Gaza "beach" -- what really happened

[Arctish]

They're just Jews, it doesn't matter if some die.

.... he said in a thread he started so he could tout the latest excuses for Israel's needless killing of children.

- - - Updated - - -

Then who's firing rockets indiscriminately on to Israeli civilians? Let me guess, Mossad?

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

The rockets threaten the peace and security of Israeli citizens living near Gaza. They might cause Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory. They have zero chance of ending Israel's existence.

The more they attack Israel the more hardline the Israeli government gets and the more likely they would be to expand into Palestinian territory--not that they are doing so now.

Oh, I see. In your opinion, Israel isn't building settlements in the West Bank out of nationalist ambitions, or religion based entitlement, or to control important resources, or to secure strategically important territory. It's doing it because Israel was attacked and the proper response to that it to put more civilians in harm's way.

 

[Jayjay]

Maybe you should ask that from the Hamas leaders hiding in safe in their bunkers who decide to start these regular shooting matches?

They were fucking kids, playing on a beach not Hamas leaders. What kind of a person is OK with that?

Of course I'm not ok with that, but shit happens in a war. And this particular war was started by Hamas and they bear the brunt of the responsibility for the death of these children. What's Israel's culpability? An understandable human error of mistaking these people as militants in a situation where said militants are firing rockets at Israel.

 

[Jayjay]

Then who's firing rockets indiscriminately on to Israeli civilians? Let me guess, Mossad?

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

The rockets threaten the peace and security of Israeli citizens living near Gaza. They might cause Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory. They have zero chance of ending Israel's existence.

The more they attack Israel the more hardline the Israeli government gets and the more likely they would be to expand into Palestinian territory--not that they are doing so now.

Oh, I see. In your opinion, Israel isn't building settlements in the West Bank out of nationalist ambitions, or religion based entitlement, or to control important resources, or to secure strategically important territory. It's doing it because Israel was attacked and the proper response to that it to put more civilians in harm's way.

That's not the reason why Israel does it, but stupid-ass fireworks from Hamas make it easier to justify politically. And note that Israel isn't putting more civilians in harms's way, because Hamas isn't attacking the settlements. If Palestinians want to get rid of the settlers, they should attack them and not ineffectually prick at rest of Israel.

 

[Frikki]

They were fucking kids, playing on a beach not Hamas leaders. What kind of a person is OK with that?

Of course I'm not ok with that, but shit happens in a war. And this particular war was started by Hamas and they bear the brunt of the responsibility for the death of these children. What's Israel's culpability? An understandable human error of mistaking these people as militants in a situation where said militants are firing rockets at Israel.

You are excusing the killing of children. Congratulations you are on par with Loren.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course I'm not ok with that, but shit happens in a war. And this particular war was started by Hamas and they bear the brunt of the responsibility for the death of these children. What's Israel's culpability? An understandable human error of mistaking these people as militants in a situation where said militants are firing rockets at Israel.

You are excusing the killing of children. Congratulations you are on par with Loren.

And you are excusing putting children in harms way. Which is the same thing.

 

[bilby]

One nuclear bomb could easily wipe out the only Jewish State. Think if Hamas or any other terrorists had one or two bombs they wouldn't attempt to use then?

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

A 20 megaton bomb (rather larger than most nukes) has an effective radius of destruction of un-hardened buildings of about 17km (based on a 5psi blast overpressure, and on an air-burst at the optimum height of about 18,000ft AGL); unprotected buildings would catch fire out to a radius of about 30km.

According to Wikipedia, Israel stretches 424 km from north to south, and its width ranges from 114 km to, at its narrowest point, 15 km. Assuming that burning down most of the buildings would suffice, destroying all of Israel would take about 30 such huge bombs.

Of course, it makes little sense to nuke the Negev desert; according to Wikipedia, in total, Israel has 74 cities, 14 of which have populations of over 100,000. So if you only care about the big cities, 14 nukes would suffice (and these could be in the more 'sensible' 1 megaton range, rather than being 20MT blockbusters*); If you want to knock out all of the smaller cities as well, you might be best served to use fourteen 1-2 megaton range devices plus a further sixty in the 10-20 kiloton range.

One nuke could wipe out Tel-Aviv, but would not "destroy Israel" on its own.




Sent from my logic bunker using multiple independently targetable reasonableness vehicles.









*Even small nukes make a big bang, and so the effectiveness of a given mega-tonnage is far greater if you use lots of small bombs rather than one big one. Ten 100KT devices are a lot more destructive than one 1MT device; a hundred 10KT bombs are even more destructive again - not least because population tends to clump in towns and cities, so one big bomb just ends up extending the destruction out of the city and into surrounding farmland, while each small bomb can target the centre of a built up area. In the case of Israel, smaller devices also have the advantage of reducing any 'overspill' of blast or heat effects to areas outside the borders of the country itself, although radioactive fallout effects are obviously not so well contained in either scenario**. The 16KT device dropped on Hiroshima effectively destroyed that city, which had a population of about 350,000, about a third of whom were killed by the immediate impact of the bomb, with another third being injured. No matter how big the device had been, it could not have killed more than three times the actual number of people, simply because that was all there were in the target area. The difference between a 1MT and a 20MT device when targeting civilians in un-hardened buildings is purely academic; they all die in either case. The really big bombs are only good for wiping out hardened targets and/or targets for which the exact aim-point is uncertain.

**Radiation effects at Hiroshima probably killed about 1-2% of the number of people killed by the immediate blast and heat; Modern thermonuclear weapons are cleaner, and the effect of (and means to protect from) radiation after a nuclear strike are far better understood today, so radiation effects would likely be fairly small in relation to the big picture - albeit still accounting for thousands of deaths. Ecological non-radioactive effects, (eg 'nuclear winter' due to stratospheric particulate smoke) would likely cause non-trivial remote casualties over time in the Northern Hemisphere in any case, through diverse effects including crop failure induced famine, for example.

 

[untermensche]

You are excusing the killing of children. Congratulations you are on par with Loren.

And you are excusing putting children in harms way. Which is the same thing.

Yes, they were in harms way.

They had Israelis killing indiscriminately nearby.

 

[fromderinside]

And you are excusing putting children in harms way. Which is the same thing.

Yes, they were in harms way.

They had Israelis killing indiscriminately nearby.

Well if this is actually war then everybody's thrown into the pot. If this is just a little political demonstration one shouldn't resort to either putting kids where there are targets - that would be where the ones doing the bombing are aiming to get at the enemy combatants - or doing more than carving up a few acres of real estate where munitions ad delivery path are located. Neither side seems what they are doing is a political exercise once the shooting, rocket launching starts.

That is crazy.

If one presumes crazy we're back to killing anything that moves to get the most for the dollar in munitions.

There you go.

Crazy people are not responsible for their actions so how can they be convicted and why are we even talking about atrocities?

Are we just playing a "lets blame the ones I don't like game".

That' not rational either.

How about a solution beyond satisfying pride?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course I'm not ok with that, but shit happens in a war. And this particular war was started by Hamas and they bear the brunt of the responsibility for the death of these children. What's Israel's culpability? An understandable human error of mistaking these people as militants in a situation where said militants are firing rockets at Israel.

You are excusing the killing of children. Congratulations you are on par with Loren.

Nobody's excusing the killing of children. Rather, we are putting the blame where it belongs--with those that used the kids as human shields.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you are excusing putting children in harms way. Which is the same thing.

Yes, they were in harms way.

They had Israelis killing indiscriminately nearby.

The casualty distribution makes it very clear that Israel's targeting isn't indiscriminate. Despite Hamas' human shield tactics the numbers currently stand at 44% combatants, 36% civilian and 20% so far undetermined. (Note that this goes down over time as martyr pages for combatants often go up long after the fighting is over once the news has died down.)

When you're firing ordinance into cities this is a very good track record--it's even better considering the Hamas use of human shield tactics.

(And note that it's Hamas that's committing the war crime here with the use of human shields.)

 

[fromderinside]

You are excusing the killing of children. Congratulations you are on par with Loren.

Nobody's excusing the killing of children. Rather, we are putting the blame where it belongs--with those that used the kids as human shields.

Of course those stupid Israelis are just going to go in assuming the other side plays by the rules after they launched rockets indiscriminately toward civilian areas. read the reports. Jews always have the highest IQs./sheesh

 

[laughing dog]

You are excusing the killing of children. Congratulations you are on par with Loren.

Nobody's excusing the killing of children. Rather, we are putting the blame where it belongs--with those that used the kids as human shields.

An intellectually honest appraisal would note that placing the blame entirely on one party absolves the other party of any responsibility - which excuses the other party. So, yes, you are excusing the killing of children. Especially with such comments as "When you're firing ordinance into cities this is a very good track record--it's even better considering the Hamas use of human shield tactics".

 

[Jayjay]

(And note that it's Hamas that's committing the war crime here with the use of human shields.)

No, in this case there isn't credible evidence of Hamas using the kids as human shields, except in the broad sense that they started the war knowing full well some people would die.

Some other instances from that conflict would certainly qualify.

 

[angelo]

What hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that Israel isn't the aggressor. It's only defending itself. In some instances Israel does a pre-emptive attack if their intelligence has seen a build up of offensive weapons stored by the terrorist Hezbollah or hamas groups. Always using pin point accuracy as to minimise civilian casualties. The problem is Hamas has no scruples about disguising their terrorists as civilians.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

What hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that Israel isn't the aggressor.

Not in shooting but in annexing territories and mistreating Palestinian civilians in the occupied areas.

It's only defending itself. In some instances Israel does a pre-emptive attack if their intelligence has seen a build up of offensive weapons stored by the terrorist Hezbollah or hamas groups. Always using pin point accuracy as to minimise civilian casualties.

Pinpoint accuracy would mean no civilian casualties.

The problem is Hamas has no scruples about disguising their terrorists as civilians.

True. And they have no scruples about using human shields. There is no doubt that Hamas is a nasty violent group. And the IDF has little problem with shooting at suspected Hamas targets regardless. And the IDF has a long record for killing civilians that predates Hamas.

War means civilians get killed. That is the reality. The IDF is responsible for its choices and their consequences. It doesn't mean the IDF is the sole culprit or even that it is more responsible, but it is responsible in part.

 

[Arctish]

What hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that Israel isn't the aggressor. It's only defending itself.

Not exactly.

Three Jewish boys were kidnapped in the West Bank. Israel began raiding Hamas facilities, offices, and the homes of members, killing scores and arresting hundreds. When the boys were found to have been murdered, a Palestinian boy was murdered in retaliation. Tensions continued to rise, Israel and Palestinian factions continued to fight, it escalated into artillery fire and rocket attacks, but before it became a full blown military engagement, Israel killed four children playing soccer on a beach, much to the shock of the witnesses present that day.

This thread is about the IDF's lame attempt to convince people it had no idea who or what it was shooting at despite it's ability to blow them up with chilling precision.

 

[angelo]

So you're admitting the murdering terrorist struck first!

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Arctish]

So you're admitting the murdering terrorist struck first!

Do you even read my posts? I have never questioned the fact that it was the kidnapping and murder of the Yeshiva students in the West Bank that ramped up* the conflict in 2006. I have always tried to maintain a clear understanding of the timeline, and more often than not I'm the one refreshing everyone's memory of the sequence of events.

If something actually happened, I do my best to remember what, when, where, how, and why, unlike some who prefer to make up Just-So stories to handwave it all away.

*(ramped up, not started - this conflict goes all the way back to the early part of the last century)

 

[angelo]

The people actually lived in peace long before last century. The trouble started in 1948 when the UN granted the Jews a homeland. The Arabs went to war so as to push the Jews into the Med. Got much worse in the Six day war when they were humiliated by a numerically inferior people fighting for their homeland and their very lives. When the Palestinian speaks of a two state solution and peace in English, in Arabic they are saying nothing of the kind. They want nothing less than to kill every last Jew. Just like their prophet taught them to.
The Jews, under world pressure and hoping to appease their retractors pulled out of Gaza, hoping it would bring them peace. Instead it brought them a hostile state from which hamas could continue attacking Israel non stop. If they were to pull out of the Left Bank as well, they would be committing suicide.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Arctish]

The people actually lived in peace long before last century. The trouble started in 1948 when the UN granted the Jews a homeland. The Arabs went to war so as to push the Jews into the Med. Got much worse in the Six day war when they were humiliated by a numerically inferior people fighting for their homeland and their very lives. When the Palestinian speaks of a two state solution and peace in English, in Arabic they are saying nothing of the kind. They want nothing less than to kill every last Jew. Just like their prophet taught them to.
The Jews, under world pressure and hoping to appease their retractors pulled out of Gaza, hoping it would bring them peace. Instead it brought them a hostile state from which hamas could continue attacking Israel non stop. If they were to pull out of the Left Bank as well, they would be committing suicide.

Did you make that up or are you repeating what you've been told? There was peace under Ottoman rule, but when the Ottoman Empire crumbled, various factions (egged on by various European powers) started to fight over what form the new government(s) would take.

Most historians generally agree the fighting between Arab and Zionist nationalists got underway in 1920. There was a battle and a riot that year, another one in 1929, and another one in 1933, and every one of them was the result of rising tensions as European Jews began to systematically settle the area with the goal of establishing a Jewish State. Things got worse in the mid- 1930s, which is when Zionist terrorist organizations like the Irgun, Lehi, and the paramilitary Haganah became very active. The conflict intensified shortly after WWII when Zionist terrorism was in full swing, and survivors of the Holocaust were flocking to the region, determined to create a Jewish State for where Jews would never be a minority. And then the UN came up with a partition plan that was grossly unfair to the Palestinians, the Zionists implemented Plan Dalet to seize the best agricultural land, industrial areas, and resources, and guess what? The fighting got worse.

Also, Israel did not withdraw from Gaza to appease anyone. The containment walls were finished, Egypt had been bribed by the US into keeping their mutual border with Gaza closed, and it was too risky for the IDF to try to protect idiot religious fanatics who wanted to be locked in with millions of destitute, displaced Palestinians. So the idiot settlers were removed by force, and the isolation of the Gazans was complete.

There was never any chance imprisoning the people of Gaza would bring about peace, but Israel expected to be able to beat and starve them into submission, which some people apparently think is the same thing.