Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

How could the IDF possibly be more cautious? While also keeping their own troops alive?

Ukraine is doing quite well with small drone based explosives that don't destroy half a city block and its inhabitants.

Russians aren't actively trying to look like Ukrainian civilians. Nor embedding themselves within civilians to use them as protection.

They knew there was HAMAS in that building in the gif that was posted. A smaller explosive like used by drones in Ukraine that destroys tanks could have been used to kill those HAMAS members without destroying the surrounding buildings and killing the occupants

So now you are critiquing IDF tactics? I can think of many valid reasons to blow up a larger area in urban warfare.

Hamas wants to pull the IDF into narrow passages where they are exposed. This has been the plan of Hamas all along and what Hamas has prepared for the last 20 years. It would be a death trap for IDF to play along.

IDF has proven to be extremely well prepared and have managed to defuse Hamas effectively. But Hamas has had 20 years to prepare. So progress is slow.

I think IDF knows what they are doing. And they are extremely good at minimising Palestinian casualties. If they would bomb indiscriminately, (as Hamas) claims in their propaganda, this conflict would have been over in weeks

My problem with your attitude is that it places absurd demands on IDF

I've just demonstrated the demands are not absurd. Your lack of vision of the possibilities of other interventions is not a good argument.

Stop living in fantasy land. Reality isn't what you think it should be.

Reality is what is happening in Ukraine effectively stopping Russia, a major super power, from taking over their country using explosive kamikaze drones. You're lack of imagination is not reality.

Your conclusions are absurd. The two wars could not be more different

Hamas have absolutely no regard for any human lives. They don't respect the dignity of any human. They’re a barbaric organisation

It appears that the IDF have that same lack of respect.

Its for saying stuff like that that makes me call people antisemitic. Its only true if you uncritically swallow absurd Hamas propaganda. Its so unrealistic that I think antisemitism is required to fall for it.

 

[Tigers!]

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.

"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

Of course it's something to be done after the goal of removing Hamas from power has been achieved.

Everyone participating in this discussion thread has agreed that Hamas must be removed from power in Gaza, and kept from power in the West Bank, for there to be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Do I really have to say it every fucking time, over and over again, like I'm talking to a very slow-learning child, or can I just post as though I'm having a discussion with an average adult who is able to remember simple points of mutual agreement?

You agree that Hamas must be defeated militarily. The only ones, repeat the only ones, taking military action against Hamas are Israel.
Yet all you do is complain, crititise Israel's military action.
Do you want Hamas defeated militarily or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

 

[Arctish]

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.

"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

Of course it's something to be done after the goal of removing Hamas from power has been achieved.

Everyone participating in this discussion thread has agreed that Hamas must be removed from power in Gaza, and kept from power in the West Bank, for there to be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Do I really have to say it every fucking time, over and over again, like I'm talking to a very slow-learning child, or can I just post as though I'm having a discussion with an average adult who is able to remember simple points of mutual agreement?

You agree that Hamas must be defeated militarily. The only ones, repeat the only ones, taking military action against Hamas are Israel.
Yet all you do is complain, crititise Israel's military action.
Do you want Hamas defeated militarily or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

I do want Hamas defeated militarily.

I do not want war crimes to be committed in pursuit of that goal, even if it means the war might go on longer when the IDF can't just shoot through babies being used as human shields by Hamas kidnappers.

I have not criticized everything Israel has done. I do not believe that all the IDF ever does is go around committing war crimes. But there have been credible reports of war crimes being committed by IDF forces, and such actions I do criticize, just as I criticize the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Hamas in October 2023 and in the months that followed.

Do you want war crimes to be committed in pursuit of the goal of Hamas being defeated militarily, or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

 

[Gospel]

Yes. I understand and agree that difficult choices need to be made. However, my issue lies with rhetoric suggesting that the children deserve such outcomes. I genuinely cannot understand what’s wrong with some of you.

Who says that children deserve such outcomes?

Run a search in this thread for 'Gazans' and posts by TomC. The term 'Gazans' appears to generalize the actions and intentions of all people in Gaza, attributing violence or specific political stances to the entire population. While I don't believe TomC intended to do this, I raised the issue to help ensure such generalizations are avoided. Unfortunately, this has since escalated, with me being labeled as a Hamas supporter and a Jew hater. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Harry Bosch]

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.

"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

Of course it's something to be done after the goal of removing Hamas from power has been achieved.

Everyone participating in this discussion thread has agreed that Hamas must be removed from power in Gaza, and kept from power in the West Bank, for there to be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Do I really have to say it every fucking time, over and over again, like I'm talking to a very slow-learning child, or can I just post as though I'm having a discussion with an average adult who is able to remember simple points of mutual agreement?

You agree that Hamas must be defeated militarily. The only ones, repeat the only ones, taking military action against Hamas are Israel.
Yet all you do is complain, crititise Israel's military action.
Do you want Hamas defeated militarily or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

I do want Hamas defeated militarily.

I do not want war crimes to be committed in pursuit of that goal, even if it means the war might go on longer when the IDF can't just shoot through babies being used as human shields by Hamas kidnappers.

I have not criticized everything Israel has done. I do not believe that all the IDF ever does is go around committing war crimes. But there have been credible reports of war crimes being committed by IDF forces, and such actions I do criticize, just as I criticize the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Hamas in October 2023 and in the months that followed.

Do you want war crimes to be committed in pursuit of the goal of Hamas being defeated militarily, or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

I don’t want war crimes to occur. But totally agree that hamas must be defeated.

 

[Gospel]

We’re all on the same page here. The challenge with this discussion is that, to some members, anything perceived as unfavorable to Israel is labeled as antisemitic or Hamas propaganda. Even questions about Israel’s future actions are considered overly critical, despite Israel itself taking the very steps being suggested and its leadership making similar statements. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ZiprHead]

How could the IDF possibly be more cautious? While also keeping their own troops alive?

Ukraine is doing quite well with small drone based explosives that don't destroy half a city block and its inhabitants.

Russians aren't actively trying to look like Ukrainian civilians. Nor embedding themselves within civilians to use them as protection.

They knew there was HAMAS in that building in the gif that was posted. A smaller explosive like used by drones in Ukraine that destroys tanks could have been used to kill those HAMAS members without destroying the surrounding buildings and killing the occupants

So now you are critiquing IDF tactics? I can think of many valid reasons to blow up a larger area in urban warfare.

Without killing the innocent?

Hamas wants to pull the IDF into narrow passages where they are exposed. This has been the plan of Hamas all along and what Hamas has prepared for the last 20 years. It would be a death trap for IDF to play along.

IDF has proven to be extremely well prepared and have managed to defuse Hamas effectively. But Hamas has had 20 years to prepare. So progress is slow.

I think IDF knows what they are doing. And they are extremely good at minimising Palestinian casualties. If they would bomb indiscriminately, (as Hamas) claims in their propaganda, this conflict would have been over in weeks

WaPo - Unguided ‘dumb bombs’ used in almost half of Israeli strikes on Gaza The revelation, disclosed in a U.S. intelligence assessment, emerged as American officials press Israel to take a more targeted approach to its military campaign

I agree with one part of your rebuttal. I think the IDF knows what they are doing too.

My problem with your attitude is that it places absurd demands on IDF

I've just demonstrated the demands are not absurd. Your lack of vision of the possibilities of other interventions is not a good argument.

Stop living in fantasy land. Reality isn't what you think it should be.

Reality is what is happening in Ukraine effectively stopping Russia, a major super power, from taking over their country using explosive kamikaze drones. You're lack of imagination is not reality.

Your conclusions are absurd. The two wars could not be more different

Hamas have absolutely no regard for any human lives. They don't respect the dignity of any human. They’re a barbaric organisation

It appears that the IDF have that same lack of respect.

Its for saying stuff like that that makes me call people antisemitic. Its only true if you uncritically swallow absurd Hamas propaganda. Its so unrealistic that I think antisemitism is required to fall for it.

Look at all that HAMAS propaganda provided by the IDF in those photographs. You do know there were people in those what were once buildings, right?

 

[laughing dog]

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.

"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

Of course it's something to be done after the goal of removing Hamas from power has been achieved.

Everyone participating in this discussion thread has agreed that Hamas must be removed from power in Gaza, and kept from power in the West Bank, for there to be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Do I really have to say it every fucking time, over and over again, like I'm talking to a very slow-learning child, or can I just post as though I'm having a discussion with an average adult who is able to remember simple points of mutual agreement?

You agree that Hamas must be defeated militarily. The only ones, repeat the only ones, taking military action against Hamas are Israel.
Yet all you do is complain, crititise Israel's military action.
Do you want Hamas defeated militarily or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

It is a simple question. And like most simple questions, it is a leading question.

Your question conflates a means (military action)to an end (Hamas’s defeat). The two are not synonymous. Disagreement over the means does not imply disagreement about the end.

Hamas must be defeated either militarily or otherwise for there to a chance for lasting peace in the region, but that does not mean by Israel has carte blanche in the methods.

For example, I take it you approve of military action to defeat Hamas. Does that approval include the effective ethnic cleansing or genocide or the deaths of half the civilian population if Gaza? If not, I hope you can begin to understand how meaningless a simple answer to your simple question is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I do want Hamas defeated militarily.

I do not want war crimes to be committed in pursuit of that goal, even if it means the war might go on longer when the IDF can't just shoot through babies being used as human shields by Hamas kidnappers.

I have not criticized everything Israel has done. I do not believe that all the IDF ever does is go around committing war crimes. But there have been credible reports of war crimes being committed by IDF forces, and such actions I do criticize, just as I criticize the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Hamas in October 2023 and in the months that followed.

Do you want war crimes to be committed in pursuit of the goal of Hamas being defeated militarily, or not? It is a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

I don’t want war crimes to occur. But totally agree that hamas must be defeated.

I believe the word we are looking for is "marginalized". The US never really "defeated" al Qaeda.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you're missing is that the prisoner swap lead to an invasion.

Because some of released prisoners participated? LOL

s/participated/lead/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not just terrorist/militants, but civilians as well.

Blame Hamas et al for hiding/operating among civilians.

What stops the IDF from announcing its cancellation of the safe zone designation? Come on, instead of deflecting from the issue by appealing to expediency, answer the question.

Why don't you answer this question instead: why do you fault Israel for not "canceling" a zone that is still relatively safe rather than blaming Hamas and other terrorist group for violating it?

More deflection.

You're the one deflecting.

From your response, I see you tacitly approve of deception on the basis of expediency.

Once again, you are demanding perfection in a situation where that is not possible.

 

[laughing dog]

Not just terrorist/militants, but civilians as well.

Blame Hamas et al for hiding/operating among civilians.

What stops the IDF from announcing its cancellation of the safe zone designation? Come on, instead of deflecting from the issue by appealing to expediency, answer the question.

Why don't you answer this question instead: why do you fault Israel for not "canceling" a zone that is still relatively safe rather than blaming Hamas and other terrorist group for violating it?

More deflection.

You're the one deflecting.

From your response, I see you tacitly approve of deception on the basis of expediency.

Once again, you are demanding perfection in a situation where that is not possible.

The irony of your straw men is epically mindblowing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a Javelin, the time machine is going to yeet you to Braunau am Inn at midnight of April 20, 1889 but the link can't be maintained, you snap back in 30 seconds. What do you do in those 30 seconds?

Do I retain the memory of who that baby would become? Think about that question, Loren, it's important.

So it's your perception of what you did vs the actual outcome?

I'm not answering your hypothetical scenario. My concern is that you are justifying the deaths of individuals based on a perceived, non-imminent threat. While Hamas combatants pose a clear and immediate danger, the same cannot be said for Palestinian civilians, especially children. Your argument seems to imply that these children are destined to become future Hitlers, which you use to rationalize the kind of decision you'd entertain in a time-travel scenario. Why else would you ask if I’d kill the infant, in what appears to be an attempt to persuade me to support the killing of Palestinian children?

We apply the imminent threat standard because you're expected to go to the police otherwise. Neither the police nor nations work on that basis, though, because there's nobody to go to.

As for the scenario--I was simply presenting a situation where killing one would save millions. And, as always happens, the hard question is not answered.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Let me clarify: my comment wasn't intended to answer your question because your question doesn't address my argument. You're asking if I would kill Hitler as a child to save millions of lives, and my answer would be yes—but only under specific conditions. I asked whether I’d retain the memory of who that baby became because neither you nor I can predict what Palestinian children will grow up to do. There's a significant difference between a scenario where there's concrete proof that a child's death would save lives and one based on a utilitarian justification that sacrifices innocent lives without certainty. That seems pretty counterproductive to saving lives, if you ask me. Based on your arguments, it appears you don't value their lives at all so I'm talking to the wind.

As I said, the hard question is never answered. And once again it is not answered. Whether you remember is irrelevant. Does the action somehow become wrong if you lose the memory of why it was done???

And it is relevant because I was addressing the claim that killing a child is always wrong.

In Gaza you can't make a case one way or another about a specific child, but you can make the general case that an absolute refusal to kill children results in genocide. We come back to that cartoon I presented some time ago: the Hamas fighter with a baby in their plate carrier. While it is not meant to be interpreted literally the concept is very relevant. Hamas sets it up so as many civilians as possible die when Israel defends itself.

 

[Gospel]

but you can make the general case that an absolute refusal to kill children results in genocide.

You’re conjuring this so-called 'absolute refusal' out of thin air. It doesn’t exist, and pretending otherwise only undermines any real dialogue. If you want a constructive conversation, drop the made-up claims and stick to the facts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Let me clarify: my comment wasn't intended to answer your question because your question doesn't address my argument. You're asking if I would kill Hitler as a child to save millions of lives, and my answer would be yes—but only under specific conditions. I asked whether I’d retain the memory of who that baby became because neither you nor I can predict what Palestinian children will grow up to do. There's a significant difference between a scenario where there's concrete proof that a child's death would save lives and one based on a utilitarian justification that sacrifices innocent lives without certainty. That seems pretty counterproductive to saving lives, if you ask me. Based on your arguments, it appears you don't value their lives at all so I'm talking to the wind.

As I said, the hard question is never answered. And once again it is not answered. Whether you remember is irrelevant. Does the action somehow become wrong if you lose the memory of why it was done???

And it is relevant because I was addressing the claim that killing a child is always wrong.

In Gaza you can't make a case one way or another about a specific child, but you can make the general case that an absolute refusal to kill children results in genocide. We come back to that cartoon I presented some time ago: the Hamas fighter with a baby in their plate carrier. While it is not meant to be interpreted literally the concept is very relevant. Hamas sets it up so as many civilians as possible die when Israel defends itself.

Let's take deaths out of the picture. How many children in Gaza have a home to return to?

How is this going to be addressed? Yes, Hamas is a problem. Yes, there was going to be destruction after the October massacre. But how many children in Gaza have no where to return for a home?

 

[Gospel]

As I said, the hard question is never answered. And once again it is not answered.

It was answered.

I'm not answering your hypothetical scenario. My concern is that you are justifying the deaths of individuals based on a perceived, non-imminent threat. While Hamas combatants pose a clear and immediate danger, the same cannot be said for Palestinian civilians, especially children. Your argument seems to imply that these children are destined to become future Hitlers, which you use to rationalize the kind of decision you'd entertain in a time-travel scenario. Why else would you ask if I’d kill the infant, in what appears to be an attempt to persuade me to support the killing of Palestinian children?

How about this. You know where the Führerbunker is. You command a Superfortress capable of reaching it and striking it with a bomb capable of taking it out. Do you give the go ahead even though you know there are children in the bunker?

Yes. I understand and agree that difficult choices need to be made. However, my issue lies with rhetoric suggesting that the children deserve such outcomes. I genuinely cannot understand what’s wrong with some of you.

You either overlooked it by mistake or deliberately chose to omit it. See how that works? I’m not assigning motives, I’m simply stating the facts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are failing to do so because you are considering anything they do in self defense to be unacceptable.

You're saying my endorsement of Israel's aim to eliminate Hamas means I actually disapprove of it? I don't follow your logic.

No, you want to see Hamas gone. You just aren't considering what is actually going on there and are playing right into their hand. By far the most powerful weapon Hamas has is it's own dead civilians--but it only works if you let it work.

There you go again, twisting my arguments. I’ve been specifically addressing the statements made by you and DrZoidberg that equate all Palestinians to Hamas, yet you respond as if I’m criticizing Israel. This is exactly the kind of disingenuous bullshit I’m talking about. It’s the same infuriating tactic you pull every time, and it’s absolutely maddening.

I'm not twisting your argument. I'm not saying your saying Hamas should go as supporting Hamas.

What both Z and I are saying is that by putting impossible restrictions on Israel you are attempting to follow a path to a Hamas victory (genocide of Israel.) He apparently considers you a knowing participant, I do not. Rather, you are refusing to think through a situation where all paths are horrible. The world is a good place, there can't be a situation where only horrible outcomes exist--but that's the reality. Pulled again and again and again by dictators sacrificing their own population to manipulate the western powers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.

A gif in the wiki article about the strike in question (that he posted, mind you) clearly shows a secondary explosion.

Could be the bomb struck in one corner of the building destroying that section of the building and the energy from the explosion forced its way down corridor(s) of the remainder of the building and possibly through closed doors and out some window(s) milliseconds later. Couldn't it? Concrete walls and wooden doors might make this scenario possible.
I guess we all see what we want to see.

I see you grasping at virtual straws.

The secondary isn't milliseconds later. I don't have anything to do a frame-by-frame on a .GIF but it is at least one second after the original boom. And if the original bomb struck a corner we would see blast radiating out from that point. We don't--the original blast is heading up, saying that there was no way for it to head out. Typical for a below-ground detonation. In theory enough concrete could reflect a blast but if that happened we would see it happening long before we do.

This is a perfectly ordinary video of a bomb causing a secondary, the only reason to think it's not is if you're desperate to blame Israel for what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How many lives on both sides of WWII could have been saved, if only the Marshall Plan had begun in 1944 instead of 1948! But the Allies just kept on shooting and bombing Germans, no doubt because Americans believed racist nonsense about the character of German people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

Did you miss the point I was making, or are you trying to drag the conversation away from it?

He's not trying to drag the conversation away, he's pointing out the flaw with your reasoning.

If Israelis want the Gazan Palestinians to disavow violence and choose to pursue peaceful negotiations and reconciliation with Israel then they should ensure that the PA's efforts to do just that result in positive things for Palestinians in the West Bank. Things like recognizing the Right of the indigenous people of Palestine to remain in their homeland and participate in the government that rules over it regardless of their religious beliefs. Also, their government receiving royalties on the natural resources being extracted from their land, like what happens in nearly every other country in the world. And being able to enforce their laws within their borders, and being able to receive assistance (without imperiling their sovereignty) when confronted with criminal gangs and terrorist organizations beyond their ability to combat.

Peaceful negotiations? I haven't seen Iran at the negotiating table at all. Until that happens negotiations are only of local relevance and are not capable of resolving things. Besides, Hamas has so far not even provided the most basic of negotiating information: what they have to offer. Specifically, a list of who is alive. That means that either they are not interested in actually reaching an agreement or that they aren't in control of some of the hostages and thus aren't capable of meeting Israel's minimum conditions.

It's easy to radicalize people enduring grinding poverty, especially when there is a government or organizations that made them poor and continues to take everything of value they still have. It's much more difficult to get prosperous people living peaceful lives to take the inherent risk of upsetting the current order, even if they dislike their government and their neighbors.

They weren't in grinding poverty when they launched the second intifada.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.

A gif in the wiki article about the strike in question (that he posted, mind you) clearly shows a secondary explosion.

Could be the bomb struck in one corner of the building destroying that section of the building and the energy from the explosion forced its way down corridor(s) of the remainder of the building and possibly through closed doors and out some window(s) milliseconds later. Couldn't it? Concrete walls and wooden doors might make this scenario possible.
I guess we all see what we want to see.

I see you grasping at virtual straws.

The secondary isn't milliseconds later. I don't have anything to do a frame-by-frame on a .GIF but it is at least one second after the original boom. And if the original bomb struck a corner we would see blast radiating out from that point. We don't--the original blast is heading up, saying that there was no way for it to head out. Typical for a below-ground detonation. In theory enough concrete could reflect a blast but if that happened we would see it happening long before we do.

This is a perfectly ordinary video of a bomb causing a secondary, the only reason to think it's not is if you're desperate to blame Israel for what happened.

There are certainly been secondary damage caused by stored munitions by militants. Are you suggesting most of the damage has been?