlin proxies, it's not a genuine struggle between two people. One is a geopolitical struggle about the political alignment of Ukraine, it is mainly between governments, not people. This is hardly comparable to the middle-eastern conflict. By your own argument, if a bunch of muslim arabs from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon conquered Israel and put the Jews in camps it wouldn't be a "colony" because they're "natives", who coincidentally have a stronger claim to the term "native" when it comes to both Israel and the surrounding countries. Your argument is ridiculous. You have run out of things to say so you come up with a bunch of horrible justifications off the cuff that almost invoke godwin's law on their own. No, I am not advocating to 'put people in camps' and I don't know how you got this from my post. What I am saying is that if you're going to tie a countries legitimacy to the degree to which the people of the country are 'natives of the land' then you should at least recognize that 7 out of 10 people in Israel, Jewish or Arabian, are in fact not 'European settlers'
You are the one who tried to tie the legitimacy of Israel to how many of them were natives. You did so by re-defining the word native (and casually dropping the fact that Israel has 2.6m actual natives (aka people who have historically lived on the land for centuries) in camps and another 1.8 million of them in a prison.)
I'm the one saying that YOUR argument is dumb, thanks. I am not the one who brought up some false nativity narrative as some sort of pseudo-justification for colonialism; that was all your doing.
|
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides?
|
On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides?
I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective.
|
On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective.
Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe.
If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it?
|
On July 31 2014 09:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe. If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it?
The thing that's by far costing the most civilian lives are the air-strikes. In the densely populated Gaza-Strip that's going to produce a huge number of civilian casualties. The only real alternative would be ground missions, but this would endanger Israeli soldiers being kidnapped, which by the Israelian army is considered the worst case scenario.
They once traded one Israeli prisoner for thousand Palestinian prisoners that were responsible for ~600 deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange
|
On July 31 2014 09:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe. If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it?
Israel is going to do their best to prevent casualties to their soldiers. What do you propose? Only door to door? I promise you that's messy and you wouldn't like it any better.
|
On July 31 2014 09:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:54 Doodsmack wrote:On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe. If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it? The thing that's by far costing the most civilian lives are the air-strikes. In the densely populated Gaza-Strip that's going to produce a huge number of civilian casualties. The only real alternative would be ground missions, but this would endanger Israeli soldiers being kidnapped, which by the Israelian army is considered the worst case scenario. They once traded one Israeli prisoner for thousand Palestinian prisoners that were responsible for ~600 deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange
Yes and I think the overwhelming force strategy bombs more targets than necessary. That is what I think is ineffective, the overuse of airstrikes. For example, targeting civilian infrastructure to indirectly force Hamas to capitulate, as opposed to targeting rockets and tunnels.
Or maybe, there really is an upside to Israel of using overwhelming force over and above targeting the rockets and tunnels, in which case I'd like to hear someone argue it.
|
On July 31 2014 09:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:54 Doodsmack wrote:On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe. If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it? The thing that's by far costing the most civilian lives are the air-strikes. In the densely populated Gaza-Strip that's going to produce a huge number of civilian casualties. The only real alternative would be ground missions, but this would endanger Israeli soldiers being kidnapped, which by the Israelian army is considered the worst case scenario. They once traded one Israeli prisoner for thousand Palestinian prisoners that were responsible for ~600 deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange
You're saying that Israel is justified in killing civilians for fear of Hamas doing exactly what Israel is doing (I.E. killing enemy combatants and capturing/interrogating/torturing them)?
Bulletproof.
And you wonder why Palestinians fighters don't discriminate on who they target considering Israel limits any chance of them having a direct conflict, even when invading their homes.
|
Or maybe, there really is an upside to Israel of using overwhelming force over and above targeting the rockets and tunnels, in which case I'd like to hear someone argue it.
It makes sure that there's another generation of terrorists to fight against. Anyone arguing round about now that Israel is trying to do anything but just annihilate palestine is simply naive (or dumb) beyond rescue.
This "military operation" does nothing, but making sure that tomorrow there are still terrorists to fight against. This does nothing in any peaceful direction. We're talking terrorists. Decentralized. Even if you kill all the hamas leaders and half the population of gaza, tomorrow there would be more rockets.
"Peace" or "making sure we're safe" is by far the dumbest justification i heard since weapons of mass destruction.
edit: small sidenote, since i'm counting: 6500 civilian deaths by the US from 2001-2012 in afghanistan, 1100 in three weeks by the IDF.
I'll just leave that uncommented there.
|
On July 31 2014 10:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:59 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:54 Doodsmack wrote:On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe. If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it? The thing that's by far costing the most civilian lives are the air-strikes. In the densely populated Gaza-Strip that's going to produce a huge number of civilian casualties. The only real alternative would be ground missions, but this would endanger Israeli soldiers being kidnapped, which by the Israelian army is considered the worst case scenario. They once traded one Israeli prisoner for thousand Palestinian prisoners that were responsible for ~600 deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange You're saying that Israel is justified in killing civilians for fear of Hamas doing exactly what Israel is doing (I.E. killing enemy combatants and capturing/interrogating/torturing them)? Bulletproof. And you wonder why Palestinians fighters don't discriminate on who they target considering Israel limits any chance of them having a direct conflict, even when invading their homes. Whats wrong with that logic? National governments value the lives of their citizens over the lives of foreign citizens, all national governments do that, so Israel choosing to pursue a strategy that minimizes their citizens death vs. others is pretty reasonable.
|
Do the math on the lethal blast radius of an 155mm shell. 50 yards / 70,000 square feet.
And then work through the population density of 1.8M over 140sq miles.
You come up with around 1 person for every 2,100 square feet in Gaza.
So an errant 155mm shell, on average, is going to kill 30-35 people.
* and that's not counting the buffer zone which would double probably the # of people effectively.
|
On July 31 2014 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 10:18 Jormundr wrote:On July 31 2014 09:59 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:54 Doodsmack wrote:On July 31 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On July 31 2014 09:28 Doodsmack wrote:
I've been wondering why Israel goes with the overwhelming force/shock and awe strategy despite its costs and downsides. Is it just right-wing hawks not realizing the folly of the strategy? Or does it really have a greater upside than its downsides? I'm pretty sure they've reduced the civil-casualties as far as they can.All the dead children and women are getting them is international blame. It's sadly how these asymmetrical conflicts look. Modern warfare isn't Olympic fencing. I don't think there is some kind of upside to it from the Israelian perspective. Lol you're pretty sure of that? I wouldn't be so sure. Their strategy is overwhelming force, shock and awe. If there's no upside to overwhelming force this is what I'm wondering, why do they do it? The thing that's by far costing the most civilian lives are the air-strikes. In the densely populated Gaza-Strip that's going to produce a huge number of civilian casualties. The only real alternative would be ground missions, but this would endanger Israeli soldiers being kidnapped, which by the Israelian army is considered the worst case scenario. They once traded one Israeli prisoner for thousand Palestinian prisoners that were responsible for ~600 deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange You're saying that Israel is justified in killing civilians for fear of Hamas doing exactly what Israel is doing (I.E. killing enemy combatants and capturing/interrogating/torturing them)? Bulletproof. And you wonder why Palestinians fighters don't discriminate on who they target considering Israel limits any chance of them having a direct conflict, even when invading their homes. Whats wrong with that logic? National governments value the lives of their citizens over the lives of foreign citizens, all national governments do that, so Israel choosing to pursue a strategy that minimizes their citizens death vs. others is pretty reasonable.
There's no disagreement there. It starts to get problematic if you don't even try to hit enemy combatants though.
edit: not to mention, that while you value your own mates more than the strangers, doesn't mean that you just bomb the shit out of everything just because you can. That's not how democratic governments (rather, western governments) work in this day and age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
