|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 11 2024 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 02:15 Magic Powers wrote:
There's a major error in the argumentation. Hostages are not prisoners of war, they're non-combatants who have been captured for the purpose of leverage. Hamas are terrorists who are using hostages to extort Israel. The Geneva Convention has no rules on hostages because hostage-taking is an entirely unlawful concept. Non-combatants are never supposed to be held in captivity, period.
You are right. I was being charitable by allowing hostages to be some kind of military object. But for the sake of discussion, I wanted to highlight why even if we assume hostages are a military object, that object existing in a family home is considered a moral/legal failure of Hamas rather than the people rescuing the hostages. And that any civilian lives lost by rescuing the hostages from civilian areas is legally considered the fault of the ones holding hostages rather than the rescuers.
This is the reason why I brought up the example of a home invasion. Police are not allowed to shoot up a family for the sake of killing a home invader. I transfer this reasoning to war and ask why Israel is allowed to destroy Gaza and kill tens of thousands of innocent people to kill a few thousand terrorists.
As always, two wrongs don't make a right.
|
On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic.
It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high.
And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas.
Yeah, in an ideal scenario, Hamas has a prisoner of war camp, where they allow the Red Cross to visit. And Israel knows not to bomb it, because they know exactly where it is. And Israel can just invade Gaza, drive up to that camp, and free everyone. Surprise surprise, Hamas isn't doing that.
I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.
Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one.
Personally, I do not get why Israel didn't trade for the hostages as soon as possible. And if Hamas asks for a permanent seize fire, just give them that. And then just find a pretext to break that seize fire later. And go after Hamas when all your hostages are already save back in Israel.
Sure, breaking a seize fire isn't nice. But Israel has done that many times. And in what way is breaking a seize fire more immoral than killing 30 000 innocent Palestinians.
The downside is that Hamas won't do a future hostage deal. But if that is true, then why should Hamas even take hostages in the first place? Game theory-wise this works out perfectly.
And if you actually want to ethnically cleanse Gaza, make it unlivable, make it a permanent humanitarian crisis, until the Palestinians 'just go away', then you cab easily also do that after a hostage deal.
It is almost as Israeli government wants the hostages to die. But also wants to be seen as if they want to rescue them. Maybe because with the hostages still alive in Gaza, they can argue they need to keep fighting.
|
On June 11 2024 02:48 Suibne wrote:It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high. And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas. I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one.
I imagine some were killed in the initial airstrikes to suppress Hamas as they moved in. But most people were killed on the way out if I understand correctly, probably because Hamas were shooting machineguns and RPGs in a densely populated area.
Also a few people in the apartment with the hostages were also killed.
It's not that it was a hostage rescue specifically it's more that this is what happens when you fight a war in a city packed with civilians. It's more that the only thing that makes Israel send in their ground troops is if there are hostages.
|
On June 11 2024 02:40 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On June 11 2024 02:15 Magic Powers wrote:
There's a major error in the argumentation. Hostages are not prisoners of war, they're non-combatants who have been captured for the purpose of leverage. Hamas are terrorists who are using hostages to extort Israel. The Geneva Convention has no rules on hostages because hostage-taking is an entirely unlawful concept. Non-combatants are never supposed to be held in captivity, period.
You are right. I was being charitable by allowing hostages to be some kind of military object. But for the sake of discussion, I wanted to highlight why even if we assume hostages are a military object, that object existing in a family home is considered a moral/legal failure of Hamas rather than the people rescuing the hostages. And that any civilian lives lost by rescuing the hostages from civilian areas is legally considered the fault of the ones holding hostages rather than the rescuers. This is the reason why I brought up the example of a home invasion. Police are not allowed to shoot up a family for the sake of killing a home invader. I transfer this reasoning to war and ask why Israel is allowed to destroy Gaza and kill tens of thousands of innocent people to kill a few thousand terrorists. As always, two wrongs don't make a right.
I mostly agree with the home invasion analogy. But I also think the analogy breaks down when the specific purpose of a given operation is focused on rescuing hostages.
When hostages are being rescued, the second wrong is also firmly in the hands of the ones taking the hostages. It is not anywhere on the people rescuing the hostages. I think any nation has the right to rescue hostages once they know where the hostages are. It would not be ethical for Israel to just squeeze Gaza like a tube of toothpaste until the hostages pop out. In this instance, Israel determined the location of the hostages and then rescued them. In order to rescue them, they needed to cause significant civilian death along the way, and those civilian deaths are caused by Hamas rather than Israel. The key factor is knowing where they are and targeting that specific location. Placing any of the blame on Israel for civilian deaths from the 4 hostages being rescued would be equivalent to saying Israel needs to be willing to let hostages continue to be held.
So I want to be clear I am not saying Israel is entirely free of moral failing in this war. But the specific incident of these 4 hostages being rescued should only assign blame to Hamas because it was focused on rescuing hostages.
|
On June 11 2024 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 02:40 Magic Powers wrote:On June 11 2024 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On June 11 2024 02:15 Magic Powers wrote:
There's a major error in the argumentation. Hostages are not prisoners of war, they're non-combatants who have been captured for the purpose of leverage. Hamas are terrorists who are using hostages to extort Israel. The Geneva Convention has no rules on hostages because hostage-taking is an entirely unlawful concept. Non-combatants are never supposed to be held in captivity, period.
You are right. I was being charitable by allowing hostages to be some kind of military object. But for the sake of discussion, I wanted to highlight why even if we assume hostages are a military object, that object existing in a family home is considered a moral/legal failure of Hamas rather than the people rescuing the hostages. And that any civilian lives lost by rescuing the hostages from civilian areas is legally considered the fault of the ones holding hostages rather than the rescuers. This is the reason why I brought up the example of a home invasion. Police are not allowed to shoot up a family for the sake of killing a home invader. I transfer this reasoning to war and ask why Israel is allowed to destroy Gaza and kill tens of thousands of innocent people to kill a few thousand terrorists. As always, two wrongs don't make a right. I mostly agree with the home invasion analogy. But I also think the analogy breaks down when the specific purpose of a given operation is focused on rescuing hostages. When hostages are being rescued, the second wrong is also firmly in the hands of the ones taking the hostages. It is not anywhere on the people rescuing the hostages. I think any nation has the right to rescue hostages once they know where the hostages are. It would not be ethical for Israel to just squeeze Gaza like a tube of toothpaste until the hostages pop out. In this instance, Israel determined the location of the hostages and then rescued them. In order to rescue them, they needed to cause significant civilian death along the way, and those civilian deaths are caused by Hamas rather than Israel. The key factor is knowing where they are and targeting that specific location. Placing any of the blame on Israel for civilian deaths from the 4 hostages being rescued would be equivalent to saying Israel needs to be willing to let hostages continue to be held. So I want to be clear I am not saying Israel is entirely free of moral failing in this war. But the specific incident of these 4 hostages being rescued should only assign blame to Hamas because it was focused on rescuing hostages.
I'm tired of the discussion regarding who's at fault. It went nowhere last time we had the discussion and I eventually gave up on it. I think the people who say only Hamas is at fault live in some kind of fantasy land where fighting against evil is automatically good, and there can never be a case where two evils fight each other. And I have no interest in picking up that discussion again, after seeing how it went the last time. So if people want to discuss it again, please go ahead. But without me.
|
No problem, totally understood.
|
BTW, one thing that isn't talked about here enough is the latest proposal that Biden said Israel had accepted, and then Netanyahu came out publicly and called Biden a liar.
Actually it seems Biden was 100% correct and this was Israel's proposal. Then Hamas rejected it. And Netanyahu was really happy because he could say "See, we can't negotiate with Hamas." And then Hamas apparently changed their mind and accepted it. And then Israel rejected their own proposal. And now Blinken is still going out and saying that Israel has accepted the proposal, and they are waiting for Hamas to accept it. It is really weird. Especially since Gantz just left the war cabinet which means Netanyahu relies even more on Ben Gvir and Smotrich, who will collapse the Netanyahu government if any permanent seize fire is made with Hamas.
|
On June 11 2024 02:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 02:48 Suibne wrote:On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic. It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high. And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas. I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one. I imagine some were killed in the initial airstrikes to suppress Hamas as they moved in. But most people were killed on the way out if I understand correctly, probably because Hamas were shooting machineguns and RPGs in a densely populated area. Also a few people in the apartment with the hostages were also killed. It's not that it was a hostage rescue specifically it's more that this is what happens when you fight a war in a city packed with civilians. It's more that the only thing that makes Israel send in their ground troops is if there are hostages.
Uuuh, it is not normal in urban warfare to just level entire apartment complexes with people inside just because someone shoots at you from within that apartment complex. Yes, that is what Israel has been doing. But that is not 'normal'
Second, what you say also doesn't make sense. Say that Israel was doing a normal mission. With their normal rules of engagement. And they killed 200 people. And only then they came upon 4 hostages, and then they stopped using that much destruction. Then at least that makes some sense. But you yourself say they killed all those people AFTER they rescued the hostages. How does Israel know there are no more other hostages in those apartment blocks? Or do they care more for their own soldiers than for their own hostages?
And third, it is my understanding that this was a hostage rescue from the start. And while there have been some accounts that most were killed afterwards, maybe to fight their way out. I also heard that witnesses said many rockets/bombs fell as the operation started.
I can at least partially understand that if you have a bunch of soldiers that just rescued 4 hostages. And they can't get out because Hamas is responding and shooting at you from an apartment complex. That then maybe you'd bomb the entire apartment complex with a F16 or something that is already up in the air. So that you can definitely get out your soldiers plus 4 hostages. And maybe kill more hostages of your own. Vs not bombing at all and them getting trapped.
Also because a failed hostage operation looks way worse politically than one where you kill 250+ civilians and 3 of your own hostages.
|
On June 11 2024 03:18 Suibne wrote:
BTW, one thing that isn't talked about here enough is the latest proposal that Biden said Israel had accepted, and then Netanyahu came out publicly and called Biden a liar.
Actually it seems Biden was 100% correct and this was Israel's proposal. Then Hamas rejected it. And Netanyahu was really happy because he could say "See, we can't negotiate with Hamas." And then Hamas apparently changed their mind and accepted it. And then Israel rejected their own proposal. And now Blinken is still going out and saying that Israel has accepted the proposal, and they are waiting for Hamas to accept it.
It's not exactly the same deal.
The exact terms are being altered from one speaker to another.
Things like releasing all hostages, permanent end to fighting and complete withdrawal from Gaza are non-starters for one side or another, which is why they keep altering terms to blame the other side for refusing it.
|
On June 11 2024 03:25 Suibne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 02:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 11 2024 02:48 Suibne wrote:On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic. It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high. And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas. I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one. I imagine some were killed in the initial airstrikes to suppress Hamas as they moved in. But most people were killed on the way out if I understand correctly, probably because Hamas were shooting machineguns and RPGs in a densely populated area. Also a few people in the apartment with the hostages were also killed. It's not that it was a hostage rescue specifically it's more that this is what happens when you fight a war in a city packed with civilians. It's more that the only thing that makes Israel send in their ground troops is if there are hostages. Uuuh, it is not normal in urban warfare to just level entire apartment complexes with people inside just because someone shoots at you from within that apartment complex. Yes, that is what Israel has been doing. But that is not 'normal' Second, what you say also doesn't make sense. Say that Israel was doing a normal mission. With their normal rules of engagement. And they killed 200 people. And only then they came upon 4 hostages, and then they stopped using that much destruction. Then at least that makes some sense. But you yourself say they killed all those people AFTER they rescued the hostages. How does Israel know there are no more other hostages in those apartment blocks? Or do they care more for their own soldiers than for their own hostages? And third, it is my understanding that this was a hostage rescue from the start. And while there have been some accounts that most were killed afterwards, maybe to fight their way out. I also heard that witnesses said many rockets/bombs fell as the operation started. I can at least partially understand that if you have a bunch of soldiers that just rescued 4 hostages. And they can't get out because Hamas is responding and shooting at you from an apartment complex. That then maybe you'd bomb the entire apartment complex with a F16 or something that is already up in the air. So that you can definitely get out your soldiers plus 4 hostages. And maybe kill more hostages of your own. Vs not bombing at all and them getting trapped. Also because a failed hostage operation looks way worse politically than one where you kill 250+ civilians and 3 of your own hostages.
Can you elaborate on what exactly you are defining as normal? Which similar situations are you comparing this to?
This feels a bit conjured. If you are going to indicate this is some kind of deviation from the norm, you need to specify why that is true. You, just like all of us, can only be assumed to be an arm chair analyst with absolutely zero real insight into the nitty gritty of how these operations are conducted. That's not a bad thing. We can all discuss this within our abilities knowing the limits of our expertise.
That's why my post above focuses on with the macroscopic considerations as to who holds the responsibility for deaths in this or that situation. But you are taking it many steps beyond that by detailing which components were or were not justified. But you don't explain why or what you are comparing it to. You are indicating this whole operation was done abnormally, so there needs to be a "normal" references for comparison.
|
On June 11 2024 03:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 03:25 Suibne wrote:On June 11 2024 02:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 11 2024 02:48 Suibne wrote:On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic. It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high. And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas. I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one. I imagine some were killed in the initial airstrikes to suppress Hamas as they moved in. But most people were killed on the way out if I understand correctly, probably because Hamas were shooting machineguns and RPGs in a densely populated area. Also a few people in the apartment with the hostages were also killed. It's not that it was a hostage rescue specifically it's more that this is what happens when you fight a war in a city packed with civilians. It's more that the only thing that makes Israel send in their ground troops is if there are hostages. Uuuh, it is not normal in urban warfare to just level entire apartment complexes with people inside just because someone shoots at you from within that apartment complex. Yes, that is what Israel has been doing. But that is not 'normal' Second, what you say also doesn't make sense. Say that Israel was doing a normal mission. With their normal rules of engagement. And they killed 200 people. And only then they came upon 4 hostages, and then they stopped using that much destruction. Then at least that makes some sense. But you yourself say they killed all those people AFTER they rescued the hostages. How does Israel know there are no more other hostages in those apartment blocks? Or do they care more for their own soldiers than for their own hostages? And third, it is my understanding that this was a hostage rescue from the start. And while there have been some accounts that most were killed afterwards, maybe to fight their way out. I also heard that witnesses said many rockets/bombs fell as the operation started. I can at least partially understand that if you have a bunch of soldiers that just rescued 4 hostages. And they can't get out because Hamas is responding and shooting at you from an apartment complex. That then maybe you'd bomb the entire apartment complex with a F16 or something that is already up in the air. So that you can definitely get out your soldiers plus 4 hostages. And maybe kill more hostages of your own. Vs not bombing at all and them getting trapped. Also because a failed hostage operation looks way worse politically than one where you kill 250+ civilians and 3 of your own hostages. Can you elaborate on what exactly you are defining as normal? Which similar situations are you comparing this to?
No western country would do urban warfare the way Israel is doing right now.
Both the rules of engagement. But also not having a strategy to win the hearts and minds.
The US didn't just level buildings with people inside to secure an area. The US did level buildings after the people had left. But even that didn't work. They had a failing urban warfare & counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq & Afghanistan for almost 10 years. They were trying to do a whack a mole game while ignoring hearts & minds and local politics. Just driving around in patrols, hoping the insurgents would attack you, so you can then kill them.
We also know that Israel loosened their rules of engagement after October the 7th. And they were already more loose than what the US would use.
Israel has also has fought and secured the same cities at least 3 times, leading to a lot of internal criticism. But that is an overall criticism of Israel's military strategy.
McMaster and Petraeus are generally credited with turning around their counter insurgency strategy. And that was much more successful. The US told Israel from day one to use their approach. But Israel didn't want to.
Gantz literally left yesterday because Israel has no plan at all. There's a lot of very experienced generals and war specialists, who want to destroy Hamas, and who are right leaning, who disagree strongly with Netanyahu's approach.
Don't forget that while Netanyahu did serve in a special forces unit in his twenties, he is not actually a military man. Gantz is a high level general.
What the Netanyahu government is doing is a complete shitshow. It is not defeating Hamas. It is not saving the hostages. It is not limiting civilian deaths. It is not keeping their western allies happy. It is literally failing at any criteria you can come up with.
|
On June 11 2024 01:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 00:55 Nebuchad wrote:On June 11 2024 00:00 Velr wrote:
That you don't succumb to demands or bargain with terrorists/kidnappers and instead try to free hostages (and neutralize enemies/stuff in the way while doing it) isn't exactly some new IDF only doctrine?
Putting your hostages with civilians is blatantly endangering "your" civilians. Stuff like this is done willingly and knowingly of the dangers. Hey Velr just a quick question why didn't the hostages die in the bombings? Could it be that the place they were in wasn't bombed? there are a hundredsomething hostages still missing. How many of those do you think are buried under rubble? I'm thinking 80+%, but realistically more like 90+
That's unlikely. Most of the hostages that turned out to be dead had already died on October 7. Hamas has also held some Israeli hostages for years. Sinwar was freed in a hostage deal and studied Israel for years in prison. He's very much aware of how important getting the hostages back alive is for Israel.
They're their primary asset. It's their only leverage to negotiate a ceasefire and stay in control of Gaza. All the negotiations for a hostage deal have included the exchange of live hostages. If they turn out to be dead then that'll blow up the deal.
|
On June 11 2024 03:55 Suibne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 03:39 Mohdoo wrote:On June 11 2024 03:25 Suibne wrote:On June 11 2024 02:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 11 2024 02:48 Suibne wrote:On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic. It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high. And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas. I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one. I imagine some were killed in the initial airstrikes to suppress Hamas as they moved in. But most people were killed on the way out if I understand correctly, probably because Hamas were shooting machineguns and RPGs in a densely populated area. Also a few people in the apartment with the hostages were also killed. It's not that it was a hostage rescue specifically it's more that this is what happens when you fight a war in a city packed with civilians. It's more that the only thing that makes Israel send in their ground troops is if there are hostages. Uuuh, it is not normal in urban warfare to just level entire apartment complexes with people inside just because someone shoots at you from within that apartment complex. Yes, that is what Israel has been doing. But that is not 'normal' Second, what you say also doesn't make sense. Say that Israel was doing a normal mission. With their normal rules of engagement. And they killed 200 people. And only then they came upon 4 hostages, and then they stopped using that much destruction. Then at least that makes some sense. But you yourself say they killed all those people AFTER they rescued the hostages. How does Israel know there are no more other hostages in those apartment blocks? Or do they care more for their own soldiers than for their own hostages? And third, it is my understanding that this was a hostage rescue from the start. And while there have been some accounts that most were killed afterwards, maybe to fight their way out. I also heard that witnesses said many rockets/bombs fell as the operation started. I can at least partially understand that if you have a bunch of soldiers that just rescued 4 hostages. And they can't get out because Hamas is responding and shooting at you from an apartment complex. That then maybe you'd bomb the entire apartment complex with a F16 or something that is already up in the air. So that you can definitely get out your soldiers plus 4 hostages. And maybe kill more hostages of your own. Vs not bombing at all and them getting trapped. Also because a failed hostage operation looks way worse politically than one where you kill 250+ civilians and 3 of your own hostages. Can you elaborate on what exactly you are defining as normal? Which similar situations are you comparing this to? No western country would do urban warfare the way Israel is doing right now. Both the rules of engagement. But also not having a strategy to win the hearts and minds. The US didn't just level buildings with people inside to secure an area. The US did level buildings after the people had left. But even that didn't work. They had a failing urban warfare & counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq & Afghanistan for almost 10 years. They were trying to do a whack a mole game while ignoring hearts & minds and local politics. Just driving around in patrols, hoping the insurgents would attack you, so you can then kill them. We also know that Israel loosened their rules of engagement after October the 7th. And they were already more loose than what the US would use. Israel has also has fought and secured the same cities at least 3 times, leading to a lot of internal criticism. But that is an overall criticism of Israel's military strategy. McMaster and Petraeus are generally credited with turning around their counter insurgency strategy. And that was much more successful. The US told Israel from day one to use their approach. But Israel didn't want to.
This was a hostage rescue operation, so I meant a situation comparable to that. There are enormous differences between a rescue operation and a general warfare strategy. For example, the fighting beginning from deep within enemy territory rather than starting from a staging ground and securing additional zones incrementally. There are enormous differences between these situations. But I do think the comparison would be valid for situations where Israel is generally securing zones like they did early in the war.
What I am asking for is a comparison for the 4 hostages being rescued. I am not familiar with other situations like this, but if you are, I would be interested to see how Israel's approach differed from what other nations have done.
|
Then just compare it to the mission to take out Osama bin Laden.
Honestly, not sure what you are asking for. There's plenty of special forces operations by the US to get out hostages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hostage_rescue_operations
Just one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue
1 hostage freed, 6 people killed, all 6 armed hostage takers.
Not in an urban area, though. If that is what you are asking for.
Or compare it to the operation where Netanyahu's brother got killed. That was by Israel, back when we had different moral standards. That saved 102 of 106 hostages. Yes, 4 were killed. And zero civilians were killed.
Hostage rescue operations often fail. And even in those, not many people get killed. The most famous failure is Eagle Claw. And there just 1 Iranian died, accidentally killed by other Iranians. It is not like the US first dropped a bunch of huge bombs everywhere.
Honestly, I am not sure why you are asking me. Do you have an example of a hostage rescue where 50 people got killed for every hostage freed?
|
On June 11 2024 04:06 Suibne wrote:Then just compare it to the mission to take out Osama bin Laden. Honestly, not sure what you are asking for. There's plenty of special forces operations by the US to get out hostages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hostage_rescue_operationsJust one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue1 hostage freed, 6 people killed, all 6 armed hostage takers. Not in an urban area, though. If that is what you are asking for. Hostage rescue operations often fail. And even in those, not many people get killed. The most famous failure is Eagle Claw. And there just 1 Iranian died, accidentally killed by other Iranians. It is not like the US first dropped a bunch of huge bombs everywhere. Honestly, I am not sure why you are asking me. Do you have an example of a hostage rescue where 50 people got killed for every hostage freed?
I apologize for being unclear. I probably just misunderstood what you were saying. Here is what I thought you said:
Note: I am using quote for clarity. I am not saying this is a quote from you. Just saying how I read your post.
Israel conducted this hostage rescue operation very uniquely compared to similar situations. If Israel had done things more similar to how other countries handle this type of situation, less civilians would have been killed.
If a comparison is being used to make a point, the situations being compared need to be sufficiently similar. The situations you included above are extremely dissimilar from Israel's rescue of these 4 hostages. If those are the situations you are using to show Israel should have done this differently, your point is not supported. If you show similar situations have been equally effective while using different methods, your point would be valid.
I have misunderstood people many times before and I am sure I will again. So I apologize if I am mischaracterizing your point. It felt strange to me, which usually means I am misunderstanding. So that is why I am asking follow up questions.
|
Well good to hear from you that besides an apparent misunderstanding, I was still able to completely answer your question in a satisfactory way.
|
On June 11 2024 03:55 Suibne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 03:39 Mohdoo wrote:On June 11 2024 03:25 Suibne wrote:On June 11 2024 02:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 11 2024 02:48 Suibne wrote:On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote:
That’s some bizarre logic. It is not bizarre logic at all. Say that Hamas actually wants to avoid using Gazans as human shields. So they have a military base in an abandoned farm away from any residential buildings. And say you then decide to put the hostages there. The chances that Israel bombs their own hostages in that case, because they bomb that Hamas farm, are very high. And that would benefit neither Israel, nur Hamas. I also don't get how Israel killed that many people when freeing the 4 hostages. How are they sure they aren't killing their own hostages. I never heard of a hostage rescue operation where so many other people are killed for each hostage rescued. Seems insane.Also, if Israel is going to rescue 4 hostages, and kill 3 (Hamas claim) every 9 months. Then how long before they are either all free, or all dead? And if Hamas is 100% sure that Israel will never trade for the hostages, but just fight and bomb until Israel has them all free, or dead, that is actually really scary. Because then the hostages have negative value to Hamas. And a dead hostage would be better to Hamas than a living one. I imagine some were killed in the initial airstrikes to suppress Hamas as they moved in. But most people were killed on the way out if I understand correctly, probably because Hamas were shooting machineguns and RPGs in a densely populated area. Also a few people in the apartment with the hostages were also killed. It's not that it was a hostage rescue specifically it's more that this is what happens when you fight a war in a city packed with civilians. It's more that the only thing that makes Israel send in their ground troops is if there are hostages. Uuuh, it is not normal in urban warfare to just level entire apartment complexes with people inside just because someone shoots at you from within that apartment complex. Yes, that is what Israel has been doing. But that is not 'normal' Second, what you say also doesn't make sense. Say that Israel was doing a normal mission. With their normal rules of engagement. And they killed 200 people. And only then they came upon 4 hostages, and then they stopped using that much destruction. Then at least that makes some sense. But you yourself say they killed all those people AFTER they rescued the hostages. How does Israel know there are no more other hostages in those apartment blocks? Or do they care more for their own soldiers than for their own hostages? And third, it is my understanding that this was a hostage rescue from the start. And while there have been some accounts that most were killed afterwards, maybe to fight their way out. I also heard that witnesses said many rockets/bombs fell as the operation started. I can at least partially understand that if you have a bunch of soldiers that just rescued 4 hostages. And they can't get out because Hamas is responding and shooting at you from an apartment complex. That then maybe you'd bomb the entire apartment complex with a F16 or something that is already up in the air. So that you can definitely get out your soldiers plus 4 hostages. And maybe kill more hostages of your own. Vs not bombing at all and them getting trapped. Also because a failed hostage operation looks way worse politically than one where you kill 250+ civilians and 3 of your own hostages. Can you elaborate on what exactly you are defining as normal? Which similar situations are you comparing this to? No western country would do urban warfare the way Israel is doing right now. Both the rules of engagement. But also not having a strategy to win the hearts and minds. The US didn't just level buildings with people inside to secure an area. The US did level buildings after the people had left. But even that didn't work. They had a failing urban warfare & counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq & Afghanistan for almost 10 years. They were trying to do a whack a mole game while ignoring hearts & minds and local politics. Just driving around in patrols, hoping the insurgents would attack you, so you can then kill them. We also know that Israel loosened their rules of engagement after October the 7th. And they were already more loose than what the US would use. Israel has also has fought and secured the same cities at least 3 times, leading to a lot of internal criticism. But that is an overall criticism of Israel's military strategy. McMaster and Petraeus are generally credited with turning around their counter insurgency strategy. And that was much more successful. The US told Israel from day one to use their approach. But Israel didn't want to. Gantz literally left yesterday because Israel has no plan at all. There's a lot of very experienced generals and war specialists, who want to destroy Hamas, and who are right leaning, who disagree strongly with Netanyahu's approach. Don't forget that while Netanyahu did serve in a special forces unit in his twenties, he is not actually a military man. Gantz is a high level general. What the Netanyahu government is doing is a complete shitshow. It is not defeating Hamas. It is not saving the hostages. It is not limiting civilian deaths. It is not keeping their western allies happy. It is literally failing at any criteria you can come up with.
Every country does urban warfare this way if they aren't handicapping themselves, it's just in this case the civilians had no time to get out of the way.
If I got the correct info it basically went down like this:
1) Israel airstrikes the neighbourhood. Probably both to attack spotted Hamas targets but also to create a diversion.
2) A spec-ops team infiltrates covertly in a truck. Uses a ladder to climb up to the apartment, breaches, kills all adults except the owners sister who gets injured (traumatising all the kids for life I guess). This includes the owner and his father who was a doctor apparently. It's not said how many people were in the apartment exactly.
3) Brings hostages to the truck and begins to extract. At this point they are spotted and the whole thing goes Black Hawk down. Truck gets hit and stops (don't know how far they got).
4) Ground team gets air support and airborne troopers arrive with heavy APCs to get the team out.
I see no problem with the planning and execution. Of course it would have been better for everyone if the team could have ex-filtrated without fighting but shit goes wrong all the time and this was a high risk thing to try.
|
Several high ranking generals from NATO countries have already said that none of their militaries would operate like Israel has. Both for this rescue operation. And for the war in general. And we have tons of examples how western countries operate urban warfare. Even Israel right now does urban warfare way different than they did in all the other recent invasions of Gaza. And there has been one every 5 years or so since Israel pulled out of Gaza.
As for hostage operations. There is no example of a successful hostage rescue where 50 civilians died fro every hostage rescued.
And I am also not aware of a hostage mission that started with an air strike.
Honestly, I am not sure how you can even argue for this point. Because it is so obviously false and has no single argument behind it.
Also, your 1 to 4 points, where exactly did Israel kill all those civilians. Because you don't describe that. If a civilian dies because of a breaching charge, then that is fully understandable. Hostages also get killed in crossfire during rescues from time to time. That is normal. The deaths in this case, and the cause of their deaths, is completely unprecedented for western units.
You have to go to Russian botched rescue attempts like the Moscow opera, where they killed all the hostages because they pumped in a faulty sedative. Or the one at the Beslan school.
And we haven't even talked about cutting off food and other aid. Any examples of western countries doing that in their wars during the last 50 years?
|
On June 11 2024 04:27 Suibne wrote:
Well good to hear from you that besides an apparent misunderstanding, I was still able to completely answer your question in a satisfactory way.
What was my misunderstanding? Are you saying those situations are comparable? Or is there a different point you are making?
|
Are you trolling or what? You implied there are similar situations. Then I gave examples of some that are different. And your contention was that my examples are not the same. And now you are pretending I misunderstood something.
I thought you were pretending to misunderstand me as a debate tactic. But now it seems you misunderstood your past self? Can that even be true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
