Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 48972
View attachment 48973
View attachment 48974

WaPo - Unguided ‘dumb bombs’ used in almost half of Israeli strikes on Gaza The revelation, disclosed in a U.S. intelligence assessment, emerged as American officials press Israel to take a more targeted approach to its military campaign

I agree with one part of your rebuttal. I think the IDF knows what they are doing too.

You're not proving your point. Widespread damage is not evidence of war crimes nor is it evidence of massive deaths (that not even Hamas claims.) And your pictures don't look right, either.

First picture: Some people on the road (and how did that road survive the devastation unless what we are seeing is the result of tunnel collapse?) and some things that look very much like people in the rubble--except they aren't all there. And look at the right side of the image--one line of buildings gone, the next intact. Strangely selective bombing--but it makes perfect sense if they were bombing a tunnel under that mess.

Third picture: I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. We have considerable blast damage apparent, but two tanks untouched and the plants are still there. We've seen AI fuckups before, I suspect this is one.

Look at all that HAMAS propaganda provided by the IDF in those photographs. You do know there were people in those what were once buildings, right?

The death toll does not reflect that. Israel typically calls ahead when hitting infrastructure, those buildings were likely evacuated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

but you can make the general case that an absolute refusal to kill children results in genocide.

You’re conjuring this so-called 'absolute refusal' out of thin air. It doesn’t exist, and pretending otherwise only undermines any real dialogue. If you want a constructive conversation, drop the made-up claims and stick to the facts.

That's the implication of the position several of you hold. You consider anything that results in a child dying to be wrong. You weaseled on the Hitler question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's take deaths out of the picture. How many children in Gaza have a home to return to?

How is this going to be addressed? Yes, Hamas is a problem. Yes, there was going to be destruction after the October massacre. But how many children in Gaza have no where to return for a home?

That doesn't make Israel's actions wrong. Hamas put a ton of tunnels under Gaza, an awful lot of buildings collapsed when their foundations fell into the collapsed tunnels. This is just a variation on human shield tactics.

 

[laughing dog]

Because some of released prisoners participated?

Many of the released prisoners participated. Some of the released prisoners planned and led the invasion/massacre. First and foremost Yahya Sinwar, who was the head of Hamas in Gaza at the time.

Thank you, the fact that some of the prisoners helped plan and lead the massacre is good evidence. Participation is not because there are always people who follow.

He spelled it out in more detail but he's not saying anything I didn't.

And I note that you're not addressing the implications.

No need to address your implications because they do not rebut my observation that a hostage swap instead of an invasion would likely reduce the overall destruction and death.

I couldn't possibly disagree with this idea more.

Obviously the death toll and manner of the killings in the massacre was awful. In my opinion, what was even worse was the hostage taking, as it helped provide cover to the top brass of Hamas for the atrocities unleashed. It isn't remotely conceivable in my opinion to trade off prisoners for hostages... who were taken as part of an even larger bloody atrocity. The math simply doesn't hold. To me, the hostages were taken to keep the top brass from Hamas from being summarily targeted by the Mossad. Getting prisoners back was just bonus for Hamas (and a red herring). The taking of hostages, in my mind, was the end of Hamas as any viable existence within or near Israel. They could not be trusted much to begin with, but this was crossing a line.

I understand how odious the notion of a hostage swap is. It rewards odious behavior. But the ME is filled with such rewards - the expanasion of settlers in the West Bank is an example.

But there is ample history indicating that Israeli policy is amenable to possible hostage swaps. There was no attempt at a hostage swap on the part of Israel. One can argue the merits of Israel's decision, but I think it is clear that it meant more death and destruction overall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said, the hard question is never answered. And once again it is not answered.

It was answered.

You brought up the irrelevancy of what you remember.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.

A gif in the wiki article about the strike in question (that he posted, mind you) clearly shows a secondary explosion.

Could be the bomb struck in one corner of the building destroying that section of the building and the energy from the explosion forced its way down corridor(s) of the remainder of the building and possibly through closed doors and out some window(s) milliseconds later. Couldn't it? Concrete walls and wooden doors might make this scenario possible.
I guess we all see what we want to see.

I see you grasping at virtual straws.

The secondary isn't milliseconds later. I don't have anything to do a frame-by-frame on a .GIF but it is at least one second after the original boom. And if the original bomb struck a corner we would see blast radiating out from that point. We don't--the original blast is heading up, saying that there was no way for it to head out. Typical for a below-ground detonation. In theory enough concrete could reflect a blast but if that happened we would see it happening long before we do.

This is a perfectly ordinary video of a bomb causing a secondary, the only reason to think it's not is if you're desperate to blame Israel for what happened.

There are certainly been secondary damage caused by stored munitions by militants. Are you suggesting most of the damage has been?

The discussion was about a specific incident that resulted in many civilian casualties. Some of us recognized the video for what it shows--a secondary that caused the problem. That in no way shows evidence of wrongdoing in dropping the bomb.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because some of released prisoners participated?

Many of the released prisoners participated. Some of the released prisoners planned and led the invasion/massacre. First and foremost Yahya Sinwar, who was the head of Hamas in Gaza at the time.

Thank you, the fact that some of the prisoners helped plan and lead the massacre is good evidence. Participation is not because there are always people who follow.

He spelled it out in more detail but he's not saying anything I didn't.

And I note that you're not addressing the implications.

No need to address your implications because they do not rebut my observation that a hostage swap instead of an invasion would likely reduce the overall destruction and death.

I couldn't possibly disagree with this idea more.

Obviously the death toll and manner of the killings in the massacre was awful. In my opinion, what was even worse was the hostage taking, as it helped provide cover to the top brass of Hamas for the atrocities unleashed. It isn't remotely conceivable in my opinion to trade off prisoners for hostages... who were taken as part of an even larger bloody atrocity. The math simply doesn't hold. To me, the hostages were taken to keep the top brass from Hamas from being summarily targeted by the Mossad. Getting prisoners back was just bonus for Hamas (and a red herring). The taking of hostages, in my mind, was the end of Hamas as any viable existence within or near Israel. They could not be trusted much to begin with, but this was crossing a line.

I understand how odious the notion of a hostage swap is. It rewards odious behavior. But the ME is filled with such rewards - the expanasion of settlers in the West Bank is an example.

I get a hostage swap. They suck, but pragmatism and all. What I don't approve of is using hostages taken as part of a rancid atrocity and provide leverage to protect the heads of Hamas, being used to get much in the way of soldiers. At least, not without some levels of repercussions.

But there is ample history indicating that Israeli policy is amenable to possible hostage swaps. There was no attempt at a hostage swap on the part of Israel. One can argue the merits of Israel's decision, but I think it is clear that it meant more death and destruction overall.

You seemed to suggest that this could have just been done in lieu of military action, but i just don't see how that is possible. Short of trade for all the hostages and then ice Hamas generals, but I doubt very much that Hamas would have traded all of the hostages, again... because the hostages existed to protect the Hamas folks who came up with and authorized the October attack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's take deaths out of the picture. How many children in Gaza have a home to return to?

How is this going to be addressed? Yes, Hamas is a problem. Yes, there was going to be destruction after the October massacre. But how many children in Gaza have no where to return for a home?

That doesn't make Israel's actions wrong. Hamas put a ton of tunnels under Gaza, an awful lot of buildings collapsed when their foundations fell into the collapsed tunnels. This is just a variation on human shield tactics.

There are certainly been secondary damage caused by stored munitions by militants. Are you suggesting most of the damage has been?

The discussion was about a specific incident that resulted in many civilian casualties. Some of us recognized the video for what it shows--a secondary that caused the problem. That in no way shows evidence of wrongdoing in dropping the bomb.

Understood. So you are going to try and provide cover for the breadth of military actions by arguing only about individual issues that pop up and not the aggregate outcome. This is why the Patriots won Super Bowl XLII. Sure, Tyree might have made that reception but the Patriots led for most of the game.

My concern is about what is left of Gaza. And the cesspool being created that is going to put Israel at greater risk. Saying Israel "isn't wrong" doesn't undo the instability in Gaza at the moment, which is going to be breeding militants. No other Arab nation is taking these Palestinians in. Israel's actions have had a reaction, that will make things worse, unless addressed in the short and long term. Your moral indifference to the Palestinians doesn't make them any less real and susceptible to what impoverished and marginalized people tend to be susceptible to (frustration, anger, radicalization).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They’ve extended help to Palestinians through initiatives like providing water and electricity to the Palestinian territories, advancing agricultural practices, creating joint industrial zones, and offering academic opportunities. Acknowledging these efforts doesn’t make them anti-Semites, nor does it diminish their struggles. Yet somehow, when I speak about these positive actions, things that build bridges between people, it's framed as making demands. I just can’t wrap my head around this argument.

All I did was ask what comes next after Hamas is removed and shared a few ideas. Now, suddenly, I’m accused of hating Jewish people and unknowingly falling for Hamas propaganda? This topic as gone mad.

The problem here is that you think it's over when Hamas is removed.

1) Hamas top leadership is elsewhere, Israel is only going to get the on-scene commanders.

2) The funding hasn't been touched. If not Hamas, somebody will rebuild. There's enough Islamist money out there, somebody will take it.

So what is your solution - mass destruction and slaughter across the Islamist word?

I don't believe there is a real solution at this point. The status quo of periodically bombing the terrorists is the best we can hope for. We dicked around with Iran for too long, now a military answer is off the table. We will simply have to live with state sponsored Islamist terror like we used to have to live with state sponsored Marxist terror.

 

[laughing dog]

You seemed to suggest that this could have just been done in lieu of military action, but i just don't see how that is possible. Short of trade for all the hostages and then ice Hamas generals, but I doubt very much that Hamas would have traded all of the hostages, again... because the hostages existed to protect the Hamas folks who came up with and authorized the October attack.

We can hypothesize about likely parameters of a swap, but the reality is that we will never know. But I think that if a swap had occurred (and a swap means mutual agreement), I think there would have been much less death and destruction. Of course, my conjecture is simply that it seems to me that it was worth a try.

 

[laughing dog]

They’ve extended help to Palestinians through initiatives like providing water and electricity to the Palestinian territories, advancing agricultural practices, creating joint industrial zones, and offering academic opportunities. Acknowledging these efforts doesn’t make them anti-Semites, nor does it diminish their struggles. Yet somehow, when I speak about these positive actions, things that build bridges between people, it's framed as making demands. I just can’t wrap my head around this argument.

All I did was ask what comes next after Hamas is removed and shared a few ideas. Now, suddenly, I’m accused of hating Jewish people and unknowingly falling for Hamas propaganda? This topic as gone mad.

The problem here is that you think it's over when Hamas is removed.

1) Hamas top leadership is elsewhere, Israel is only going to get the on-scene commanders.

2) The funding hasn't been touched. If not Hamas, somebody will rebuild. There's enough Islamist money out there, somebody will take it.

So what is your solution - mass destruction and slaughter across the Islamist word?

I don't believe there is a real solution at this point. The status quo of periodically bombing the terrorists is the best we can hope for. We dicked around with Iran for too long, now a military answer is off the table. We will simply have to live with state sponsored Islamist terror like we used to have to live with state sponsored Marxist terror.

And we lived with that state sponsored Marxist terrorism without periodic massive bombing.

 

[Gospel]

We’re all on the same page here. The challenge with this discussion is that, to some members, anything perceived as unfavorable to Israel is labeled as antisemitic or Hamas propaganda. Even questions about Israel’s future actions are considered overly critical, despite Israel itself taking the very steps being suggested and its leadership making similar statements. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Your page is too general.

Yes, we all want Hamas gone. The problem comes down to the details. We fall into basically two camps: Those who accept that all answers are horrible and that we should be picking the least horrible and those who hold to some sort of fantasy solution that doesn't involve being horrible.

I believe the least harmful approach involves Israel defending itself by decisively neutralizing Hamas, while simultaneously working with Palestinians, other Arab nations, the UN, and Western countries to dismantle the extremist ideology & money fueling this violence. That effort is already underway, although you’ve repeatedly suggested I’m unaware of it. What alternatives is there? You seem to advocate waiting until Israel is attacked and then responding, again and again. In contrast, I'm saying that Israel not only defend itself when attacked but also intensify its efforts, alongside others, to counter the ideological narrative that groups like Hamas use to recruit new members.

I’m simply restating Israel’s long-established strategy, which refutes your hollow insistence that Israel keeps reacting to each attack on an endless loop. Hamas has a seemingly endless pool of potential recruits, and both the Israeli government and I are fully aware of that reality despite your baseless post to the contrary.

Cut off their funding, dismantle their ideology and neutralize their members, what else is there? Are you suggesting genocide? What exactly are you complaining about? Surely you realize I’m simply reiterating what Israel is already doing, so if you have an issue, it’s not with me, it’s with Israel.

 

[Gospel]

but you can make the general case that an absolute refusal to kill children results in genocide.

You’re conjuring this so-called 'absolute refusal' out of thin air. It doesn’t exist, and pretending otherwise only undermines any real dialogue. If you want a constructive conversation, drop the made-up claims and stick to the facts.

That's the implication of the position several of you hold. You consider anything that results in a child dying to be wrong. You weaseled on the Hitler question.

So my saying yes I'd kill Hitler (twice) wasn't an answer? Now you're just being absurd.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You seemed to suggest that this could have just been done in lieu of military action, but i just don't see how that is possible. Short of trade for all the hostages and then ice Hamas generals, but I doubt very much that Hamas would have traded all of the hostages, again... because the hostages existed to protect the Hamas folks who came up with and authorized the October attack.

We can hypothesize about likely parameters of a swap, but the reality is that we will never know.

Indeed, we won't. But it is does not seem unreasonable that if Hamas gave up the hostages immediately, Mossad would have then been targeting the top leaders as a reprisal for the atrocity. Those hostages were seemingly taken to protect Hamas.

But I think that if a swap had occurred (and a swap means mutual agreement), I think there would have been much less death and destruction.

Less death, yes. Less destruction yes. Less premeditated murder, probably not.

Of course, my conjecture is simply that it seems to me that it was worth a try.

I can understand Israel not wanting to do as such immediately after such an attack. Nor, trusting a word our Hamas either. I think it was a bridge too far.

You are right that it is all hypothetical at this point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because some of released prisoners participated?

Many of the released prisoners participated. Some of the released prisoners planned and led the invasion/massacre. First and foremost Yahya Sinwar, who was the head of Hamas in Gaza at the time.

Thank you, the fact that some of the prisoners helped plan and lead the massacre is good evidence. Participation is not because there are always people who follow.

He spelled it out in more detail but he's not saying anything I didn't.

And I note that you're not addressing the implications.

No need to address your implications because they do not rebut my observation that a hostage swap instead of an invasion would likely reduce the overall destruction and death.

You're utterly ignoring the fact that the last hostage swap got them more dead Israelis than freed hostages.

Moveover, that avoids the discussion about holding prisoners for alleged crimes without trial for years. One might think that practice might harden the hearts and minds of those prisoners making them more violent terrorists upon release.

The money being provided for terror is both necessary and sufficient to explain what is happening.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not consider the deaths "deserved", but I recognize that they're going to happen and blaming Israel every time they happen isn't useful. You're playing right into Hamas' hands. Their track record is extremely good, I don't see how any of us are qualified to second guess their actions. But Hamas parades the dead kids before the cameras and the facts get ignored.

You keep repeating the above yet never provide any proof it it whatsoever.

I've given the numbers, both for Israel and the general result. You provided an article that pretended to say otherwise but didn't actually support it's claim. It recognized the very bloody nature of urban combat, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understand how odious the notion of a hostage swap is. It rewards odious behavior. But the ME is filled with such rewards - the expanasion of settlers in the West Bank is an example.

But there is ample history indicating that Israeli policy is amenable to possible hostage swaps. There was no attempt at a hostage swap on the part of Israel. One can argue the merits of Israel's decision, but I think it is clear that it meant more death and destruction overall.

We've been down this road before.

1) The price Israel would have to pay would simply be too high.

2) History has shown it's can-kicking anyway.

You never rebutted either of these, you just are bringing it up again. Why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I understand how odious the notion of a hostage swap is. It rewards odious behavior. But the ME is filled with such rewards - the expanasion of settlers in the West Bank is an example.

But there is ample history indicating that Israeli policy is amenable to possible hostage swaps. There was no attempt at a hostage swap on the part of Israel. One can argue the merits of Israel's decision, but I think it is clear that it meant more death and destruction overall.

We've been down this road before.

1) The price Israel would have to pay would simply be too high.

2) History has shown it's can-kicking anyway.

You never rebutted either of these, you just are bringing it up again. Why?

Haven't you already indicated your 'solution' is can-kicking as well. That future attacks are a fait accompli?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My concern is about what is left of Gaza. And the cesspool being created that is going to put Israel at greater risk. Saying Israel "isn't wrong" doesn't undo the instability in Gaza at the moment, which is going to be breeding militants. No other Arab nation is taking these Palestinians in. Israel's actions have had a reaction, that will make things worse, unless addressed in the short and long term. Your moral indifference to the Palestinians doesn't make them any less real and susceptible to what impoverished and marginalized people tend to be susceptible to (frustration, anger, radicalization).

"Breeding militants" is a distraction. The war exists because of Islamist money, not because of Israel's actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't believe there is a real solution at this point. The status quo of periodically bombing the terrorists is the best we can hope for. We dicked around with Iran for too long, now a military answer is off the table. We will simply have to live with state sponsored Islamist terror like we used to have to live with state sponsored Marxist terror.

And we lived with that state sponsored Marxist terrorism without periodic massive bombing.

1) It was never at the scale that Islamist terror is.

2) Libya.