Gaza "beach" -- what really happened

[Loren Pechtel]

Shooting unarmed children = behavior of somebody who thinks they have a free-fire zone.

Bombing targets in a fenced military compound that appear to be retrieving supplies from a shed within the compound ≠ behavior of somebody who thinks they have a free-fire zone.

Once again, you seem to demand an impossibly high standard of certainty. Why is it that friendly fire incidents in the battlefield are not uncommon? Is it your notion that the average soldier doesn't care about killing his own soldiers, and that he just sprays bullets at every target he encounters? Or is it rather that there is a level of uncertainty that is always present, a fact of the world we live in, and that demanding near absolute certainty is not realistic nor possible?

I think what's going on is people are expecting Hollywood-level imagery. Look at the actual video the IDF releases--it's obviously taken from very far away, at best you can see roughly how tall someone is--and you aren't even going to do that in realtime.

 

[bilby]

Oh, yes it is.

Rather, they know the best way to protect their citizens is to stomp on Hamas when Hamas picks a fight.

By killing children? Do you realize with every post, you make the IDF look more barbaric and inhumane?

You seem to have quite a problem with understanding whose fault it is. The kids die because Hamas uses human shield tactics. Hamas is the one killing the children.

The IDF is killing the children whether they are human shields or not. Hamas may be putting the children in danger, but the IDF is pulling the proverbial trigger. For some reason, you are appear incapable of seeing the obvious: the IDF is responsible for its decisions and actions which makes it partially responsible for the deaths of those children.

If I told you a million times not to stand in the middle of the highway as there's a strong chance you'll get run over by a car, and you after all the warnings stand in the middle of the road and you get hit!
Is the car driver to blame?

Depends on the circumstances. If the driver of the car knew I was there and had time to stop, but chose to run me down anyway, then yes, he is to blame.

 

[laughing dog]

When one US soldier mistakenly kills another US soldier in a friendly fire incident, how responsible is the one who mistakenly did the killing?

Completely responsible.

Now, let's take it a step further: what if the US solider who was killed in the friendly fire incident took off his uniform and was moving around in an enemy controlled area where enemy fire was known to have occurred in the recent past?

Partly responsible.

With Israel, we have a case of individuals in an area where enemy fire was known to have occurred in the recent past and was thought to be an enemy stronghold. How responsible are they for bombing what they believed were aggressors but turned out not to be?

They are responsible for their actions. The IDF took action to maximize damage to Hamas and to minimize damage to the IDF which means they did not spend the resources or expose their personnel in an effort to clearly make out the identity of their targets. Even if their course of action was a rational decision, it does not absolve of their responsibility. The notion that because Hamas is evil or that it uses human shields (but not in this case) that the IDF is not responsible at all for its actions is ridiculous. Yet that is the position of many bigots, dupes of the Israeli gov't and Zionists.

 

[untermensche]

What you seem to be missing is the quality of the images. The IDF simply saw moving figures, not enough detail to know they were kids.

Thanks for proving my point.

They killed even when they had unreliable information.

They didn't care.

 

[Ford]

What you seem to be missing is the quality of the images. The IDF simply saw moving figures, not enough detail to know they were kids.

Thanks for proving my point.

They killed even when they had unreliable information.

They didn't care.

You forget that Palestinian kid = terrorist for the folks arguing against your point. All the Palestinians living in Gaza are "militants." Men, women, children...doesn't matter. That makes it easier to inflict collective punishment upon them.

 

[angelo]

Oh, yes it is.

Rather, they know the best way to protect their citizens is to stomp on Hamas when Hamas picks a fight.

By killing children? Do you realize with every post, you make the IDF look more barbaric and inhumane?

You seem to have quite a problem with understanding whose fault it is. The kids die because Hamas uses human shield tactics. Hamas is the one killing the children.

The IDF is killing the children whether they are human shields or not. Hamas may be putting the children in danger, but the IDF is pulling the proverbial trigger. For some reason, you are appear incapable of seeing the obvious: the IDF is responsible for its decisions and actions which makes it partially responsible for the deaths of those children.

If I told you a million times not to stand in the middle of the highway as there's a strong chance you'll get run over by a car, and you after all the warnings stand in the middle of the road and you get hit!
Is the car driver to blame?

Depends on the circumstances. If the driver of the car knew I was there and had time to stop, but chose to run me down anyway, then yes, he is to blame.

Like the IDF, the driver had no idea some idiot is going to stand in the middle of the road as he comes around a bend perhaps.
The easiest solution is for Hamas and Hezbollah to accept a Jewish state, and to drop the mantra, which they make no secret of, of killing each and every Jew, not just in the middle East, but everywhere in the world.
Would they happen to succeed, all infidels are next.

 

[Togo]

The easiest solution is for Hamas and Hezbollah to accept a Jewish state,

Like Fatah has? Has it done them any good, or are they still occupied by Israeli soldiers?


I'm intrigued by Auxlus' description of a 'fenced military compound'. Are you suggesting that Hamas builds 'purpose built' dedicated military structures, full of weapons and supplies, clearly labelled as such, that for some reason Israel doesn't destroy? Or are we talking about an area of beach that Israel has unilaterally decided is a military-only area, and thus that they can shell anyone there with impunity. Because it sounds awfully like Israel just shelled some children on a beach, and then said they were too close to a building they had decided themselves was for terrorists only, despite there being no one there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are responsible for their actions. The IDF took action to maximize damage to Hamas and to minimize damage to the IDF which means they did not spend the resources or expose their personnel in an effort to clearly make out the identity of their targets. Even if their course of action was a rational decision, it does not absolve of their responsibility. The notion that because Hamas is evil or that it uses human shields (but not in this case) that the IDF is not responsible at all for its actions is ridiculous. Yet that is the position of many bigots, dupes of the Israeli gov't and Zionists.

Armies are not obligated to risk their people to counter the human shield tactics of their enemy.

- - - Updated - - -

What you seem to be missing is the quality of the images. The IDF simply saw moving figures, not enough detail to know they were kids.

Thanks for proving my point.

They killed even when they had unreliable information.

They didn't care.

Unreliable information is the norm in war.

Ever hear the term "the fog of war"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The easiest solution is for Hamas and Hezbollah to accept a Jewish state,

Like Fatah has? Has it done them any good, or are they still occupied by Israeli soldiers?


I'm intrigued by Auxlus' description of a 'fenced military compound'. Are you suggesting that Hamas builds 'purpose built' dedicated military structures, full of weapons and supplies, clearly labelled as such, that for some reason Israel doesn't destroy? Or are we talking about an area of beach that Israel has unilaterally decided is a military-only area, and thus that they can shell anyone there with impunity. Because it sounds awfully like Israel just shelled some children on a beach, and then said they were too close to a building they had decided themselves was for terrorists only, despite there being no one there.

Fatah hasn't dropped it, they just don't have the money for shooting and they keep working with Hamas.

If Fatah and Hamas were to make a clean break then something might be possible in the West Bank. The fact that it's treason to reach such an agreement could pose a problem, though. (And it's also treason to try to repeal the law that makes it treason.)

 

[laughing dog]

Armies are not obligated to risk their people to counter the human shield tactics of their enemy.

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Armies are not obligated to risk their people to counter the human shield tactics of their enemy.

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

You're blaming Israel for not taking risks in order to avoid killing the human shields.

 

[laughing dog]

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

You're blaming Israel for not taking risks in order to avoid killing the human shields.

The IDF made a choice. The IDF is responsible for its choices and the consequences of those choices. There is no blame there - it is a recognition of reality. When Hamas makes choices or people in a church being fired upon make choices, you have no trouble pointing out the consequences of those choices and holding them responsible for those choices. In fact, you explicitly blame them for their choices. But you seem incapable of recognizing that the IDF is responsible for its choices and their consequences. Why is that?

Of course, in this particular case, there is no evidence that Hamas was using anyone as a human shield, which makes your replies appear even more ideologically based and even less tethered to reality.

 

[angelo]

Like Fatah has? Has it done them any good, or are they still occupied by Israeli soldiers?


I'm intrigued by Auxlus' description of a 'fenced military compound'. Are you suggesting that Hamas builds 'purpose built' dedicated military structures, full of weapons and supplies, clearly labelled as such, that for some reason Israel doesn't destroy? Or are we talking about an area of beach that Israel has unilaterally decided is a military-only area, and thus that they can shell anyone there with impunity. Because it sounds awfully like Israel just shelled some children on a beach, and then said they were too close to a building they had decided themselves was for terrorists only, despite there being no one there.

Fatah hasn't dropped it, they just don't have the money for shooting and they keep working with Hamas.

If Fatah and Hamas were to make a clean break then something might be possible in the West Bank. The fact that it's treason to reach such an agreement could pose a problem, though. (And it's also treason to try to repeal the law that makes it treason.)

A clean break you say! That's fantasy. There will never be a clean break while Hamas is the governing body. Hamas will never live next to a Jewish state.

 

[laughing dog]

Fatah hasn't dropped it, they just don't have the money for shooting and they keep working with Hamas.

If Fatah and Hamas were to make a clean break then something might be possible in the West Bank. The fact that it's treason to reach such an agreement could pose a problem, though. (And it's also treason to try to repeal the law that makes it treason.)

A clean break you say! That's fantasy. There will never be a clean break while Hamas is the governing body. Hamas will never live next to a Jewish state.

Um, Hamas is living next to a Jewish state right now.

 

[Ford]

A clean break you say! That's fantasy. There will never be a clean break while Hamas is the governing body. Hamas will never live next to a Jewish state.

Um, Hamas is living next to a Jewish state right now.

Why, that's just crazy talk. Next thing you know, someone will be trying to convince us all that on the other side of that Jewish state is an organization that used to be known as the PLO.


What ever happened to the PLO, anyway?

 

[bilby]

Um, Hamas is living next to a Jewish state right now.

Why, that's just crazy talk. Next thing you know, someone will be trying to convince us all that on the other side of that Jewish state is an organization that used to be known as the PLO.


What ever happened to the PLO, anyway?

Perhaps they got fed up with living next door to a Jewish state, and moved out?

 

[angelo]

Through no choice of their own. In 1948. when three tiny slivers of land were given to the Zionists as the Jewish state, what happened? The armies of Egypt, Syria, Iran and Jordan attacked the newly declared Israel, with the intent of destroying it. They told the local Arabs to flee as they would come back after the Arab armies were victorious.
But they got their arses kicked by a vast numerically inferior force. They re grouped and tried again in 1967 with the same result. The humiliation has never subsided.
Hence the birth of most of the terrorist factions, to keep up the war by terrorist means. No other people on earth, throughout its history has sent out children as suicide bombers, to kill as many Jewish children as possible. Only the Arabs are capable of such a thing.

 

[Arctish]

Through no choice of their own. In 1948. when three tiny slivers of land were given to the Zionists as the Jewish state......

Utterly false.

The three "tiny slivers of land" amounted to more than half of Palestine, while the people slated to recieve it amounted to less than 1/3 of the population. And the overwhelming majority of the favored group were recent arrivals from Europe. And they rejected the proposed borders because they wanted even more, so they implemented Plan Dalet and grabbed all the agricultural and industrial areas they could. The Partition Plan was never implemented.

But don't let that stop you from telling Zionist myths and fairy tales about the three tiny slivers of land and the plucky, noble, gentle folks who made the desert bloom just as soon as they figured out how to get rid of the natives settle the inexplicably abandoned villages of the nasty, brutish semites Christians and Muslims terrorists who used to live there.

 

[untermensche]

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

You're blaming Israel for not taking risks in order to avoid killing the human shields.

Blaming Israel for being blood thirsty and first killing children without accurate information as to whom they were killing, and then worse, far worse, calling these victims of bloodthirsty murderers "human shields", not humans, shields.

 

[angelo]

Through no choice of their own. In 1948. when three tiny slivers of land were given to the Zionists as the Jewish state......

Utterly false.

The three "tiny slivers of land" amounted to more than half of Palestine, while the people slated to recieve it amounted to less than 1/3 of the population. And the overwhelming majority of the favored group were recent arrivals from Europe. And they rejected the proposed borders because they wanted even more, so they implemented Plan Dalet and grabbed all the agricultural and industrial areas they could. The Partition Plan was never implemented.

But don't let that stop you from telling Zionist myths and fairy tales about the three tiny slivers of land and the plucky, noble, gentle folks who made the desert bloom just as soon as they figured out how to get rid of the natives settle the inexplicably abandoned villages of the nasty, brutish semites Christians and Muslims terrorists who used to live there.

Where the fuck do you get your history from, Hamas history books?
Industrial, agriculture? The three slivers included the Negeb desert. That would explain why there's very little industry in Gaza and the West Bank. [Samaria] Those thieving Joos stole it all.