Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

Its relative. An army is a hammer. If you use it, people get hurt. If there’s civilians where its used, then civilians get hurt.

But the IDF is relatively well behaved. Compared to any other conbatant army they are extremely gentle. Its still an army. And Hamas are actively trying to put Palestinians civilians at risk. Which of course drives up civilian casualties.

Also... context. The current incoursion is a response to the 7/10 attack by Hamas. One of the most barbaric humanity has ever seen. We should then expect Israeli revenge attacks on Palestinian civilian. Bit we're, incredibly, not seeing any of that. Which I think is impressive

I don't think the left is giving IDF enough credit. They’re fighting in the worst possible situation and doing a great job

 

[TomC]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

I'd lost a bunch of respect for the UN over the last several years.

This was just another episode. They managed to bitch about the destruction of hospitals and such without mentioning human shields.

They seem to have become the international mouthpieces for tyrannical government and violent terrorism.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again... Hamas is the issue here, it is Iran. Negotiating with Hamas to stop Iran from meddling in the region is a failed maneuver.

Hamas apologetics! 100 yard penalty! 1st down.

Did you have anything useful to interject?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

I'd lost a bunch of respect for the UN over the last several years.

UN had one job, prevent WWIII. It has worked so far.

This was just another episode. They managed to bitch about the destruction of hospitals and such without mentioning human shields.

And if there was not a single civilian in the hospital, has destroying it brought Israel logistically closer to ending Hamas?

 

[Gospel]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

I'd lost a bunch of respect for the UN over the last several years.

This was just another episode. They managed to bitch about the destruction of hospitals and such without mentioning human shields.

They seem to have become the international mouthpieces for tyrannical government and violent terrorism.
Tom

You do know the UN is not a tabloid right? You speak as if it's a single organization posting clickbait rather than a group of nations. The UN has mentioned Hamas using human shields.

TOM TUGENDHAT, Minister of State for Security of the United Kingdom
We know that Hamas are using innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields; they have embedded themselves in civilian communities,”

ANNALENA BAERBOCK, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany,
In doing so, we must not be fooled by Hamas’ playbook,” she said, pointing to their use of women and children in Gaza as human shields, and their hiding of weapons under supermarkets, apartment blocks and even hospitals.

SERGIY KYSLYTSYA (Ukraine) He also condemned the taking of hostages and demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all captives. Hamas has plunged the region into hostilities and is using civilians as human shields.

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State of the United States
Palestinian civilians must be protected, and Hamas must cease to use them as human shields.

There’s plenty more out there for anyone genuinely interested in finding it.

 

[TomC]

And if there was not a single civilian in the hospital, has destroying it brought Israel logistically closer to ending Hamas?

If it contains military installations or is on top of some, then yes.
Definitely.

But the Gazan leadership is very big on using human shields. If there weren't a single civilian in the building, there would be no human shields. Why call it a hospital? It would be a possible hospital, or an ex-hospital, but without those human shields it's just a military installation.
Tom

 

[TomC]

You do know the UN is not a tabloid right? You speak as if it's a single organization posting clickbait rather than a group of nations.

Sorry.
I was referring specifically to pood's link.

But like I said, my opinion of the UN has been dropping for years and this was just another reason for that.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And if there was not a single civilian in the hospital, has destroying it brought Israel logistically closer to ending Hamas?

If it contains military installations or is on top of some, then yes.
Definitely.

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

But the Gazan leadership is very big on using human shields.

You keep saying that like it is some sort of surprise.

If there weren't a single civilian in the building, there would be no human shields. Why call it a hospital?

The point of my post was that even in targeting it as if it was merely a military installation, how did that help Israel's cause? It isn't as if Hamas has large military bases to destroy.

 

[TomC]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.

*ponders all those other times bombings and bullets didn't work*

• Vietnam
• Afghanistan (USSR)
• Afghanistan (USA)
• Iraq
• Israel (last 20 years)

Bombs and guns didn't impede the insurgency. Working with the people did.

 

[laughing dog]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

I think it is more reasonable to suggest that if there is no end to the IDF strikes, then the IDF strikes aren't achieving the goal.

 

[Gospel]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.
Tom

You must mean the Gazans whom Hamas, with Israel's early support, convinced to vote them into power. And not the Gazans who were targeted by Hamas for opposing its rule or criticizing its policies.

 

[laughing dog]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

I think it is more reasonable to suggest that if there is no end to the IDF strikes, then the IDF strikes aren't achieving the goal.

I don't disagree, but reason requires acknowledgement of reality. Whether stopping the violence is a wise move on the part of Israel is a different question of whether Israel can stop its violence.

 

[TomC]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.

*ponders all those other times bombings and bullets didn't work*

• Vietnam
• Afghanistan (USSR)
• Afghanistan (USA)
• Iraq
• Israel (last 20 years)

Bombs and guns didn't impede the insurgency. Working with the people did.

In any of those cases,
Were the "victims" also the attackers?

Also, why pinch off Israel history at 20 years? Looks like a transparent attempt to white wash Islamic terrorists and the results of all that violence that they perpetrated.
Tom

 

[TomC]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

Nope.
Gazans can end the attacks. But they refuse so the war continues.

Please don't resort to the "Hamas aren't Gazans " nonsense.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

Nope.
Gazans can end the attacks. But they refuse so the war continues.

That illogical. It is possible Hamas can end the war. So can Israel. No one is compelling Hamas to continue or Israel to continue against their will.

Please don't resort to the "Hamas aren't Gazans " nonsense.
Tom

Your conflation of "Gazan" with "Hamas" shows a callous disregard for the noncombatants of Gaza. But I understand your need to dismiss reason and accuracy as "nonsense".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.

*ponders all those other times bombings and bullets didn't work*

• Vietnam
• Afghanistan (USSR)
• Afghanistan (USA)
• Iraq
• Israel (last 20 years)

Bombs and guns didn't impede the insurgency. Working with the people did.

In any of those cases,
Were the "victims" also the attackers?

In all of them, depending on how loosely we are labeling victims and attackers.

Also, why pinch off Israel history at 20 years?

Because the last 20 years has been cyclical regarding attacks from Hamas, responses from IDF.

Looks like a transparent attempt to white wash Islamic terrorists and the results of all that violence that they perpetrated.

As a person who knew someone who was murdered by Islamic Terrorists, I think you know where to shove those callous sentiments. It is just so fucking easy for people like you to throw that shit about like it was nothing.

 

[TomC]

That illogical. It is possible Hamas can end the war. So can Israel. No one is compelling Hamas to continue or Israel to continue against their will.

How can Israel end a war that their enemies have sworn to keep going until Israel is destroyed?

Your conflation of "Gazan" with "Hamas" shows a callous disregard for the noncombatants of Gaza.

Your inability to grasp that Hamas are Gazans shows a callous disregard for accuracy and honesty.
Unfortunately, the callous disregard for the lives of non-combatant Gazans is almost entirely from Hamas and their supporters, foreign and domestic.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Again... Hamas is the issue here, it is Iran. Negotiating with Hamas to stop Iran from meddling in the region is a failed maneuver.

Hamas apologetics! 100 yard penalty! 1st down.

Did you have anything useful to interject?

Is there a specific reason you can catch sarcasm from others but not from me?