Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

Zackly. “Exemplary fashion” doesn’t include killing 10x civilians per combatant.
Fucking Bibi is a war (and other) criminal and Israel will be paying s huge price for coddling him for years or decades to come.

Check your memory. 10x is the typical ratio. Gaza looks like about 1.4x by raw numbers 1.1x excluding the known bad data.

What is you unbiased source for this claim?

Quit it with the derailing. We have discussed this previously.

Asking for a source is not a derail. Refusing to give a source is bad form. I asked because I have not seen any source that puts the ratio that low. Please produce the source for your claim. Otherwise your continued refusal suggests you pulled the numbers right out your ass.

Asking for a source is not a derail. Asking for a source for something that a source has already been provided is.

You could point to the post or provide the link. Instead you fling accusations. So, I conclude you pulled the numbers out of ass.

Look at the Hamas claimed death count. Look at the Israel claimed combatant kill count. That gets you the 1.4x.

I asked for an unbiased source. Israel is not an unbiased source.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Realistically, Israel did not have a choice. If their government had decided against war it would have been overthrown.

That is a delusional statement. It's not possible for Hamas to overthrow the Israeli government. Hamas has hand weapons and unguided rockets. Israel has tanks, artillery, guided missile systems, a very good missile defense system, a navy, and much more.

You're so blinded by the need to blame Israel that you're missing the point.

If the Israeli government hadn't responded forcefully to 10/7 they would have been overthrown from within--their own people unwilling to accept their inaction.

They seemed to accept the inaction prior to 10/7, when their own intelligence was indicating imminent attack. I wonder why that was...

 

[Shadowy Man]

And it wouldn't be against the civilian populations of those countries. It would be against the governments--especially Iran. Missile #1 would certainly be on Tehran.

Good thing no civilians live in Tehran, then, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A sample of how biased the reporting is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/28/israel-gaza-war-west-bank-palestinian/

Title: Israel launches major operation in West Bank; Palestinian officials say 11 killed

(Note: It was originally about 10, the 11th was added later.)

Medics transported 10 people who were killed to medical facilities in Jenin and nearby Tubas, the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) said in a statement. The Jenin Battalion, a Palestinian militant group, said six of its members were killed; it was not immediately clear whether those casualties were included in the count announced by authorities. Hamas’s armed wing also said three of its members were killed.

This means that a minimum of 9 of the 10 killed were combatants, but the Washington Post is clearly glossing over that fact.

And, that aid convoy that got hit:

US aid group admits unauthorized individuals took control of Gaza convoy in deadly incident yesterday

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

Anera in a statement says that after the convoy departed the Kerem Shalom crossing, “four community members with experience in previous missions and engagement in community security” with their transport company, Move One, “stepped forward and took command of the leading vehicle, citing concern that the route was unsafe and at risk of being looted.”

“The four community members were neither vetted nor coordinated in advance,” Anera admits.

The organization claims that “the four individuals were not perceived by the convoy as a hostile threat” and that the Israeli strike “was carried out without any prior warning or communication.”

No Anera employees were hurt in the incident, and the convoy made it to its destination.

In other words, Israel was exactly right. Hamas took the lead vehicle, Israel struck it.

If they really were just security why was no Anera employee hurt? The only way that could have happened is if they weren't on the vehicle that was hit in the first place. Given the apparently peaceful transfer of control the aid organization perfectly well knew what was up, they simply had to accept Hamas seizing part of the load.

 

[bilby]

And it wouldn't be against the civilian populations of those countries. It would be against the governments--especially Iran. Missile #1 would certainly be on Tehran.

Well, it's a good thing that no civillians live in Tehran (pop. 9,616,000) then.

 

[bilby]

You use the word "forcefully" instead of "effectively". You are stating that action was justified because of its own sake. Israel had every right to respond to the atrocity Hamas unleashed in October. The question is, what actions would have made the most difference. Questioning what will be the most effective is not the same thing as saying self-defense isn't allowed. Currently Netanyahu is no where near his goal, though his goal(s) are still a bit uncertain. 11 months of this. 11 months of breeding thousands of new Hamas recruits.

Loren's argument is the old joke from Yes, Minister:

Something must be done; This is something; Therefore this must be done.

 

[bilby]

Good thing no civilians live in Tehran, then, right?

GMTA.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Good thing no civilians live in Tehran, then, right?

GMTA.

No offense, but it didn't really require a "great mind" to have seen the problem with that statement.

 

[Elixir]

large scale terrorism is always due to outside support. The size of the wrong doesn't matter, the size of the check makes all the difference

That’s EXACTLY why the the US needs to stop writing checks to terrorist Bibi.

You keep hand waving away the FACT that continued war is Bibi’s lifeline. He is motivated by fear of imprisonment, just like Trump.

You have offered zero actual rationale for Bibi’s continued genocide, just criticism of anyone questioning the righteousness of his terror campaign.
FYI I consider Bibi and Hamas to be equals in infamy, despite my affinity for the Israeli population and lack of empathy for Arabs’ religious insanity.

 

[Gospel]

And it wouldn't be against the civilian populations of those countries. It would be against the governments--especially Iran. Missile #1 would certainly be on Tehran.

Well, it's a good thing that no civillians live in Tehran (pop. 9,616,000) then.

To the defense of American's, some here believe that Tehran is still a small, obscure village of Arab niggas walking around in robes like in the biblical days.

Note: Chat GPT did not help me with this message.

 

[bilby]

Good thing no civilians live in Tehran, then, right?

GMTA.

No offense, but it didn't really require a "great mind" to have seen the problem with that statement.

What does that have to do with the Greater Manchester Transit Authority assisting in the evacuation of Tehran?

 

[laughing dog]

10 years ago I would have said the US should supply arms to Israel to prevent its being over run. Not so much today.

I used to think there was a moral obligation to help a Jewish state giivne the WWII persecution.

We haven't armed Israel out of the goodness of our hearts. We have armed Israel out of a desire to avoid them being pushed to their last resort.

Are you from the USA? Support for Israel is intertwined with Christians and politics. Israel has a well funded PAC over here. Propaganda programs targeting Christians pushing 'holy land' buttons.

What Loren means is that if we don't keep supplying arms to Israel, the Israelis will use their nuclear weapons against the civilian population of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

Apparently he believes that Jews are the most murderous bloodthirsty greedy bastards in the entire world but it's okay for him to say so because he's a Zionist. Also, that those of us who argue against indiscriminate slaughter and violations of human rights must hate Jews because we disapprove of what he thinks Israelis routinely do.

You don't get it. You're basically calling for the Jews to sit there and accept death without fighting back.

That would be true if and only if the actual IDF response was the only way of fighting back. Since "fighting back" describes a continuum of possible methods, your conclusion is driven by the fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[steve_bank]

What I am saying is that Israel is creating their own problems.

The violence against Israel is not without a basis. Treatment of the Palestinians. Land seizure, displacement of Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlers. No civil rights for Pal;intestines.

There is not any real debate over these issues. Well documented.

During the BLM protests and riots over hear in the USA Blacks let loose decades of pent up anger over disparities in the justice system. Here in Seattle it got destructive.

The attack on Israel came from decades of pent up anger and frustration.

 

[Arctish]

Why do you keep conflating Gazans with Hamas?

Are you unable to make the distinction between the people of Gaza and the political party ruling the Gaza Strip, or simply unwilling? I already showed you the numbers here:

https://iidb.org/threads/gaza-just-...-attack-on-israel.27714/page-150#post-1159609

And how exactly do you propose Israel deal with Hamas without hitting civilians in Gaza? I still have seen no meaningful reply to that cartoon of the Hamas fighter with a baby in their plate carrier. It's a horror you can't accept so you deny it's reality.

I have answered your question, in this thread and others. I have reiterated my answer when you failed to understand that I had done so. I have explained my answer in greater detail when you appeared to have failed to understand it. I'm done coddling you.

Your answer amounts to magic, not a realistic answer.

Citing the Battle of Mogadishu as an example of modern warfare in a densely populated city is magic? Comparing and contrasting the rules of engagement followed by the US armed forces in Somalia with the ones being followed by the IDF in Gaza is not realistic?

Do tell. Explain your reasoning.

I am not going to pretend I think you're too dull-witted to understand what I post or too young and inexperienced to grasp the points I raise, so that I must repeat things over and over to you in simple terms. You are not stupid and you're not a child.

You can use the Search function to look up my posts containing the word 'hostage' to review what I said and actually think about it. We can have a productive conversation about rules of engagement in war if you put in the work.

We don't have a productive conversation because you handwave away the issue.

Did you review my posts? If so, then please respond to my first two questions in post #4993.

Also, why do you keep placing the burden of peacemaking solely on the Palestinians? Do you honestly think Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their policies play no part in the continuing strife?

Because it's Hamas that chose the path of war. It's Hamas that won't meet Israel's non-negotiable condition for peace: release all the hostages.

Please post your link to the details of the proposal. You have a habit of making shit up, so while I don't doubt Israel is demanding the release of all hostages, I can't trust your implied assertion that that's the only sticking point.

What proposal? I said Israel's non-negotiable condition: return of all hostages. When has Hamas ever agreed to anything that contained that? Hamas has agreed to talk about it in exchange for a cease fire, they have not agreed to actually do it.

So you don't know anything about the cease-fire proposal, much less why an agreement hasn't yet been reached. That's fine. No one else here knows the details. You just like to post as though you do.

 

[steve_bank]

What I am saying is that Israel is creating their own problems.

The violence against Israel is not without a basis. Treatment of the Palestinians. Land seizure, displacement of Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlers. No civil rights for Pal;intestines.

There is not any real debate over these issues. Well documented.

During the BLM protests and riots over hear in the USA Blacks let loose decades of pent up anger over disparities in the justice system. Here in Seattle it got destructive.

The attack on Israel came from decades of pent up anger and frustration.

Anyone wish to dispute thiss?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You use the word "forcefully" instead of "effectively". You are stating that action was justified because of its own sake. Israel had every right to respond to the atrocity Hamas unleashed in October. The question is, what actions would have made the most difference. Questioning what will be the most effective is not the same thing as saying self-defense isn't allowed. Currently Netanyahu is no where near his goal, though his goal(s) are still a bit uncertain. 11 months of this. 11 months of breeding thousands of new Hamas recruits.

Loren's argument is the old joke from Yes, Minister:

Something must be done; This is something; Therefore this must be done.

Look in the mirror. That's how you're treating a "peace" deal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

large scale terrorism is always due to outside support. The size of the wrong doesn't matter, the size of the check makes all the difference

That’s EXACTLY why the the US needs to stop writing checks to terrorist Bibi.

You keep hand waving away the FACT that continued war is Bibi’s lifeline. He is motivated by fear of imprisonment, just like Trump.

How is peace supposed to happen? Hamas has never agreed to a remotely viable peace deal.

You have offered zero actual rationale for Bibi’s continued genocide, just criticism of anyone questioning the righteousness of his terror campaign.
FYI I consider Bibi and Hamas to be equals in infamy, despite my affinity for the Israeli population and lack of empathy for Arabs’ religious insanity.

For Israel to stop without recovering the hostages is a major win for Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I am saying is that Israel is creating their own problems.

The violence against Israel is not without a basis. Treatment of the Palestinians. Land seizure, displacement of Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlers. No civil rights for Pal;intestines.

There is not any real debate over these issues. Well documented.

During the BLM protests and riots over hear in the USA Blacks let loose decades of pent up anger over disparities in the justice system. Here in Seattle it got destructive.

The attack on Israel came from decades of pent up anger and frustration.

The attack on Israel came from decades of radicalization by various Muslim elements, couple with vast sums of money and weapons.

Hamas isn't Hamas because of anything Israel did, they are what they are because Iran pays them to be what they are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have answered your question, in this thread and others. I have reiterated my answer when you failed to understand that I had done so. I have explained my answer in greater detail when you appeared to have failed to understand it. I'm done coddling you.

Your answer amounts to magic, not a realistic answer.

Citing the Battle of Mogadishu as an example of modern warfare in a densely populated city is magic? Comparing and contrasting the rules of engagement followed by the US armed forces in Somalia with the ones being followed by the IDF in Gaza is not realistic?

Do tell. Explain your reasoning.

Look how badly it went. I very much doubt we will ever know the combatant/civilian numbers for that but those other than the target were certainly more than 10x the number of targets.

I am not going to pretend I think you're too dull-witted to understand what I post or too young and inexperienced to grasp the points I raise, so that I must repeat things over and over to you in simple terms. You are not stupid and you're not a child.

You can use the Search function to look up my posts containing the word 'hostage' to review what I said and actually think about it. We can have a productive conversation about rules of engagement in war if you put in the work.

We don't have a productive conversation because you handwave away the issue.

Did you review my posts? If so, then please respond to my first two questions in post #4993.

1) In that post you are mixing up the objectives of killing vs stopping. The reality is that typically stopping involves killing, but they are distinctly different things. Stopping means immediately halting their actions--in a hostage situation that usually means a sniper shot to the head. But it can mean a sniper shot that takes out the control of the weapon. Or the weapon itself if the situation permits (it usually doesn't as shooting a gun is prone to cause it to fire.) Killing, however, isn't about speed. It's generally a lot easier to poke enough holes that they bleed out than it is to quickly stop.

2) I was contrasting the US approach which got 19 friendlies killed and somewhere between 200 and 315 others (we don't have civilian/combatant numbers) dead. The Israeli approach would have been a Hellfire on the meeting. 13 dead targets, probably zero others.

Also, why do you keep placing the burden of peacemaking solely on the Palestinians? Do you honestly think Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their policies play no part in the continuing strife?

Because it's Hamas that chose the path of war. It's Hamas that won't meet Israel's non-negotiable condition for peace: release all the hostages.

Please post your link to the details of the proposal. You have a habit of making shit up, so while I don't doubt Israel is demanding the release of all hostages, I can't trust your implied assertion that that's the only sticking point.

What proposal? I said Israel's non-negotiable condition: return of all hostages. When has Hamas ever agreed to anything that contained that? Hamas has agreed to talk about it in exchange for a cease fire, they have not agreed to actually do it.

So you don't know anything about the cease-fire proposal, much less why an agreement hasn't yet been reached. That's fine. No one else here knows the details. You just like to post as though you do.

Where is there a cease-fire proposal that involves the release of all hostages???? Not about negotiating for their release, but their actual release.

 

[bilby]

in a hostage situation that usually means a sniper shot to the head. But it can mean a sniper shot that takes out the control of the weapon. Or the weapon itself if the situation permits (it usually doesn't as shooting a gun is prone to cause it to fire.)

This is pure Hollywood.

None of that is real, most of it isn't even possible outside of the movies, and the rest is far too risky to ever be useful for real hostage situations.

You should be far mlre skeptocal of those elements of your "knowledge" that derive from fiction, even if the souce is tagged with "Based on true events".