Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another example that clearly shows it's not indiscriminate:

Rmaych: A Christian Town Trapped between Hezbollah and Israel

The Christian town of Rmaych lies on the front between Israel and Hezbollah. Residents are braced for an escalation, but after 10 months of purgatory, a sense of defiance has taken hold.

www.spiegel.de

They've kept Hezbollah out of town--and thus also free of Israeli attacks.

But would you know that if you simply listened to the reporters?

All 11 rooms are occupied and booked out for the next several weeks by international television crews, who leave their tripods in place as they wait for the next dramatic detonations. Every hour or two, a reporter dons a helmet and protective vest before standing in front of the camera to deliver an update on the situation. The shorts and sandals are off screen, of course.

Or would you know it from the Washington Post map?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/31/israel-war-lebanon-south-destruction/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzMwMzQ3MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzMxNzMzMTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3MzAzNDcyMDAsImp0aSI6ImQ2YjdlYTIwLTViYWMtNGYwNS04MWI3LTZkNzA3MzhhZWFmMSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS93b3JsZC8yMDI0LzEwLzMxL2lzcmFlbC13YXItbGViYW5vbi1zb3V0aC1kZXN0cnVjdGlvbi8ifQ.jm466DWqg0O1UkWd8f2xnZo4h3m8jrVN5JaAMGAbhVc

The village isn't listed on the map, lest someone wonder what was different that it was 0% destroyed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

The Gaza Strip is almost exactly the size of Philadelphia, PA (140 sq. mi.) The Palestinian death toll since 10/7/23 is estimated at about 44,000. By contrast, the U.S. lost 58,000 men in 8 years of fighting in Vietnam. So, yes, it is legitimate to ask if there is a better way to fight Hamas. It doesn't make one anti-Israel. Many Israelis have taken to the streets to plead with their government to change tactics. Everyone knows or should know that the Oct. 7 attack was unbelievably brutal -- 1200 people slaughtered, many rapes, the hostages taken. That shouldn't mean that humanitarian concerns are taken off the table.

 

[Tigers!]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

And how many times have posters on these fora complained, shrieked about Israeli troops invading Gaza. Terrorising civilians and destroying buildings.
What can Israel do that you would not complain about?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway? A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

And how many times have posters on these fora complained, shrieked about Israeli troops invading Gaza. Terrorising civilians and destroying buildings.
What can Israel do that you would not complain about?

I don't know. How many times? Do you have some examples?

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

Hamas, as the original aggressor chose this war, but are held to a zero standard for their unprovoked and shocking attack on Israel. They are backed by Iran and support the same oppressive religious bullshit. They choose to take cover in buildings occupied by civilians because they're wagering that the world will come down on Israel for attacking those targets. They willfully choose to sacrifice their own people, and young liberals lap it up as "genocide."

Any decent military leadership will do what it reasonably can to minimize its own losses while inflicting the most losses it can on the enemy. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

When I was in the army I never engaged in real urban warfare, but we did train in it. On our first go-through, nearly the entire platoon was killed. I forget the name of the laser engagement system, but when you'd get hit, a beeper would go off, which is how we knew when we were "dead." It was eye opening. Thus, if there is a better way than getting your people killed, that's the path that should be taken.

Hamas purposely set out to kill Israeli civilians so what can reasonably be expected in return?

 

[Derec]

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

Israel did send in ground troops into Gaza. But even so, significant civilian casualties are unavoidable when talking urban combat in very densely populated areas.
And of course Israel used aerial attacks too. It would be stupid not to. US also bombs targets from the air and uses air support to aid ground troops. And yes, civilians died during our campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan or against ISIS in Syria.

 

[Derec]

The Gaza Strip is almost exactly the size of Philadelphia, PA (140 sq. mi.) The Palestinian death toll since 10/7/23 is estimated at about 44,000.

Gaza Strip also has a much higher population - 2.4M vs. Philly's 1.6M. That is because for decades, Palestinians have used their high birth rates as a demographic weapon against Israel. And not all areas of the Gaza Strip are built up. The result is that the urban areas are very densely populated, making warfare there challenging.

By the way, this exponential growth also caused water shortages (the Coastal Aquifer became overdrawn to the point of saltwater entering it) and Gaza having to import most of its food even before the current war.

By contrast, the U.S. lost 58,000 men in 8 years of fighting in Vietnam.

How many Vietnamese died?

So, yes, it is legitimate to ask if there is a better way to fight Hamas. It doesn't make one anti-Israel.

It does when the demand is that Israel not use means other countries such as the US do as a matter of course. Means such as bombing targets from the air and providing air support to ground troops.

Many Israelis have taken to the streets to plead with their government to change tactics.

Israel is a democracy. There is bound to be a difference in opinion. From what I have seen, the main concern of the protesters are the remaining hostages. However, I do not think Hamas has budged at all from their demands in the last few months. It is also unknown how many hostages are still living.

 

[Derec]

And how many times have posters on these fora complained, shrieked about Israeli troops invading Gaza. Terrorising civilians and destroying buildings.
What can Israel do that you would not complain about?

Biden didn't want Israel to use ground troops in Rafah because of concern for the civilians. You are right, no matter what Israel does, it will be attacked.

 

[Derec]

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

One 2000 lbs bomb cannot destroy an entire neighborhood.
Nevertheless, neighborhoods in Gaza have been destroyed of course. Because Hamas operate from built-up areas among and under the civilian population.
When asked whether 10,000 dead Gazans were worth it, Yahya Sinwar said that even 100,000 would be. He is now dead, but the rest of the upper echelons hardly have a different philosophy. That is the enemy that Israel is fighting against here.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys.

And with air support. Take the Battle of Fallujah. US ground troops but also helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. And a lot of civilian casualties too. You can't avoid them in warfare, especially not in an urban setting. And unlike Hamas, Iraqis did not even seek to maximize casualties for propaganda purposes.

The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

Even when they know where they are, there are still going to be casualties. The operation in Nuseirat to rescue some hostages led to the death of >200 and more hundreds injured, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Many of them combatants, but many of them civilians as well. Not surprising, given that the hostages were held in apartments.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

The only way to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza is not to take the war to Hamas. But that would only make Israeli civilians more vulnerable to the next Hamas attack.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

You jump into the fire to get out of the frying pan.

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

Where has Israel ever destroyed a block full of people??? I certainly do not recall any such incident. The closest thing to that I'm aware of was when a hostage rescue didn't go smoothly--Hamas was yeeting RPGs all over the place with crowds around, by the time Israel bombed everyone would have had time to flee. Yes, a lot of people died but we have no evidence that they died from Israeli fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

The Gaza Strip is almost exactly the size of Philadelphia, PA (140 sq. mi.) The Palestinian death toll since 10/7/23 is estimated at about 44,000. By contrast, the U.S. lost 58,000 men in 8 years of fighting in Vietnam. So, yes, it is legitimate to ask if there is a better way to fight Hamas. It doesn't make one anti-Israel. Many Israelis have taken to the streets to plead with their government to change tactics. Everyone knows or should know that the Oct. 7 attack was unbelievably brutal -- 1200 people slaughtered, many rapes, the hostages taken. That shouldn't mean that humanitarian concerns are taken off the table.

And you fall for their trap.

They get a lot of civilians killed, you think Israel did wrong.

The last counting I saw of dead terrorists was about 17,000. Leaving 23,000 dead civilians and 4,000 known fakes. For urban combat that is an incredibly good record. Do we have an exact count on dead terrorists? Of course not--but history shows that Israel's numbers bear a considerable resemblance to reality. I see no reason to think that has changed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

And how many times have posters on these fora complained, shrieked about Israeli troops invading Gaza. Terrorising civilians and destroying buildings.
What can Israel do that you would not complain about?

I don't know. How many times? Do you have some examples?

He asked what you wouldn't complain about. Why are you asking him for examples??

He was responding to your suggestion of a ground invasion by pointing out that you have objected to the ground invasion. You can't have it both ways.

(And Israel seems to have come up with a way to clear at least part of Gaza. Looks like they got the civilians to evacuate the northern part so all that's left is the terrorists. It's the ideal way to conduct an urban invasion but it's still going to wreck the place.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

And how many times have posters on these fora complained, shrieked about Israeli troops invading Gaza. Terrorising civilians and destroying buildings.
What can Israel do that you would not complain about?

I don't know. How many times? Do you have some examples?

He asked what you wouldn't complain about. Why are you asking him for examples??

I don't see the first question directed personally at me. The second question I already answered in my proposal for ground troops.

He was responding to your suggestion of a ground invasion by pointing out that you have objected to the ground invasion. You can't have it both ways.

Really? When did I do that?

(And Israel seems to have come up with a way to clear at least part of Gaza. Looks like they got the civilians to evacuate the northern part so all that's left is the terrorists. It's the ideal way to conduct an urban invasion but it's still going to wreck the place.)

So the terrorists are not using civilians for cover? How do you know Hamas didn't leave with the civilians. You're very long on statements but quite short on citations. We know the IDF has bombed refugee camps where Palestinians have fled to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

With a 2000# bomb they can call ahead and get the area evacuated. And when you watch the video you can see the tunnel destruction goes farther than the bomb damage--which means you minimize the total destruction by using big bombs. Remember, they're exploding underground in the tunnels.

Unfortunately, the tunnels go under the city. When the tunnels collapse they take out anything above them.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

Fallujah had pretty much been evacuated.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

When soldiers must make split-second decisions between whether somebody is a combatant in civilian attire or a true civilian you get more dead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

Just do some reading about combat instead of listening to sound bites.

War is hell, there are only horrible choices. You have to pick the least horrible--and until you recognize that you're not going to be able to pick the least horrible because you'll see it's horrible and balk at it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(And Israel seems to have come up with a way to clear at least part of Gaza. Looks like they got the civilians to evacuate the northern part so all that's left is the terrorists. It's the ideal way to conduct an urban invasion but it's still going to wreck the place.)

So the terrorists are not using civilians for cover? How do you know Hamas didn't leave with the civilians. You're very long on statements but quite short on citations. We know the IDF has bombed refugee camps where Palestinians have fled to.

Israel has captured an awful lot of intel. I would presume they checked who was going south.