http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729
Hamas video of rooftop deterrence and encouraging the behavior.
Hamas video of rooftop deterrence and encouraging the behavior.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729
Hamas video of rooftop deterrence and encouraging the behavior.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729
Hamas video of rooftop deterrence and encouraging the behavior.
So what?
In most cases, prior to the attacks, residents have been warned to leave, either via phone calls by the Israel military or by the firing of warning missiles.
That would mean the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy, and that cannot possibly be correct.So what?
Think his point is that civilian casualties in Gaza are a purposeful strategy by Hamas.
That would mean the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy, and that cannot possibly be correct.Think his point is that civilian casualties in Gaza are a purposeful strategy by Hamas.
You are incorrect. If using human beings is a Hamas strategy, then the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy when the IDF fires at the human shields. But it is counterproductive for the IDF to help its enemy fulfill its strategy. Ergo, firing at human shields (helping Hamas fulfill its strategy) is incorrect. It is an argument based on simple reasoning.That would mean the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy, and that cannot possibly be correct.
Reductio ad absurdum
Um, the US does it with drone attacks.The police in the US are not allowed to fire into a crowd in the hope of killing some suspect.
Only the Israelis are allowed to do that.
You are incorrect. If using human beings is a Hamas strategy, then the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy when the IDF fires at the human shields. But it is counterproductive for the IDF to help its enemy fulfill its strategy. Ergo, firing at human shields (helping Hamas fulfill its strategy) is incorrect. It is an argument based on simple reasoning.Reductio ad absurdum
- - - Updated - - -
Um, the US does it with drone attacks.The police in the US are not allowed to fire into a crowd in the hope of killing some suspect.
Only the Israelis are allowed to do that.
The US uses drones when it wants to get an individual.Um, the US does it with drone attacks.
You are incorrect. If using human beings is a Hamas strategy, then the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy when the IDF fires at the human shields. But it is counterproductive for the IDF to help its enemy fulfill its strategy. Ergo, firing at human shields (helping Hamas fulfill its strategy) is incorrect. It is an argument based on simple reasoning.Reductio ad absurdum
Then you have a logical problem in spinning the Palestinian civilian casualty count.You are incorrect. If using human beings is a Hamas strategy, then the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy when the IDF fires at the human shields. But it is counterproductive for the IDF to help its enemy fulfill its strategy. Ergo, firing at human shields (helping Hamas fulfill its strategy) is incorrect. It is an argument based on simple reasoning.
Except Israel doesn't fire when they successfully use the human shield tactics.
Ah, the blame the victim route (they cannot do the shield right). Wow.However, sometimes the shields are too close to the target but not yet on the roof when the bomb is dropped. That's when you get a bunch of civilian casualties.
Personally, I think they should look at something like delayed-action bombs. Drop anyway, the bomb hits and starts screaming "I'm a 60 second bomb! I'm a 60 second bomb! 59, 58..." The hard part would be providing an anti-tamper system so they can't just haul the bomb away before it goes off.
Fortunately not in US yet.You are incorrect. If using human beings is a Hamas strategy, then the IDF is complicit in helping Hamas fulfill its strategy when the IDF fires at the human shields. But it is counterproductive for the IDF to help its enemy fulfill its strategy. Ergo, firing at human shields (helping Hamas fulfill its strategy) is incorrect. It is an argument based on simple reasoning.Reductio ad absurdum
- - - Updated - - -
Um, the US does it with drone attacks.The police in the US are not allowed to fire into a crowd in the hope of killing some suspect.
Only the Israelis are allowed to do that.
Then you have a logical problem in spinning the Palestinian civilian casualty count.Except Israel doesn't fire when they successfully use the human shield tactics.
Ah, the blame the victim route (they cannot do the shield right). Wow.However, sometimes the shields are too close to the target but not yet on the roof when the bomb is dropped. That's when you get a bunch of civilian casualties.
You are still blaming the victim because getting their fast enough is part of doing it right. And, of course, there are IDF bombings where there is not enough time to do it right or get out fast enough.Then you have a logical problem in spinning the Palestinian civilian casualty count.
Ah, the blame the victim route (they cannot do the shield right). Wow.However, sometimes the shields are too close to the target but not yet on the roof when the bomb is dropped. That's when you get a bunch of civilian casualties.
It's not a matter of not being able to do it right, it's a matter of not being able to do it fast enough.