2009-01-23, 10:22 | Link #762 | |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Doctor's story hits home in Israel BBC News (Jan 23) |
|
2009-01-23, 10:39 | Link #763 |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 39
|
what happened to the doctor is a tragedy
one of many in another incident three israeli soldiers were killed as a result of an israeli tank shell and its a sad reality that in these types of battles, these things happen there is no denying that what happened in the gaza strip during these three weeks is unfortunate in just about every aspect but the sad hard truth is that israel didnt choose the battlefield israel didnt choose to wage this kind of battle in an urben area crowded with lots of innocent people and it waited for years while rocket attacks were hitting its civilians preceicely BECOUSE it wanted to avoid this kind of suffering and destraction and already reports are coming out from gaza confiriming that hamas has done everything it can to INCREASE the death toll among its civilians the sad truth is that these things happen, and nothing can be done about them
__________________
|
2009-01-23, 10:43 | Link #764 |
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
The sad truth is that you've missed the point of the report: the death toll of Palestinian civilians is not a mere statistic.
Every death meant the loss of someone's child, parent or friend. Every drop of civilian blood spilt works against Israel's interests. If the intent had been to humble Hamas, then it gets harder and harder to see how the Gaza invasion was a "success". |
2009-01-23, 10:51 | Link #765 |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 39
|
what report are you talking about, the doctor one ?
i'm talking about the Corriere della Sera one that confirms that a)less people died then was stated b)most were millitents c)hamas has been using their civilians as human shields http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...660423,00.html (an english translation, taken from an israeli news site Ynet) that report helps israelis interest rather well i should think
__________________
|
2009-01-23, 12:46 | Link #766 |
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Maybe, maybe not...
But it has been implemented since practically day 1 of Judaism, and to great success. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob Last edited by Demongod86; 2009-01-23 at 12:57. |
2009-01-23, 13:00 | Link #767 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
We here do not try to argue here whether the actual death toll is 1200 or 600; whether the civillian death is actually only 30% (as IDF claimed) or majorly (>60% as newspaper here stated) or whether the one third casulties was innocent kids or young armed thugs that fire random at people house. In another words, whether the statistic you tried to state is actual or not, it does not change the actual situation now, and hardly can change anyone's view about the conflict. In fact it may even anger the general public Palestinian sympathizers at "the Israel propaganda" since: a)Israel prevent reporters to enter Gaza during conflict b) the accurate of weapon "seems" not so high because several incidents (e.g. UN) c) obviously in most modern cases, an army will always claim themselves to deal effective damage, limit civilian casualties, especially children. Maybe you can try a different approach in discussion here. For example, start to state out personally what you think IDF was wrong with this operation (without end those sentences with "but it was because Hamas...", because every action must have some drawbacks) and how Israel could solve the situation diplomatically if she entirely have the world support. It will be easier to change opponent if you prove that you can looks at things from other perspective. PS: If you do not care about how the world think about Israel. Then you probably will not spend so much time discussing in this thread in the first place.
__________________
|
|
2009-01-23, 13:18 | Link #768 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-01-23, 13:51 | Link #769 | ||
Pretentious moe scholar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Where the article starts to look less plausible to me, however, is when it starts to talk about most of the dead being militants. Things like the article about the Islamic Jihad guy shows that journalists did visit hospitals in Gaza. If civilians were only a small fraction of the dead, this should have been obvious. Second, I have questions about how the doctor would have known this himself. How does a single person figure out that several hundred patients were enlisted by Hamas? The most damning evidence against the article, however, is this quote from a New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/wo...92b&ei=5087%0A Quote:
Clearly, we aren't going to know the actual numbers until the fog of war clears a bit, but I'd be a bit surprised if this report ends up being an accurate representation. It looks like Hamas is now using "collaboration" as a pretext to off its rivals: http://www.arabtimesonline.com/clien...=27563&ccid=11 |
||
2009-01-23, 14:02 | Link #770 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-01-23, 14:09 | Link #771 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
Oh come on. It was a war, and that thing happens. The surprising thing is that nobody says the same things when Israelis die. Did anyone of you bled your hearts and called foul when the two kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon were returned in boxes, or when the first soldier killed in Cast Lead was laid to rest, or when elderly Israelis die because of rockets from Gaza hitting their homes? Of course not... so why now? Because more Palis died? Will you still say that if the death count were reversed? They brought it upon themselves, and frankly, if the ones dead were future terrorists then there's nothing to mourn about.... at least for us. |
|
2009-01-23, 14:17 | Link #772 | |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 39
|
from the diplomatic front- nothing more could have been done
once israel pulled out of the strip there wasnt much more that could have been done and before anyone starts talking about the passes i will remind you that hamas had attacked the passes repeatedly during the past few years using both gunfire and bombers the passes were closed as a response to rocket attacks and attampets to sneak terrorists into israel proper using those passes and opening them again under rocket fire is unaccptable under any condtion from a millitery POV there is some things that i think could have been done differently (keep in mind that i dont know the full details) 1)the air force could have potentially used less powerful explosives when dealing with tagets that are located in civilian areas (but that also risks that the strike wouldnt be effective, past expiriance) 2)the ground forces could have used more care when imploying artilry fire against targets (as the cannons have a statistical chance of missing or causing area damage) 3)the general use of artilery could have been avoided when units are fighting in urben areas and instead replaced entirely by either gunboat or fighter support (i admit that i dont know the logistics involved in such use) as it would allow those firing to have a clearer view of the target area 4)the daily 3 hour-cease-fires could have been made longer (4-5 hours) 5)the deceition to keep reporters out could have been done better (letting reporters join IDF ground forces to give them a better view, as was done with several israeli reporters) but was nevertheless a good idea as they would only effect public opinion farther from inside the strip and since eygpt also didnt let them into the strip, and hamas was the reason why you didnt have any western reporters inside IN THE FIRST PLACE i wouldnt consider it an israeli move completely and exclusively 6)there was a process that the IDF used to imploy several years ago that was ruled illegal by the israeli court system (and therfor, no longer used) which could have potentially reduces the death toll it was called "nohal shahen" it basiclly ment that if there is a house where you believe that armed milltents are hiding, you send someone who lives in the area to knock on the door and ask them to surrender if they dont, you bulldoze the house with them inside it often proved effective becouse A)the procepect of being buried alive by a 100 ton steel death machine is normally enough to convince most people to surrender B)it puts the IDF soldiers at no risk as the D9 bulldozzer (code named: teddy-bear) cant be damaged by anything the millitents are likely to have, and it saves them the risk of warning the people inside the house themselves (they could end up taking fire after all) C)there is an honest attemped to convince the people inside to surrender and a way to confirm if there are non combatents inside the house (in which case, a different strategy could be used) the process was ruled illegal becouse it puts the innocent person who tries to warn the people inside the house to surrender in danger (he is after all an innocent civilian) as it stands since the soldiers cant know for sure if there are innocents inside, and dont have a way to find out, its all they can do to just put a tank shell in the house and move on to the next there were mistakes made on the ground as is the case in ALL wars but care was taken as much as possible to limit the death toll however, if millitents are firing from a house loaded with civilians at israeli soldiers and the commander has to make a choice to either let some of his soldiers die or to let some of the civilians die then i (personally) wouldnt see that there is even a question the UN things are NOT something that i would claim as a wrong action on the IDF's part already there are evidence showing that hamas had been using these places as a safe ground from which to attack using morter fire (and it wasnt the actual school building itself, that was hit but rather the open courtyard near it) and you are right when you say that i care about how the world views the IDF and israel in general but i care about how it views it in a years time, not five days after a cease-fire and at no point does it concern me enough that i would be willing to risk the life of a single israeli soldier in order to apease it the truth should let you know that most of the things you hear about in the news are at best explainable (such as the school thing) and at worse- complete lies wait and see dont forget that in 2002when israel preformed a similer operation in the west bank palestinian sources blamed the IDF of commiting a massacre in the jenin refugee camp with the numbers going as far as 1500 the final death toll - 54 (with most being millitents) the faking of civilian deaths is a well known palestinian strategy and it applys to more then just isarel when king hussein kicked the palestinians out of jorden when they tried to take over they claimed a death toll as high as 20,000 (this is known as black september) final death toll - 3,400 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...n#cite_note-12 dont just take the numbers as they are now wait for a while and see the end results @0utf0xZer0 like i said, wait and see in a few months @Thingle Quote:
we dont WANT to kill innocent people this as an unfortunete side effect for which we feel rather bad about
__________________
Last edited by bladeofdarkness; 2009-01-23 at 14:42. |
|
2009-01-23, 15:03 | Link #773 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
You keep saying things that aren't really true... both Pakistan and India have common interests with the US. Pakistan is proving a pretty ineffective ally over the last eight years since it won't really take action with the Taliban. Its only an ally by location more than thought, word, or deed. It is easily argued that Pakistan is against us because they harbor so many terrorists bent on the destruction of democracy (even what little democracy Pakistan has).
India, otoh, is more of an effective and real democracy. Like the French and the US, India and the US sometimes disagree but in the whole they make sense to each other more often. They're both our "allies" in the attempt to make terrorism ineffective. Its just unfortunate they waste a lot of time slapping each other. Back to the topic, Israel, long ago, made the strategic decision that hostages, captives, or civilians were "already dead" in terms of eliminating terrorists or militants. You can go all the way back to Munich and the Olympic hostages for that doctrine. That seems to be their tenor today if we follow blades line of thought: its tragic there were civilians but we will kill the enemy no matter who is trapped in the way. My opinion is that leads down a road of moral corrosion. Obviously, others disagree. I would withdraw if I came under fire from a location I knew to have non-combatants/civilians - and find another way. But then I don't subscribe to the strategic axiom I described above.
__________________
|
2009-01-23, 15:15 | Link #774 | |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 39
|
Quote:
this is not the way at all since when did this happen prey tell ? does this go hand in hand with providing early warnings and aborting strikes when the target is in a crowded area ? and since when did this apply to all hostages can someone be called a captive or a hostage when they are held by their own side ? considering we have gone to battle with other countries over hostages (entebe anyone) or sometimes even WAR (lebanon) and if you take fire from a location that you think civilains might be in and your reaction is to withdraw then you would never be able to ever conduct urben combat anywhere becouse thats what urben warfare IS thats the whole point of hamas fighting from those areas they do it IN ORDER TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK LIKE YOU well if you are fine with not going to war to protect your people, becouse it would mean that the people on the other side would get hurt then why not just bend over while your at it me, i rather think of it as "they will do this as long as it works, dont let it work even ONCE" do what you can for the civilians when ever possible, but never ever let it stop you from getting the job done thats why you dont negotiate with terrorists if they think something works, they will keep on doing it
__________________
|
|
2009-01-23, 15:26 | Link #775 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
And again, the trouble isn't so much about not caring about the Palestinians, it's about priorities. If nations and cultural identities didn't exist it would be easy to say one human life, no matter who or where in the world it is, is as valuable as another. However, when Israel's citizens are coming under attack, should the entire state of Israel not retaliate out of fear that it will kill or injure even a single innocent on the opposing side? (Note again that I do not care if "only" one Israel citizen is killed or maimed - one is too many.) This goes beyond human nature - this is basic animal instict that you protect your own (the concept is called kinship). Anyone who wants to tell me that they would do otherwise receives my applause for being idealistic and receives my criticism for not being honest with themselves. The rest is a philosophical thought experiment. If it took the deaths of a thousand innocents to bring ever-lasting peace to a region, but thousands would die over time due to constant fighting if peace were not brought about, should it happen? That isn't the reality of the situation, but what is true is that people are dying whether military intervention occurs or not. I think that many are failing to see that. Quote:
Granted, there is a difference between piracy (performed for money) and something like hostage-taking (performed for any number of reasons, here most likely to manipulate politics). There is no doubt in my mind that if hostage-taking caused the Israeli government (or even any government) to grant the hostage-takers one wish per hostage-taking event that it would become a very frequent occurrence. It's very apparent that people in that region aren't even really making efforts at negotiating. Nobody is seemingly willing to concede anything, which is what negotiation and compromise are about. If you could suddenly force everyone to do what you wanted, wouldn't that be terribly appealing?
__________________
|
||
2009-01-23, 15:29 | Link #776 | |||||||||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) I didn't say "might be in" I said known to be in. Red Cross and UN locations, for example. 2) You withdraw tactically and isolate. 3) It isn't really "urban warfare" without a lot of ground troops. A 4:1 advantage is recommended, though I suspect the war's popularity in Israel would drop like stone if actual risk were involved. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But basically I was speaking tactically. Its almost like some people could take lessons from SWAT teams, SEALS, and other forces that understand how to minimize unwanted casualties in urban areas. Using sledgehammers to swat bees ---. Sometimes this affair reminds me too much of the early Iraq-US war period when our leaders stupidly thought they could deal with the situation without much in the way of ground troops. Keeping ground troops to a minimum also means the war is "comfortable" for the voting public but it is a disaster in terms of actually achieving meaningful goals.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2009-01-23 at 15:55. |
|||||||||
2009-01-23, 15:43 | Link #777 | ||
Pretentious moe scholar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
As such, it ends up looking a lot more like a "well, we have to do SOMETHING" kind of response than something that's actually well thought out. Yes, it probably puts Israel into a better position to negotiate cease-fire terms, but nobody much likes people who use death and destruction as a bargaining chip - and Israelis should understand that better than anyone. Think that should answer the thought experiment part too. |
||
2009-01-23, 15:45 | Link #778 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-01-23, 15:45 | Link #779 |
Um-Shmum
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 39
|
what about the munich affair are you talking about, please explain
1)enemy civilians are ENEMY civilians, they naturally get lower priority then your own soldiers as far as im concerned 2)if you withdraw and icolate then what ? whats the next step, ask them if they want pizza for a hostage the IDF isnt a police force and this isnt a hostage crisis its a war, and enemy tactics are enemy tactics, no matter how low they are 3)israel isnt complying which what they want what they want is for this tactic to keep israel from attacking or to give their millitents more chances at killing israeli soldiers they dont get that becouse israel doesnt play their game if they want to hide behind innocents, they are at fault when those innocents die (as far as im concerned) if they want to prevent that, they can always surrender, or better yet no fight at all 4)your mistake is that you beileve this to be a tactical situation its a stratigic one this is their strategy, and allowing it to keep you from doing what has to be done is foolish 5)no negotiating with terrorists- especially not with the kind that boobytraps peoples homes and turns the streets where children play into minefields you wouldnt talk to al-qaida and we shouldnt talk to hamas if they change their retorics, maybe then and what annoys me is that you are judging this wrongly you are saying hamas does this on one hand and israel does that on the other hand and thats completely missing the point your general view on tactics is flawed becouse it doenst look at cause and effect for every single aspect of israeli conduct that you complain about you have to start out by saying the phrase "as a responce to hamas doing- whatever it is doing" israeli tactics are derived from REACTING to hamas's way of fighting and their tactics its never EVER "israel bombs houses" its "as a way of dealing with hamas using houses as weapon stashes and launch platforms, israel bombs houses"
__________________
|
2009-01-23, 16:11 | Link #780 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Seriously, if you're trying to adjust opinion here, you are failing miserably. You are barely making sense. You should read Ledgem's posts which are researched and carefully constructed.
1) Since when are the civilian Palestinians your enemy? Are you conflating them with terrorist groups now? Are you at war with Palestine or Hamas? 2) Do you really not get "surround and isolate"? Most of the flack Israel is taking is from hitting off-limits targets that were *in the area* - not the specific target location the incoming fire was coming from. The "sledgehammer used on bees" problem contributes. Triangulation and auto-fire contributes... Your statement here describes exactly why Israel fails... So if Hamas were inside Israel using the same tactics, you'd do exactly the same thing? 3) Israel is *exactly* complying with Hamas when it willingly fires large scale rounds into civilian locations because Hamas was somewhere nearby. Israel loses the PR battle every single time that way. Its the "there's a gangfight on the street, we'll lob cluster bombs in til they stop - its their fault that all the civilians running for cover were killed." 4) Individual actions are tactical by definition - rules of engagement are tactical. Strategic is how this plays out on the world stage and whether Israel benefits or loses influence. You can call names but you don't seem to understand the difference between tactical actions and strategic choices. 5) Thank you, but the Bush doctrine is dead. You *talk* to your adversaries constantly - even if you plan to do so only til you can find a big stick to kill them with. Talking to them accomplishes: a) spotlights them; they often end up looking worse on the world stage. b) gives information. probably the most important. You do want information, right? c) allows you to get information to the civilians in the way of counter-information and simply showing the enemy for what they are. People who refuse to talk to their adversaries are usually those who really don't want the status quo or their world view to change.
__________________
|
|
|