Gaza derail from ICE detention centre thread

[Arctish]

Note that you are taking it as a given that the soccer players and the shooters are different people. It makes much more sense if they are one in the same.

There is no rational reason that it necessarily makes more sense to conclude the victims deserved their deaths unless one is looking for any reason to excuse the IDF.

Occam's Razor.

We have a missile coming from that location. They were of an age to be combatants. They didn't leave when they saw a missile team setting up (and they certainly should have!) The simplest explanation is that they were the missile crew.

An anti-tank round came from that direction, therefore it's safe to presume everyone in the area was complicit and deserved to die? Suspicion of involvement is as good as proof?

What happens when a missile comes from the direction of Israel? What happens when it's Israeli teenagers near where it was fired? It's okay for Hamas to kill them, right? Because if they aren't in the IDF already, they soon will be, right?

Like I said in the other thread, that door swings both ways. You might want to think carefully about opening it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Occam's Razor.

We have a missile coming from that location. They were of an age to be combatants. They didn't leave when they saw a missile team setting up (and they certainly should have!) The simplest explanation is that they were the missile crew.

An anti-tank round came from that direction, therefore it's safe to presume everyone in the area was complicit and deserved to die? Suspicion of involvement is as good as proof?

What happens when a missile comes from the direction of Israel? What happens when it's Israeli teenagers near where it was fired? It's okay for Hamas to kill them, right? Because if they aren't in the IDF already, they soon will be, right?

Like I said in the other thread, that door swings both ways. You might want to think carefully about opening it.

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

 

[bilby]

Occam's Razor.

We have a missile coming from that location. They were of an age to be combatants. They didn't leave when they saw a missile team setting up (and they certainly should have!) The simplest explanation is that they were the missile crew.

An anti-tank round came from that direction, therefore it's safe to presume everyone in the area was complicit and deserved to die? Suspicion of involvement is as good as proof?

What happens when a missile comes from the direction of Israel? What happens when it's Israeli teenagers near where it was fired? It's okay for Hamas to kill them, right? Because if they aren't in the IDF already, they soon will be, right?

Like I said in the other thread, that door swings both ways. You might want to think carefully about opening it.

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

Tanks don't think, and they don't fire.

Tank crews often don't think very clearly when they believe themselves to be under attack. Tank crews are typically young men, often with very little experience of serious threats - very few tank crews, even in Israel, have likely experienced a serious attack that posed a real danger to their lives.

Young men pumped up on adrenaline are not renowned for making cooly rational decisions; Nor do they typically defer to the opinions of their inanimate vehicles.

 

[Arctish]

Occam's Razor.

We have a missile coming from that location. They were of an age to be combatants. They didn't leave when they saw a missile team setting up (and they certainly should have!) The simplest explanation is that they were the missile crew.

An anti-tank round came from that direction, therefore it's safe to presume everyone in the area was complicit and deserved to die? Suspicion of involvement is as good as proof?

What happens when a missile comes from the direction of Israel? What happens when it's Israeli teenagers near where it was fired? It's okay for Hamas to kill them, right? Because if they aren't in the IDF already, they soon will be, right?

Like I said in the other thread, that door swings both ways. You might want to think carefully about opening it.

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

So why did they also fire at a tent full of mourners attending a funeral?

See, this is what happens when you assume your conclusion and post bullshit. You assumed the Israelis only returned fire on people involved in the attack and now you're coming up with bullshit reasons why the soccer players were guilty. But you forgot about the people in the tent, probably because you didn't read the linked articles, so your bullshit reasons don't even cover the basic facts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

Tanks don't think, and they don't fire.

Tank crews often don't think very clearly when they believe themselves to be under attack. Tank crews are typically young men, often with very little experience of serious threats - very few tank crews, even in Israel, have likely experienced a serious attack that posed a real danger to their lives.

Young men pumped up on adrenaline are not renowned for making cooly rational decisions; Nor do they typically defer to the opinions of their inanimate vehicles.

Of course "the tank" really meant it's crew. Focusing on this is trying to avoid addressing the real issue.

We have a missile from that general area and the field is the logical launch point. We have a tank firing upon that point. Why are you bending over backwards to avoid considering the possibility that the tank's round was on target?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

So why did they also fire at a tent full of mourners attending a funeral?

See, this is what happens when you assume your conclusion and post bullshit. You assumed the Israelis only returned fire on people involved in the attack and now you're coming up with bullshit reasons why the soccer players were guilty. But you forgot about the people in the tent, probably because you didn't read the linked articles, so your bullshit reasons don't even cover the basic facts.

Why do you blindly accept the terrorists' word for what people were doing?

Especially since in the time after the conflict most of those "civilians" are found to have terrorist ties.

 

[Arctish]

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

So why did they also fire at a tent full of mourners attending a funeral?

See, this is what happens when you assume your conclusion and post bullshit. You assumed the Israelis only returned fire on people involved in the attack and now you're coming up with bullshit reasons why the soccer players were guilty. But you forgot about the people in the tent, probably because you didn't read the linked articles, so your bullshit reasons don't even cover the basic facts.

Why do you blindly accept the terrorists' word for what people were doing?

Especially since in the time after the conflict most of those "civilians" are found to have terrorist ties.

I don't blindly accept anyone's word, especially not the word of propagandists and bullshitters.

For example:

We have a missile from that general area and the field is the logical launch point. We have a tank firing upon that point. Why are you bending over backwards to avoid considering the possibility that the tank's round was on target?

The soccer field is not the most logical launch point. It only seems that way to you because you have assumed it to be true.

The most logical launch point is a place with a good view of the IDF forces that _also_ provides cover for the shooters so that they could remain undetected as they set up, aimed, and fired.

The most logical thing for boys playing soccer to do is pay attention to the game, not to what someone nearby might be doing. Seriously, Loren, have you no clue? It's not like a video game where you can crack open a Pepsi and keep an eye on the neighbors between left-clicking your mouse.

The most logical reaction for Gazan boys playing soccer to have when someone fires off an anti-tank round from nearby is to run for their lives. Past performance indicates the IDF will presume any Palestinians in the vicinity are guilty of aiding and abetting the attack, especially the males, and target them for return fire. The fact the boys were running after the round was fired is not evidence they were in any way responsible or that they saw the shooter and just stood there gawking.

There is no reason to suppose the mourners at the funeral saw the anti-tank round heading towards the IDF Jeep or the return fire heading towards them. There is no logical reason for them to be targeted other than
1. the IDF supposing the shooters were among them or nearby and using the tent as cover, and/or
2. collective punishment of civilians.

 

[bilby]

The tank wouldn't have fired unless it thought it saw the launch point. It's not everyone in that general direction. If the missile didn't come from the "soccer players" where did it come from?

Tanks don't think, and they don't fire.

Tank crews often don't think very clearly when they believe themselves to be under attack. Tank crews are typically young men, often with very little experience of serious threats - very few tank crews, even in Israel, have likely experienced a serious attack that posed a real danger to their lives.

Young men pumped up on adrenaline are not renowned for making cooly rational decisions; Nor do they typically defer to the opinions of their inanimate vehicles.

Of course "the tank" really meant it's crew. Focusing on this is trying to avoid addressing the real issue.

Not at all. It's pointing out your euphemistically assigning the actions of the tank crew to an inanimate (and therefore blameless) machine, thereby rendering the questions of morality or responsibility moot.

But the crew are human, fallible, responsible for their actions (even those made in error or without pause for thought), and are reasonably to be expected to act in a fashion that is moral, not merely reactive.

We have a missile from that general area and the field is the logical launch point. We have a tank firing upon that point. Why are you bending over backwards to avoid considering the possibility that the tank's round was on target?

I am completely disinterested in the questions of whether the tank's round was targeted at the appropriate place, or of whether it was on target (these are NOT the same thing; I note your further euphemistic language). I am interested in pointing out that you are FAR from being the unbiased and coolly rational commentator that you appear to think yourself.

I don't have sufficient information to know whether the people killed by the tank crew were responsible for the attack on the tank. But I DO know that you too lack that information, and that your certainty that the tank crew did nothing wrong, is as misplaced as your certainty that the people they killed did anything wrong.

You have (as usual) picked a side, and decided to ignore any evidence that makes your chosen side look bad, while highlighting any evidence that makes the other side look bad. This is a MAJOR error on your part - even those who are present at, and those who make a forensic analysis of the aftermath of, a fatal military action, are rarely possessed of sufficient evidence as to be as certain of their conclusions as you are. You might be right. But your refusal to even entertain the idea that you might also be wrong is painful to watch. Certainty is the mind killer. You're not an idiot - stop being certain, stop having faith, and start thinking!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you blindly accept the terrorists' word for what people were doing?

Especially since in the time after the conflict most of those "civilians" are found to have terrorist ties.

I don't blindly accept anyone's word, especially not the word of propagandists and bullshitters.

For example:

We have a missile from that general area and the field is the logical launch point. We have a tank firing upon that point. Why are you bending over backwards to avoid considering the possibility that the tank's round was on target?

The soccer field is not the most logical launch point. It only seems that way to you because you have assumed it to be true.

The most logical launch point is a place with a good view of the IDF forces that _also_ provides cover for the shooters so that they could remain undetected as they set up, aimed, and fired.

You never replied to my post talking about the realities of firing such missiles. That place "with cover" is most likely going to kill the shooters. When the launch motor fires a lot of rocket exhaust comes out the back of the launcher. Try that indoors and the exhaust is reflected back at you.

The most logical thing for boys playing soccer to do is pay attention to the game, not to what someone nearby might be doing. Seriously, Loren, have you no clue? It's not like a video game where you can crack open a Pepsi and keep an eye on the neighbors between left-clicking your mouse.

Sorry, but this is a war zone. They should be paying attention.

The most logical reaction for Gazan boys playing soccer to have when someone fires off an anti-tank round from nearby is to run for their lives. Past performance indicates the IDF will presume any Palestinians in the vicinity are guilty of aiding and abetting the attack, especially the males, and target them for return fire. The fact the boys were running after the round was fired is not evidence they were in any way responsible or that they saw the shooter and just stood there gawking.

I do agree they should have run when the missile lit off but that probably isn't enough time to get away.

There is no reason to suppose the mourners at the funeral saw the anti-tank round heading towards the IDF Jeep or the return fire heading towards them. There is no logical reason for them to be targeted other than
1. the IDF supposing the shooters were among them or nearby and using the tent as cover, and/or
2. collective punishment of civilians.

I do agree, they were probably innocents. It's not collective punishment when a bystander gets hit when firing at a combatant, though.


I note nothing in your reply that gives any reason to think the soccer players weren't the shooters, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course "the tank" really meant it's crew. Focusing on this is trying to avoid addressing the real issue.

Not at all. It's pointing out your euphemistically assigning the actions of the tank crew to an inanimate (and therefore blameless) machine, thereby rendering the questions of morality or responsibility moot.

But the crew are human, fallible, responsible for their actions (even those made in error or without pause for thought), and are reasonably to be expected to act in a fashion that is moral, not merely reactive.

We have a missile from that general area and the field is the logical launch point. We have a tank firing upon that point. Why are you bending over backwards to avoid considering the possibility that the tank's round was on target?

I am completely disinterested in the questions of whether the tank's round was targeted at the appropriate place, or of whether it was on target (these are NOT the same thing; I note your further euphemistic language). I am interested in pointing out that you are FAR from being the unbiased and coolly rational commentator that you appear to think yourself.

I don't have sufficient information to know whether the people killed by the tank crew were responsible for the attack on the tank. But I DO know that you too lack that information, and that your certainty that the tank crew did nothing wrong, is as misplaced as your certainty that the people they killed did anything wrong.

You have (as usual) picked a side, and decided to ignore any evidence that makes your chosen side look bad, while highlighting any evidence that makes the other side look bad. This is a MAJOR error on your part - even those who are present at, and those who make a forensic analysis of the aftermath of, a fatal military action, are rarely possessed of sufficient evidence as to be as certain of their conclusions as you are. You might be right. But your refusal to even entertain the idea that you might also be wrong is painful to watch. Certainty is the mind killer. You're not an idiot - stop being certain, stop having faith, and start thinking!

You are basically refusing to even consider an option contrary to your opinion.

And the tank crew wasn't under attack--the missile went for a jeep. Doesn't matter, though--the normal procedure is to try to nail the launch site quickly in the hopes of making the missile go stupid. You don't take the time to figure out where it's heading.

 

[Arctish]

I don't blindly accept anyone's word, especially not the word of propagandists and bullshitters.

For example:



The soccer field is not the most logical launch point. It only seems that way to you because you have assumed it to be true.

The most logical launch point is a place with a good view of the IDF forces that _also_ provides cover for the shooters so that they could remain undetected as they set up, aimed, and fired.

You never replied to my post talking about the realities of firing such missiles. That place "with cover" is most likely going to kill the shooters. When the launch motor fires a lot of rocket exhaust comes out the back of the launcher. Try that indoors and the exhaust is reflected back at you.

"With cover" does not mean indoors, so your explanation of what happens when someone fires off an anti-tank round indoors is irrelevant.

I think the only reason you're claiming Hamas militants prepared to blow up an Israeli military vehicle right out in the open where everyone could see them is because it makes it easy to hand wave away the deaths of the boys playing soccer. It certainly doesn't make sense otherwise.

The most logical thing for boys playing soccer to do is pay attention to the game, not to what someone nearby might be doing. Seriously, Loren, have you no clue? It's not like a video game where you can crack open a Pepsi and keep an eye on the neighbors between left-clicking your mouse.

Sorry, but this is a war zone. They should be paying attention.

Paying attention to what?

Once again you are presenting an absurd scenario with Hamas militants preparing to fire on the IDF right out in the open where anyone can see them. It's a stupid bullshit story. That's not how Hamas operates, and I think you know it.

The most logical reaction for Gazan boys playing soccer to have when someone fires off an anti-tank round from nearby is to run for their lives. Past performance indicates the IDF will presume any Palestinians in the vicinity are guilty of aiding and abetting the attack, especially the males, and target them for return fire. The fact the boys were running after the round was fired is not evidence they were in any way responsible or that they saw the shooter and just stood there gawking.

I do agree they should have run when the missile lit off but that probably isn't enough time to get away.

There is no reason to suppose the mourners at the funeral saw the anti-tank round heading towards the IDF Jeep or the return fire heading towards them. There is no logical reason for them to be targeted other than
1. the IDF supposing the shooters were among them or nearby and using the tent as cover, and/or
2. collective punishment of civilians.

I do agree, they were probably innocents. It's not collective punishment when a bystander gets hit when firing at a combatant, though.

I note nothing in your reply that gives any reason to think the soccer players weren't the shooters, though.

Why should I try to prove a negative? You are the one making positive claims about the soccer field being the most logical launch point and the soccer players watching Hamas operatives preparing to fire, and insinuating they were members of Hamas themselves. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"With cover" does not mean indoors, so your explanation of what happens when someone fires off an anti-tank round indoors is irrelevant.

I think the only reason you're claiming Hamas militants prepared to blow up an Israeli military vehicle right out in the open where everyone could see them is because it makes it easy to hand wave away the deaths of the boys playing soccer. It certainly doesn't make sense otherwise.

There isn't going to be much cover in areas where they can fire a missile without killing people with the rocket. While I don't know the exact missile I looked up a similar US missile--the danger zone behind it is a 30 meter, 90 degree cone and there are lesser hazard areas outside that. Obviously, not everyone in that zone dies but they risk getting hurt, something Hamas is not going to want.

The most logical thing for boys playing soccer to do is pay attention to the game, not to what someone nearby might be doing. Seriously, Loren, have you no clue? It's not like a video game where you can crack open a Pepsi and keep an eye on the neighbors between left-clicking your mouse.

Sorry, but this is a war zone. They should be paying attention.

Paying attention to what?

A missile crew setting up in their field. However, I guess they shouldn't be blamed as the missile crew must have been insubstantial--they weren't hit by the return fire.

Once again you are presenting an absurd scenario with Hamas militants preparing to fire on the IDF right out in the open where anyone can see them. It's a stupid bullshit story. That's not how Hamas operates, and I think you know it.

You're assuming the militants knew the risk they were running firing that missile. By not teaching them about the expected return fire Hamas is more likely to hit something with the missile, Hamas doesn't mind sending it's cannon fodder on suicide missions. This looks like a complete success from Hamas' viewpoint.

Why should I try to prove a negative? You are the one making positive claims about the soccer field being the most logical launch point and the soccer players watching Hamas operatives preparing to fire, and insinuating they were members of Hamas themselves. The burden of proof is on you.

If the soccer players weren't the shooters where were the shooters? Why did the return fire hit the soccer players and not the shooters? You seem to be assuming that the tank crew fired on whoever it could see--the reality is those missiles leave a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher. You fire at the base of the smoke trail.

 

[Arctish]

There isn't going to be much cover in areas where they can fire a missile without killing people with the rocket. While I don't know the exact missile I looked up a similar US missile--the danger zone behind it is a 30 meter, 90 degree cone and there are lesser hazard areas outside that. Obviously, not everyone in that zone dies but they risk getting hurt, something Hamas is not going to want.

Bullshit.

"There isn't going to be much cover" doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient cover for the attack that actually happened without the militants being observed by the IDF or positively identified later. And you have claimed so many times that Hamas is willing to kill their own people that I'm calling double bullshit here.

The most logical thing for boys playing soccer to do is pay attention to the game, not to what someone nearby might be doing. Seriously, Loren, have you no clue? It's not like a video game where you can crack open a Pepsi and keep an eye on the neighbors between left-clicking your mouse.

Sorry, but this is a war zone. They should be paying attention.

Paying attention to what?

A missile crew setting up in their field.

Make that triple bullshit.

However, I guess they shouldn't be blamed as the missile crew must have been insubstantial--they weren't hit by the return fire.

Riiiight.

Because the IDF never misses and only kills people who deserve to die, like people who don't run fast enough.

Because when you assume the IDF is never wrong, you can be certain everything it does is always right.

Once again you are presenting an absurd scenario with Hamas militants preparing to fire on the IDF right out in the open where anyone can see them. It's a stupid bullshit story. That's not how Hamas operates, and I think you know it.

You're assuming the militants knew the risk they were running firing that missile. By not teaching them about the expected return fire Hamas is more likely to hit something with the missile, Hamas doesn't mind sending it's cannon fodder on suicide missions. This looks like a complete success from Hamas' viewpoint.

Why should I try to prove a negative? You are the one making positive claims about the soccer field being the most logical launch point and the soccer players watching Hamas operatives preparing to fire, and insinuating they were members of Hamas themselves. The burden of proof is on you.

If the soccer players weren't the shooters where were the shooters?

Unknown, but it seems likely they were in the vicinity.

Why did the return fire hit the soccer players and not the shooters?

Also unknown, but perhaps because

1) the soccer players were young males running away from the general area from which an anti-tank round had been fired at an IDF vehicle and someone on the tank crew assumed they were responsible, and

2) the shooters had an escape route planned, and it turned out to be a pretty good one.

You seem to be assuming that the tank crew fired on whoever it could see--the reality is those missiles leave a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher. You fire at the base of the smoke trail.

If the missile left a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher, why were two different places targeted by the IDF for return fire? And why are you assuming the trail didn't point to the adults attending a funeral?

 

[bilby]

Not at all. It's pointing out your euphemistically assigning the actions of the tank crew to an inanimate (and therefore blameless) machine, thereby rendering the questions of morality or responsibility moot.

But the crew are human, fallible, responsible for their actions (even those made in error or without pause for thought), and are reasonably to be expected to act in a fashion that is moral, not merely reactive.

I am completely disinterested in the questions of whether the tank's round was targeted at the appropriate place, or of whether it was on target (these are NOT the same thing; I note your further euphemistic language). I am interested in pointing out that you are FAR from being the unbiased and coolly rational commentator that you appear to think yourself.

I don't have sufficient information to know whether the people killed by the tank crew were responsible for the attack on the tank. But I DO know that you too lack that information, and that your certainty that the tank crew did nothing wrong, is as misplaced as your certainty that the people they killed did anything wrong.

You have (as usual) picked a side, and decided to ignore any evidence that makes your chosen side look bad, while highlighting any evidence that makes the other side look bad. This is a MAJOR error on your part - even those who are present at, and those who make a forensic analysis of the aftermath of, a fatal military action, are rarely possessed of sufficient evidence as to be as certain of their conclusions as you are. You might be right. But your refusal to even entertain the idea that you might also be wrong is painful to watch. Certainty is the mind killer. You're not an idiot - stop being certain, stop having faith, and start thinking!

You are basically refusing to even consider an option contrary to your opinion.

I don't have an opinion. You are projecting.

And the tank crew wasn't under attack--the missile went for a jeep. Doesn't matter, though--the normal procedure is to try to nail the launch site quickly in the hopes of making the missile go stupid. You don't take the time to figure out where it's heading.

So you're saying that the tank crew responded without thinking, but that they took enough time to ensure that they had the correct target?

You do know that these claims are contradictory, right? I need not give two shits about who is in the right and who is in the wrong in order to determine that your argument is full of shit - any argument that contains a contradiction is shit regardless.

Again, I don't know who was right. But I do know that you don't either.

Your confidence is clear and unequivocal evidence of irrational bias. Even if you happen to have hit on the correct conclusion, you have done so by pure coincidence - because your "reasoning" has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit.

"There isn't going to be much cover" doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient cover for the attack that actually happened without the militants being observed by the IDF or positively identified later. And you have claimed so many times that Hamas is willing to kill their own people that I'm calling double bullshit here.

Hamas deliberately keeps people in houses Israel is about to bomb.

If the soccer players weren't the shooters where were the shooters?

Unknown, but it seems likely they were in the vicinity.

Why not take the simplest explanation/

You seem to be assuming that the tank crew fired on whoever it could see--the reality is those missiles leave a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher. You fire at the base of the smoke trail.

If the missile left a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher, why were two different places targeted by the IDF for return fire? And why are you assuming the trail didn't point to the adults attending a funeral?

Who says two different places were targeted? Does it not occur to you they could have been in a line?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you're saying that the tank crew responded without thinking, but that they took enough time to ensure that they had the correct target?

You do know that these claims are contradictory, right? I need not give two shits about who is in the right and who is in the wrong in order to determine that your argument is full of shit - any argument that contains a contradiction is shit regardless.

Again, I don't know who was right. But I do know that you don't either.

Your confidence is clear and unequivocal evidence of irrational bias. Even if you happen to have hit on the correct conclusion, you have done so by pure coincidence - because your "reasoning" has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

I don't see how you are getting your position here. They saw a missile launch, they fired on the base of the smoke trail. That's what you do when you see a missile in flight. The decision must be made very fast if it is to do any good.

 

[Arctish]

Bullshit.

"There isn't going to be much cover" doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient cover for the attack that actually happened without the militants being observed by the IDF or positively identified later. And you have claimed so many times that Hamas is willing to kill their own people that I'm calling double bullshit here.

Hamas deliberately keeps people in houses Israel is about to bomb.

I know you believe that, which is why I know your earlier explanation was bullshit.

You weren't posting things you truly believe, you were posting something you thought would support the claim you're making.

Unknown, but it seems likely they were in the vicinity.

Why not take the simplest explanation/

The simplest explanation is that the Hamas militants acted from concealment as per their usual M.O.

You seem to be assuming that the tank crew fired on whoever it could see--the reality is those missiles leave a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher. You fire at the base of the smoke trail.

If the missile left a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher, why were two different places targeted by the IDF for return fire? And why are you assuming the trail didn't point to the adults attending a funeral?

Who says two different places were targeted? Does it not occur to you they could have been in a line?

Finally! A genuine counterargument.

Yes, it did occur to me. Early on, in fact.

Have you actually considered it? Because if that's what happened, you can't assume the soccer players were guilty and you can't claim that the IDF is careful to avoid killing civilians. It means an anti-tank round was fired at an IDF vehicle and the IDF responded by blasting away in the general direction from which it came, killing and wounding people at two different places engaged in two different activities who probably had nothing to do with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know you believe that, which is why I know your earlier explanation was bullshit.

You weren't posting things you truly believe, you were posting something you thought would support the claim you're making.

You stuck your fingers in your ears before about it. That doesn't make it go away.

Unknown, but it seems likely they were in the vicinity.

Why not take the simplest explanation/

The simplest explanation is that the Hamas militants acted from concealment as per their usual M.O.

There's no concealing the missile trail. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed what concealment they might have had that would leave them able to launch the missile without being hit by backblast. The only reason to exclude the soccer players is faith.

You seem to be assuming that the tank crew fired on whoever it could see--the reality is those missiles leave a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher. You fire at the base of the smoke trail.

If the missile left a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher, why were two different places targeted by the IDF for return fire? And why are you assuming the trail didn't point to the adults attending a funeral?

Who says two different places were targeted? Does it not occur to you they could have been in a line?

Finally! A genuine counterargument.

Yes, it did occur to me. Early on, in fact.

Have you actually considered it? Because if that's what happened, you can't assume the soccer players were guilty and you can't claim that the IDF is careful to avoid killing civilians. It means an anti-tank round was fired at an IDF vehicle and the IDF responded by blasting away in the general direction from which it came, killing and wounding people at two different places engaged in two different activities who probably had nothing to do with it.

A group of mourners isn't where you would launch a missile. An empty field is.

 

[Arctish]

There isn't going to be much cover in areas where they can fire a missile without killing people with the rocket. While I don't know the exact missile I looked up a similar US missile--the danger zone behind it is a 30 meter, 90 degree cone and there are lesser hazard areas outside that. Obviously, not everyone in that zone dies but they risk getting hurt, something Hamas is not going to want.

Bullshit.

"There isn't going to be much cover" doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient cover for the attack that actually happened without the militants being observed by the IDF or positively identified later. And you have claimed so many times that Hamas is willing to kill their own people that I'm calling double bullshit here.

Hamas deliberately keeps people in houses Israel is about to bomb.

I know you believe that, which is why I know your earlier explanation was bullshit.

You weren't posting things you truly believe, you were posting something you thought would support the claim you're making.

You stuck your fingers in your ears before about it. That doesn't make it go away.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Unknown, but it seems likely they were in the vicinity.

Why not take the simplest explanation/

The simplest explanation is that the Hamas militants acted from concealment as per their usual M.O.

There's no concealing the missile trail. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed what concealment they might have had that would leave them able to launch the missile without being hit by backblast. The only reason to exclude the soccer players is faith.

So you never heard of militants firing things like anti-tank weapons and RPG from between parked cars or crouching behind garden walls with just the weapon and the top of the shooter's head poking up, or from a hole in the wall of an abandoned building or anything like that?

You should watch more documentaries about modern warfare. Or maybe just watch Black Hawk Down.

You seem to be assuming that the tank crew fired on whoever it could see--the reality is those missiles leave a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher. You fire at the base of the smoke trail.

If the missile left a smoke trail pointing right at the launcher, why were two different places targeted by the IDF for return fire? And why are you assuming the trail didn't point to the adults attending a funeral?

Who says two different places were targeted? Does it not occur to you they could have been in a line?

Finally! A genuine counterargument.

Yes, it did occur to me. Early on, in fact.

Have you actually considered it? Because if that's what happened, you can't assume the soccer players were guilty and you can't claim that the IDF is careful to avoid killing civilians. It means an anti-tank round was fired at an IDF vehicle and the IDF responded by blasting away in the general direction from which it came, killing and wounding people at two different places engaged in two different activities who probably had nothing to do with it.

A group of mourners isn't where you would launch a missile. An empty field is.

Wow. You seriously think firing an anti-tank weapon at the IDF from an empty field, in plain sight of anyone looking in that direction including the IDF soldiers stationed as the border, is not just the best tactic, it's the only one. Mingling with a group of people gathered for a funeral as you arrive, and using their activities and tent to screen your actions as you set up and fire isn't an option because <reasons>. I suppose you think all funerals in Gaza are held in places where it's simply impossible to fire a shoulder mounted weapon. That or else you are so determined to find those boys guilty of deserving their deaths you can't admit that it might have been adults who fired that weapon, and they might have done it from someplace where the boys didn't see them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you never heard of militants firing things like anti-tank weapons and RPG from between parked cars or crouching behind garden walls with just the weapon and the top of the shooter's head poking up, or from a hole in the wall of an abandoned building or anything like that?

You should watch more documentaries about modern warfare. Or maybe just watch Black Hawk Down.

Two issues:

1) What's behind? Firing from that hole in the wall of an abandoned building is going to make your missile miss--they're not guiding it when the launch motor exhaust bounces off the wall behind.

2) They need a clear line of flight. There are a lot of people about in Gaza. Firing from a parking lot probably means you're firing across a road.

Wow. You seriously think firing an anti-tank weapon at the IDF from an empty field, in plain sight of anyone looking in that direction including the IDF soldiers stationed as the border, is not just the best tactic, it's the only one. Mingling with a group of people gathered for a funeral as you arrive, and using their activities and tent to screen your actions as you set up and fire isn't an option because <reasons>. I suppose you think all funerals in Gaza are held in places where it's simply impossible to fire a shoulder mounted weapon. That or else you are so determined to find those boys guilty of deserving their deaths you can't admit that it might have been adults who fired that weapon, and they might have done it from someplace where the boys didn't see them.

Lighting off a missile in a group of people is going to get a lot of people very upset with Hamas.