Gaza derail from ICE detention centre thread

[Arctish]

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.

What's behind? Sufficient uncluttered space so as not to affect the trajectory of the round.

You think Hamas militants are too stupid to understand how to properly operate their weapons? They blew up a Jeep from a half mile away. They know how to use those things.

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.

You think Gaza traffic is bumper-to-bumper on every road all day long? You think an anti-tank round is fired straight and level, not at an angle of elevation so it will follow a parabolic trajectory? Or is this just another bullshit quibble that even you don't think is a valid point?

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.

But deliberately keeping them in houses the IDF is about to blow up isn't? Or does Hamas only care about upsetting people when it's convenient for you and your apologetics?

And who said anything about lighting off a missile _in_ a group of people? You post like you don't have a clue how a militant can use the activities of others to conceal what he's doing while not actually being in the middle of them.

Do you understand that things that obstruct your view of me might not obstruct my view of you? Do you understand that a projectile can be fired through a small opening or from behind/between solid objects like rocks and trees? Do you understand what concealment is? Because if you don't then you don't even understand duck hunting, much less guerilla warfare, and I have neither the time not the patience to explain it to you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's behind? Sufficient uncluttered space so as not to affect the trajectory of the round.

You think Hamas militants are too stupid to understand how to properly operate their weapons? They blew up a Jeep from a half mile away. They know how to use those things.

Yes, I think they know how to use their weapons--that's why I don't think they fired from an abandoned building. It's not that the space behind makes one bit of difference to the trajectory of the round. Rather, this was a guided missile--the shooter must be able to see his target and keep the weapon pointed at it for the entire flight of the missile. The launch motor in such a weapon is quite powerful--it burns out before the weapon leaves the launch tube but in the process imparts enough velocity to throw it far enough away that the sustainer can light without frying the shooter. All that exhaust comes out the back of the rocket and if you're in a typical room it bounces off the wall behind and fills the room. Quite dangerous and it obstructs your vision. Knowing how to use something includes knowing when not to use it!

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.

You think Gaza traffic is bumper-to-bumper on every road all day long? You think an anti-tank round is fired straight and level, not at an angle of elevation so it will follow a parabolic trajectory? Or is this just another bullshit quibble that even you don't think is a valid point?

It's a guided round--it flies basically straight. And it trails a wire behind it--anything breaks that wire and you miss. If that wire lands on something sufficiently conductive you miss. (I found a manual for the Dragon--a similar US missile. You can fire across fresh water but are limited to 300m when firing across salt water due to the wire shorting out.) Note that overhead power lines often aren't insulated.

But deliberately keeping them in houses the IDF is about to blow up isn't? Or does Hamas only care about upsetting people when it's convenient for you and your apologetics?

There aren't survivors to tell the tale. Hamas can spin it however they want.

Do you understand that things that obstruct your view of me might not obstruct my view of you? Do you understand that a projectile can be fired through a small opening or from behind/between solid objects like rocks and trees? Do you understand what concealment is? Because if you don't then you don't even understand duck hunting, much less guerilla warfare, and I have neither the time not the patience to explain it to you.

The issue is how much of that sort of thing to hide behind there is in a place like Gaza. In an urban environment your usual hiding place is indoors but that's not viable when you're shooting rockets. If your opponent doesn't have eyes in the sky roofs are good, but Israel does have eyes in the sky.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, I think they know how to use their weapons--that's why I don't think they fired from an abandoned building. It's not that the space behind makes one bit of difference to the trajectory of the round. Rather, this was a guided missile--the shooter must be able to see his target and keep the weapon pointed at it for the entire flight of the missile. The launch motor in such a weapon is quite powerful--it burns out before the weapon leaves the launch tube but in the process imparts enough velocity to throw it far enough away that the sustainer can light without frying the shooter. All that exhaust comes out the back of the rocket and if you're in a typical room it bounces off the wall behind and fills the room. Quite dangerous and it obstructs your vision. Knowing how to use something includes knowing when not to use it!

You think Gaza traffic is bumper-to-bumper on every road all day long? You think an anti-tank round is fired straight and level, not at an angle of elevation so it will follow a parabolic trajectory? Or is this just another bullshit quibble that even you don't think is a valid point?

It's a guided round--it flies basically straight. And it trails a wire behind it--anything breaks that wire and you miss. If that wire lands on something sufficiently conductive you miss. (I found a manual for the Dragon--a similar US missile. You can fire across fresh water but are limited to 300m when firing across salt water due to the wire shorting out.) Note that overhead power lines often aren't insulated.

But deliberately keeping them in houses the IDF is about to blow up isn't? Or does Hamas only care about upsetting people when it's convenient for you and your apologetics?

There aren't survivors to tell the tale. Hamas can spin it however they want.

Do you understand that things that obstruct your view of me might not obstruct my view of you? Do you understand that a projectile can be fired through a small opening or from behind/between solid objects like rocks and trees? Do you understand what concealment is? Because if you don't then you don't even understand duck hunting, much less guerilla warfare, and I have neither the time not the patience to explain it to you.

The issue is how much of that sort of thing to hide behind there is in a place like Gaza. In an urban environment your usual hiding place is indoors but that's not viable when you're shooting rockets. If your opponent doesn't have eyes in the sky roofs are good, but Israel does have eyes in the sky.

So this is all just spitballing.

You're imagining things that would have forced Hamas to fire a guided anti-tank round from an open soccer field rather than from a place of concealment as they usually do. And you're imagining conditions under which the shooter would have gone completely unobserved by the soldiers on patrol, despite them being on the lookout for that sort of thing, but nevertheless easily observed by teenagers playing soccer who watched the round being fired before fleeing and therefore are to blame for their own deaths.

Well, have fun but try not to sound too silly. Even pulp fiction fans want a modicum of believability in the stories they read.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So this is all just spitballing.

You're imagining things that would have forced Hamas to fire a guided anti-tank round from an open soccer field rather than from a place of concealment as they usually do. And you're imagining conditions under which the shooter would have gone completely unobserved by the soldiers on patrol, despite them being on the lookout for that sort of thing, but nevertheless easily observed by teenagers playing soccer who watched the round being fired before fleeing and therefore are to blame for their own deaths.

Well, have fun but try not to sound too silly. Even pulp fiction fans want a modicum of believability in the stories they read.

You are still ignoring the obvious scenario: The "soccer players" were the shooters. That requires the minimum of assumptions but it's blasphemy to you.

 

[Arctish]

You are still ignoring the obvious scenario: The "soccer players" were the shooters. That requires the minimum of assumptions but it's blasphemy to you.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you think the strike on the mourners at the funeral was strictly punitive because IDF soldiers were injured and killing the people responsible was insufficient revenge, or that two different targets were hit by the return fire because IDF fire isn't as accurate as Hamas'.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you think the IDF forces at the border are so lax that Hamas militants can fire a guided round at them from the middle of a freaking soccer field and they wouldn't have a clue until their Jeep exploded.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you think Hamas has abandoned it's usual M.O. of acting from concealment and trying to slip away before the IDF can react.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you're incapable of thinking of Palestinian teenagers as innocent bystanders.

I already presented a scenario that would justify the IDF strikes on both the soccer field and the mourners. You haven't. You just keep making ridiculous assertions about why the anti-tank round couldn't have been fired from concealment, like saying that firing a guided round from an 'average sized room' wouldn't work. Well, who says the only concealment available in Gaza is an average sized room? Oh, that's right. You did, because it suits the bullshit argument you're making.

You do this every time teenaged boys are killed by authority figures, especially if they're black or Muslims. You just assume they were guilty of something-or-other that justified the use of lethal force. I don't expect you to change your ways anytime soon, but I'm not going to pretend your bullshit isn't bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are still ignoring the obvious scenario: The "soccer players" were the shooters. That requires the minimum of assumptions but it's blasphemy to you.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you think the strike on the mourners at the funeral was strictly punitive because IDF soldiers were injured and killing the people responsible was insufficient revenge, or that two different targets were hit by the return fire because IDF fire isn't as accurate as Hamas'.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you think the IDF forces at the border are so lax that Hamas militants can fire a guided round at them from the middle of a freaking soccer field and they wouldn't have a clue until their Jeep exploded.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you think Hamas has abandoned it's usual M.O. of acting from concealment and trying to slip away before the IDF can react.

There's no hiding where an anti-tank missile came from. They did fire from concealment--they weren't spotted in time.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you're incapable of thinking of Palestinian teenagers as innocent bystanders.

If they were innocent bystanders why was the fire aimed at them rather than somewhere else?

I already presented a scenario that would justify the IDF strikes on both the soccer field and the mourners. You haven't. You just keep making ridiculous assertions about why the anti-tank round couldn't have been fired from concealment, like saying that firing a guided round from an 'average sized room' wouldn't work. Well, who says the only concealment available in Gaza is an average sized room? Oh, that's right. You did, because it suits the bullshit argument you're making.

I was talking about firing from inside. If you had a really large room you could do that--but few rooms are big enough.

You do this every time teenaged boys are killed by authority figures, especially if they're black or Muslims. You just assume they were guilty of something-or-other that justified the use of lethal force. I don't expect you to change your ways anytime soon, but I'm not going to pretend your bullshit isn't bullshit.

The reality is they usually are at fault. Being teenage doesn't mean they can't do wrong.

 

[Arctish]

There's no hiding where an anti-tank missile came from. They did fire from concealment--they weren't spotted in time.

Okay, we both agree that it is extremely unlikely Hamas militants fired the anti-tank round from out in the open. We both believe it was fired from someplace concealed from view of the IDF.

We're making progress.

It isn't the obvious scenario unless you're incapable of thinking of Palestinian teenagers as innocent bystanders.

If they were innocent bystanders why was the fire aimed at them rather than somewhere else?

There are many possible reasons. The soccer field might have been on a direct line-of-sight to the actual point of origin, and the IDF mistook the teenagers for the responsible parties. Or the IDF return fire might have been slightly off, necessitating a second round being fired - the one that hit the mourners. Or the IDF might simply have fired a couple of rounds along the smoke trail without having any idea of where the point of origin was, and hit whoever happened to be in that direction. Or, as I suggested before, the IDF might have been targeting a spotter at the soccer field and a shooter at the funeral. Or the return fire could have been aimed at whoever was visible for punitive reasons - a 'you hit Israelis, we hit Gazans; you fire one round, we fire two' kind of exchange.

The important point is this: you can't use the deaths of the teenagers as evidence they were Hamas militants. They might have been, but at this point we have no evidence they were.

What we have are reports they were playing soccer in a soccer field. A soccer field does not offer concealment from the IDF, and since we both agree it's extremely unlikely Hamas militants fired the anti-tank round from out in the open, we have no reason to assume they were the shooters and good reason to think they weren't.

I already presented a scenario that would justify the IDF strikes on both the soccer field and the mourners. You haven't. You just keep making ridiculous assertions about why the anti-tank round couldn't have been fired from concealment, like saying that firing a guided round from an 'average sized room' wouldn't work. Well, who says the only concealment available in Gaza is an average sized room? Oh, that's right. You did, because it suits the bullshit argument you're making.

I was talking about firing from inside. If you had a really large room you could do that--but few rooms are big enough.

I know. But implicit in your argument was the assumption that 'concealment' meant indoors in a 'typical' room. It doesn't.

You do this every time teenaged boys are killed by authority figures, especially if they're black or Muslims. You just assume they were guilty of something-or-other that justified the use of lethal force. I don't expect you to change your ways anytime soon, but I'm not going to pretend your bullshit isn't bullshit.

The reality is they usually are at fault.

The reality is you assume they are guilty and invent reasons to support your belief.

Being teenage doesn't mean they can't do wrong.

Of course not. And no one is claiming that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, we both agree that it is extremely unlikely Hamas militants fired the anti-tank round from out in the open. We both believe it was fired from someplace concealed from view of the IDF.

No, concealment of intent. I figure the missile was there, it was picked up and fired before what was going on was recognized.

If they were innocent bystanders why was the fire aimed at them rather than somewhere else?

There are many possible reasons. The soccer field might have been on a direct line-of-sight to the actual point of origin, and the IDF mistook the teenagers for the responsible parties. Or the IDF return fire might have been slightly off, necessitating a second round being fired - the one that hit the mourners. Or the IDF might simply have fired a couple of rounds along the smoke trail without having any idea of where the point of origin was, and hit whoever happened to be in that direction. Or, as I suggested before, the IDF might have been targeting a spotter at the soccer field and a shooter at the funeral. Or the return fire could have been aimed at whoever was visible for punitive reasons - a 'you hit Israelis, we hit Gazans; you fire one round, we fire two' kind of exchange.

The missile hit a jeep. The return fire came from a tank--they weren't firing on the line of bearing. The tank would have been able to see the origin point of the smoke trail. The tank certainly didn't fire two rounds, there would be no point in that--the cycle time of a tank gun is too long.

And Israel doesn't just fire indiscriminately--the high rate of hitting terrorists proves that. Beware that there will be a lot of deception at first, combatants will be claimed to be civilians. In time when the eyes of the press are no longer on the incident a lot of those "civilians" will end up revealed as being terrorists, generally Hamas. The Israel-bashing NGOs will generally not update their records even if Hamas admits the truth.

The important point is this: you can't use the deaths of the teenagers as evidence they were Hamas militants. They might have been, but at this point we have no evidence they were.

I'm saying it was the most likely explanation.

If they were the shooters:

Tank sees a missile launch, fires on the launch crew.

If they weren't the shooters:

Tank misidentifies the launch spot. Why? Missiles leave smoke trails.

Where was the missile launched from? Why didn't the tank see the smoke trail?

See how it gets more complex if you figure they weren't the shooters? Occam's Razor.

I know. But implicit in your argument was the assumption that 'concealment' meant indoors in a 'typical' room. It doesn't.

The point is there is little that would suffice. The shooter needs a line of sight on their target, if there are things about to hide behind there are things about that will get in the way. There will not be many spots to shoot from and that's where they'll be watching. (There are also roofs--very good if there are no eyes in the sky, very bad if there are.)

However, if you have people apparently doing something else they won't get the scrutiny and will have a better chance of getting off a missile.