Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Put em on ignore like I did. They’re both incessant, tremendous cunts that can’t help themselves in responding and generally being whiny cunts. 

Jesus fucking Christ, talk about pot meeting the fucking kettle. All 3 of you fucks (and a couple others) have made this thread completely unreadable.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

That sure seems to fit the pattern of Israel doing pretty much everything Ol Joe tells them not to do lately...
 

And lately they're kicking a shit ton of ass.  Odd, isn't it?

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:


I hope so. I’d bet there’s a list we’ve given them of places they really super shouldn’t hit - wink, wink. Maybe drone factories or the ports supplying to Russia, in addition to the nuke sites.

 

The ol' can't lose trick.

 

<coach> No, no, don't shoot

Good shot.gif <coach>

Posted

After Iran’s missile attack, Israel may be ready to risk all-out war.

For years, Israel and Iran avoided direct confrontation, as Israel secretly sabotaged Tehran’s interests and assassinated its officials without claiming responsibility, and Iran encouraged allies to attack Israel while rarely doing so itself.

Now, the two countries seem prepared to risk a direct, prolonged and extraordinarily costly conflict.

After Israel invaded Lebanon to confront Iran’s strongest ally, Hezbollah, and Iran’s second massive missile attack on Israel in less than six months, Israel seems ready to strike Iran directly, in a much more forceful and public way than it ever has, and Iran has warned of massive retaliation if it does.

“We are in a different story right now,” said Yoel Guzansky, a former senior security official who oversaw Iran strategy on Israel’s National Security Council. “We have a consensus in Israel — among the military, the defense experts, analysts and politicians — that Israel should respond in force to Iran’s attack.”

To many Israelis, there is now little to lose: Iran’s efforts to strike the urban sprawl around Tel Aviv crossed a threshold that Tehran has never previously breached, even during its earlier missile attack in April, which targeted air bases but not civilian areas.

Critics of Israel often see the country as the primary instigator of unrest in the Middle East. But most Israelis see themselves as the victims of constant attack from Iran’s proxies — particularly Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon — and feel that they have not done enough to defend themselves. As a result, there are growing calls in Israel to make Iran fully accountable for its allies’ attacks, even if it risks an explosive reaction.

“Many in Israel see this as an opportunity to do more to inflict pain on Iran,” said Mr. Guzansky, who is now a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli research group. “To make it stop.”

Israel has yet to make a decision about exactly how to respond, six Israeli officials and a senior U.S. official said, and the extent of its reaction will be affected by the level of support — both practical and rhetorical — provided by the United States. U.S. forces helped Israel shoot down incoming missiles from both Iranian attacks.

The exact nature of its response may not become clear until after Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year holiday, which runs until sundown on Friday, according to the officials, all of whom requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

cont'd:

Spoiler

In talks with the Israeli government, the White House was expected to point to the relatively light damage caused by the Iranian missile attack on Tuesday and urge Israeli restraint, the U.S. official said. These pleas were expected to have little impact, the official added.

But Israel’s counterattack is expected to be far more forceful than its response to Iran’s first round of ballistic missiles in April, when Israel conducted limited strikes on an Iranian air defense battery and did not officially acknowledge its involvement in that attack.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that they think the response in April was too little and too restrained, according to the senior U.S. official. Israeli leaders feel they were wrong to listen to the White House’s urging at the time to conduct a measured retaliatory strike, the official said.

This time, Israel might target oil production sites and military bases, the officials said. Damaging oil refineries could harm Iran’s already frail economy, as well as send global oil markets into turmoil a month before the U.S. elections.

Despite media speculation, Israel is not currently planning to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to four Israeli officials, even though Israel sees Iran’s efforts to create a nuclear weapons program as an existential threat.

Targeting nuclear sites, many of which are deep underground, would be hard without U.S. support. President Biden said Wednesday that he would not support an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear sites.

Still, Israel’s response “should be seen everywhere. It should be felt by Iran. It should hurt Iran,” Mr. Guzansky urged. “In order to do that, you cannot hit a radar station again.”

Israelis were deeply shaken by the Hamas-led attack on Israel of Oct. 7 and its aftermath, an assault for them on the very idea of Israel as a haven for Jews.

Now, many have an increased tolerance for short-term danger in order to achieve long-term security, according to Sima Shine, a former senior intelligence officer who helped guide Israel’s Iran strategy. More Israelis want the government to do “things that we didn’t do in the past, because we cannot be under ongoing attacks from all sides,” Ms. Shine said.

“This is part of the miscalculation of all our enemies around,” Ms. Shine said. “They don’t understand what Oct. 7 has done to the Israeli people, to their willingness to take much more risks.”

For Israelis, Iran also now seems more vulnerable than it has for years. After Israel killed much of Hezbollah’s leadership in recent weeks and destroyed large parts of the group’s missile stockpiles, Iran can no longer count on meaningful support from its proxy in Lebanon if Israel conducts a more forceful attack on Tehran.

“Iran is much weaker than before,” said Mr. Guzansky, the former official. “Israel is freer to do more.”

According to the senior U.S. official, a sizable number of missiles failed on launch or before reaching Israeli air space, further exposing a vulnerability in Iran’s vaunted ballistic missile arsenal that was first revealed in April’s attack, which had an even greater failure rate.

Israel’s second successful defense against advanced ballistic missiles, coupled with Hezbollah’s weakened condition, will likely embolden Israel to opt for a more aggressive response than in April, the senior U.S. official said.

Recent comments from Israeli leaders give a sense of their growing ambition and confidence. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, directly addressed the Iranian public in a statement earlier this week, hinting at his support for regime change in Tehran.

Mr. Netanyahu also struck a particularly defiant tone after the attack on Tuesday night. “This evening, Iran made a big mistake — and it will pay for it,” he said. “Israel has the momentum and the ‘axis of evil’ is in retreat. We will do whatever needs to be done to continue this trend.”

To some experts, however, Israelis risk underestimating Iran’s resilience and overestimating their own ability to cause meaningful damage.

“The approach that Israel has had over 75 years has always been about hitting your enemy harder than you’re being hit,” said Andreas Krieg, an expert on warfare at King’s College, London. “That doesn’t work with a regime like Iran, though. I don’t think you can deter them.”

As a result, Israel may be able to inflict short-term damage but fall short of long-term change, he said.

“I still haven’t seen a strategy,” Mr. Krieg said. “That’s what I’m trying to get from the Israelis: What is your strategy to weaken the regime?”

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

I think you got it, but add it is also an inner Islam fight that is going on. Iran wants to push the Shia line hard and not let those dang Sunni have all the fun and be seen as the legitimate hard line vs. Israel and the west. The Shia crescent is real yo.

image.jpeg.56ea0f9c2ccb6765e6eb25c39b197348.jpeg

 

The great thing in this case is that the two sects can kill one another while they all chant "allahu akbar".

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, AnTiM said:

The great thing in this case is that the two sects can kill one another while they all chant "allahu akbar".

[Europe, staring in 30 Years' War]

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just to frame this a bit differently, a sovereign nation launched 108 high value strategic war assets at another state’s territory. This was in response to a targeted attack on a non-state actor on the territory of a third state.  

This is a remarkable euphemism. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

This is a remarkable euphemism. 

 Just trying to frame what happened— Iran launched a whole bunch of medium range liquid fueled ballistic missiles.  These are among the most expensive and valuable assets available to their armed forces and a pillar of any war planning scenario they have as well as their deterrence posture. 
 

Asking “could this lead to war” is sort of like asking a woman who is not your wife mid-pump, “hey, is this a full-blown affair?” 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

There is no fucking way that the music festival attack happened 1.0 years ago. October 2023. 

Is it just me being old as shit or doesnt that seem like an event from 3/4 months back? 

Posted
11 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just to frame this a bit differently, a sovereign nation launched 108 high value strategic war assets at another state’s territory. This was in response to a targeted attack on a non-state actor on the territory of a third state.  
 

Relevant also to note that the third state does not border Iran, and that Hezbollah is useful to Iran only as a platform to advance Iranian interests vis-a-vis the Palestine issue and potentially as a deterrent to keep Israel from striking back at Iran for doing— shit like this. You cannot credibly say that Iran’s core security is affected by strikes on Hezbollah. It’s even more ludicrous than claiming that Russia’s core security was affected by Ukraine battling LNR/DNR militias.

Bottom line is that a 108 ballistic missile attack on a nation’s air bases IS ALREADY ALL OUT FUCKING WAR. Only in the insane discourse of Israel is there a risk of Israel “escalating” from that and in fact they are showing amazing restraint already.  If Belarus launches 100 ballistic missiles at Polish defense installations no one is writing stupid headlines like “will this lead to all out war?” 

I'm not sure what kind of argument you think I was trying to make by posting that NYTimes analysis because what you've stated here is actually my thoughts on this. Earlier, there were other posters arguing here or in the other CR thread that Israel would show restraint in their response to Iran's attack. I think the case is just the opposite and believe that Israel will go at them with full force, justifiably, by the way.

In my previous comment, I thought I made it clear that this Iranian attack was different in that a) it wasn't half-assed like the other one and b) Iran is inserting itself into a fight between Israel and Hezbollah (yes, I know they're a proxy, but Iran could keep their hands unbloodied by staying out of it). Last time, Israel simply gave Iran a cursory response because everyone knew it was all a theatrical performance. This time will be different.

Bold statement, I know.

Posted

times of india

Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel, forcing millions into bomb shelters. Israel began limited ground operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Most missiles were intercepted. Israel


The Middle East edged nearer to a wider regional conflict following Iran's launch of ballistic missiles at Israel on Tuesday, sending almost 10 million people into bomb shelters as projectiles and interceptors exploded in the skies above.
Israel said it has initiated restricted ground operations in Lebanon, focusing on the Iran-supported Hezbollah militia.
According to Israeli sources, many of the missiles were intercepted, and US officials said that American destroyers contributed to Israel's defense.


Iran claimed that the majority of its missiles reached their intended targets. No immediate reports of casualties were available.
The attack came five months after a strike in April that was the first ever direct Iranian strike on Israel. Ballistic missiles are an important part of the arsenal at Tehran's disposal.
To better understand the situation, it is crucial to examine Iran's ballistic missile arsenal and the defensive capabilities of Israeli forces.


How dangerous is Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal


Iran possesses a significantly larger arsenal of artillery and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) compared to Israel. However, these weapon systems would need to be deployed near Israel's borders to be effective, as traditional artillery and MLRS with a range of 70-80 km cannot reach Israel from their current positions.

Iran is also known to have a substantial number of short, medium, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel. According to a 2021 report by the Missile Threat Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Tehran has thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles with a variety of ranges.
Ballistic missiles follow a trajectory that takes them outside or near the limits of Earth's atmosphere before the warhead separates from the rocket and descends onto its target. An analysis of Iran's extensive ballistic missile arsenal, considering guidance systems and range, reveals a significant threat to Israel, as Iran is believed to possess at least five different long-range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel from Iranian territory.
Iran's Ballistic missile system includes primarily short-range and medium-range missiles, such as the Fateh, Sajjil, Shahab, Qiam, and Khorramshar. The short-range Shahab-2, with a range of up to 500 km, has been part of Iran's arsenal since 1998, while the Fateh-313, another short-range missile with a similar range, was incorporated into Iran's defense system in 2015.


Medium-range missiles, capable of traveling 1,000 to 2,000 km, were introduced into Iran's defense program in 2003 with the Shahab-3. These missiles use liquid propellant, carry warheads weighing 760 to 1,200 kg, and can be launched from mobile launchers and silos. According to Iran Watch, the latest variants of the Shahab-3, the Ghadr and Emad missiles, have accuracies within 300 meters (almost 1,000 feet) of their intended targets.


Iranian media reported that Tehran used a new missile, the Fateh-1, in Tuesday's attacks on Israel. This 'hypersonic' missile travels at Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound (6,100 km per hour).


Israel's defence mechanism: Beyond the Iron Dome


Israel's nuclear capabilities have been a topic of speculation for decades, as the nation maintains a policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal. While the country has not officially confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons, it is widely assumed that Israel has a substantial nuclear stockpile.
According to estimates from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Israel's nuclear arsenal likely consists of approximately 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads. Furthermore, the country is believed to have produced sufficient plutonium to potentially manufacture between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons.
Israel has a multi-layered missile defense system designed to intercept various types of threats, from ballistic missiles that reach high altitudes to low-flying cruise missiles and rockets.
The Iron Dome, which has garnered significant attention for its effectiveness, is the lowest tier of Israel's missile defense and is primarily used to counter incoming rockets and artillery weapons. However, the Iron Dome was not the system employed to combat the ballistic missiles launched on Tuesday night, CNN reported.
The next level of defense is David's Sling, a collaborative effort between Israel's RAFAEL Advanced Defense System and US defense giant Raytheon. This system protects against short- and medium-range threats, utilizing Stunner and SkyCeptor kinetic hit-to-kill interceptors to neutralize targets up to 186 miles away, as reported by the Missile Threat Project at the CSIS.


Above David's Sling, Israel has the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems, both developed in partnership with the United States. The Arrow 2 employs fragmentation warheads to destroy incoming ballistic missiles in their terminal phase, as they descend towards their targets in the upper atmosphere.
According to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, the Arrow 2 has a range of 56 miles and a maximum altitude of 32 miles, representing an upgrade from the US Patriot missile defenses Israel previously used in this role.


The Arrow 3, on the other hand, utilizes hit-to-kill technology to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in space before they reenter the atmosphere on their way to targets.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don’t know whether this goes here or the Ukraine thread, but whatever:

 

I was hoping Israel might take out the factories where the Iranians manufacture munitions like the Shahed or perhaps the Caspian ports from which they're shipped.  But this seems like a good intermediate step.  

I mean, if they're going to use our weaponry to take stuff out, we might as well both benefit from it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

I was hoping Israel might take out the factories where the Iranians manufacture munitions like the Shahed or perhaps the Caspian ports from which they're shipped.  But this seems like a good intermediate step.  

I mean, if they're going to use our weaponry to take stuff out, we might as well both benefit from it.

I suspect this is part of the battlefield-shaping phase of Israel's coming aerial offensive against Iran.

If Israel wants to attack Iran, it doesn't exactly have to go across Syrian and Iraqi airspace, but it sure makes it easier.  But Syria has a whole bunch of Russian air-defense weapons systems, including Pantsir-1s and S-300s.  Now, Syria has a lot less ammunition for those air-defense systems.  And that makes a route to Iran over Syria a whole lot easier.

And by the way, if you're Iraq right now, you may just want to declare your airspace open.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just to frame this a bit differently, a sovereign nation launched 108 high value strategic war assets at another state’s territory. This was in response to a targeted attack on a non-state actor on the territory of a third state.  
 

Relevant also to note that the third state does not border Iran, and that Hezbollah is useful to Iran only as a platform to advance Iranian interests vis-a-vis the Palestine issue and potentially as a deterrent to keep Israel from striking back at Iran for doing— shit like this. You cannot credibly say that Iran’s core security is affected by strikes on Hezbollah. It’s even more ludicrous than claiming that Russia’s core security was affected by Ukraine battling LNR/DNR militias.

Bottom line is that a 108 ballistic missile attack on a nation’s air bases IS ALREADY ALL OUT FUCKING WAR. Only in the insane discourse of Israel is there a risk of Israel “escalating” from that and in fact they are showing amazing restraint already.  If Belarus launches 100 ballistic missiles at Polish defense installations no one is writing stupid headlines like “will this lead to all out war?” 

In talks with the Israeli government, the White House was expected to point to the relatively light damage caused by the Iranian missile attack on Tuesday and urge Israeli restraint, the U.S. official said. These pleas were expected to have little impact, the official added.

This wasn't proxies crossing the border on motorcycles with machine guns. A simple way of looking at this is, "What should the Israeli response be if none of the incoming Iranian missiles were shot down and all of them hit their targets in Tel Aviv?

That is what Israel's response should be. Anything other than civilian targets is fair game.

FAFO

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, PTINS said:

In talks with the Israeli government, the White House was expected to point to the relatively light damage caused by the Iranian missile attack on Tuesday and urge Israeli restraint, the U.S. official said. These pleas were expected to have little impact, the official added.

This wasn't proxies crossing the border on motorcycles with machine guns. A simple way of looking at this is, "What should the Israeli response be if none of the incoming Iranian missiles were shot down and all of them hit their targets in Tel Aviv?

That is what Israel's response should be. Anything other than civilian targets is fair game.

FAFO

Well I hate to say this, but all of our restraint-urging is pretty pointless if we're not going to impose any consequences for non-restraint.  And so far, we haven't shown any inclination toward imposing any consequences.  

The closest we have come is not vetoing a pretty weak-kneed resolution in the UNSC after Israel went in and wantonly killed a few dozen thousand civilians in Gaza.  But notwithstanding their non-restraint in Gaza and Lebanon, we haven't done anything toward cutting our material support for Israel.  And with our current political situation, it is a little difficult to imagine us doing so.

So the leverage we have with Israel is pretty non-existent.  Who really cares what Israel's response should be, given that we don't have the present ability to impact it in one direction or the other?  At this point, it's just a "que sirah, sirah" situation for the United States.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And so far, we haven't shown any inclination toward imposing any consequences.

We hinted that fewer billions may be coming and Netanyahu got on the next plane to come and scold Congress and they took it like South Austin's mom.

  • Haha 3
Posted

Everyone knows I deeply celebrate every piece of ordinance that falls on Russians. I’d temper this take a bit.  Just like us, the Russians treat bombs falling on forward-deployed positions thousands of miles from Russia in a conflict zone VERY differently than bombs falling on strategic bases in the homeland.  
 

Iran attacked us in Al-Assad in 2020 and we didn’t respond as if they shot missiles at Dyess.  The deterrence equation is not at all the same. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

 
Iran attacked us in Al-Assad in 2020 and we didn’t respond as if they shot missiles at Dyess.  The deterrence equation is not at all the same. 



Eh, after Joe Allen’s moved locations and then Deutschlander Garden closed up shop I’m not sure that town is worth wasting the ordnance on.
Posted
11 hours ago, Parliament said:

They’re gonna have a hard time finding good candidates to backfill that job.

Maybe they should try ZipRecruiter.  75% of postings receive a qualified candidate within the first day!!!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
11 hours ago, Parliament said:

They’re gonna have a hard time finding good candidates to backfill that job.

 

11 minutes ago, huge said:

Maybe they should try ZipRecruiter.  75% of postings receive a qualified candidate within the first day!!!

I don't want to give Hebollah any ideas, but.....if they hired a mexican immigrant to do the job, I'm betting the whole deal would come in ahead of schedule, under budget, and they'd also learn the joy of having El Pollo Rico served at their operational meetings.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I don't want to give Hebollah any ideas, but.....if they hired a mexican immigrant to do the job, I'm betting the whole deal would come in ahead of schedule, under budget, and they'd also learn the joy of having El Pollo Rico served at their operational meetings.  

Brilliant. Tacos and delicious salsas could bring world peace. 
 

image.jpeg.31a71e4dc8b919cfae0c9d553ad8a13d.jpeg
 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I don't want to give Hebollah any ideas, but.....if they hired a mexican immigrant to do the job, I'm betting the whole deal would come in ahead of schedule, under budget, and they'd also learn the joy of having El Pollo Rico served at their operational meetings.  

I thought nothing topped Palestinian chicken?

Animated GIF

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Brilliant. Tacos and delicious salsas could bring world peace. 
 

image.jpeg.31a71e4dc8b919cfae0c9d553ad8a13d.jpeg
 

Pues, hombres....I hear you.  We COULD spend all month building new places to hide rockets and missiles and stuff.  Or....Jorge, Rogelio, and I can fix up all these buildings, redo the wiring, and set you up for some business operations and farming.  Shit, Jorgeknows all this shit, he's a real chingon -- JORGE, come over here, tell these guys about planting orange trees!  Wait...have you ever thought about growing chiles?  Orale, don't forget to get one of those barbacoa tacos on your way out.

Edited by Brisketexan
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

after Israel went in and wantonly killed a few dozen thousand civilians in Gaza.  

That is a pretty damning claim. I have reviewed offered data from Hamas, and from IDF, as well as reviewed data from U.S. actions in Iraq, and data from the Syrian civil war on civilian deaths, and can’t say that I agree that Israel killed dozens of thousands of civilians, let alone “wantonly”. What is the minimum number that meets the threshold of “dozens of thousands”?
 
Given that Hamas bases in civilian population centers, do you attribute any Gazan civilian deaths to them?

Can you share your calculations and sources? I am open to being persuaded. 

Edited by statsman
Posted
7 minutes ago, statsman said:

That is a pretty damning claim. I have reviewed offered data from Hamas, and from IDF, as well as reviewed data from U.S. actions in Iraq, and data from the Syrian civil war on civilian deaths, and can’t say that I agree that Israel killed dozens of thousands of civilians, let alone “wantonly”. What is the minimum number that meets the threshold of “dozens of thousands”?
 
Given that Hamas bases in civilian population centers, do you attribute any Gazan civilian deaths to them?

Can you share your calculations and sources? I am open to being persuaded. 

The official count is 41,000, which is three-and-a-half dozen.  Now, that may be an overcount.  But it also could easily be an undercount.  Regardless, out of a pre-war population of around 2,000,000, that's a metric fuckton.

As to "wontonly," yeah--I feel pretty good about that characterization.  Israel was using 2,000 lb. bombs in heavily urbanized environments.  But apart from the bombardment, Israel prevented food and medicine from entering Gaza, and it notoriously murdered aid workers.

And yeah--"murdered" is the right word.

I do credit the fact that Hamas has taken shelter in populated areas.  But Hamas' war crimes do not justify or excuse Israel's.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The official count is 41,000,

 

"Official count" by who?

 

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I do credit the fact that Hamas has taken shelter in populated areas.  But Hamas' war crimes do not justify or excuse Israel's.

 

So you're ok with zero repercussions for the use of human shields? It's ok to allow terrorists to operate freely, and to attack civilians and military targets with no recourse? You think a sternly worded letter will be enough to get Hamas to fight "fairly", and to the standard you wish to hold Israel to?

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The official count is 41,000, which is three-and-a-half dozen.  Now, that may be an overcount.  But it also could easily be an undercount.  Regardless, out of a pre-war population of around 2,000,000, that's a metric fuckton.

As to "wontonly," yeah--I feel pretty good about that characterization.  Israel was using 2,000 lb. bombs in heavily urbanized environments.  But apart from the bombardment, Israel prevented food and medicine from entering Gaza, and it notoriously murdered aid workers.

And yeah--"murdered" is the right word.

I do credit the fact that Hamas has taken shelter in populated areas.  But Hamas' war crimes do not justify or excuse Israel's.

Official? By who? Hamas (who counts all dead as civilians and refuses to count any as militants)? Or the UNRWA (with members in Hamas)? (Edited- I see your source article gets the data from the Gaza Ministry of Health, in other words, Hamas)
 
The IDF says they have killed 20,000 Hamas militants. I recognize they have a bias (I assume they are possibly victim to the same counting issues the U.S. had in Vietnam). 
 
Who is official?

Should we accept both? 41,000 dead, 20,000 of them Hamas militants, and 21,000 civilian Gazans caught in the (literal) crossfire? (Which is awful, but nowhere near as bad as civilian casualties in every other urban conflict, almost as if Israel really isn’t trying to kill civilians as it pursues Hamas through the towns and cities it bases in)  

Does Israel get any credit for warning civilians to leave areas? Is that “wanton”?

I get that there is another interpretation, that Gaza is not distinct from Israel, that Israel has jurisdiction over it, and responsibility for the Gazans. Per this argument, Israel should treat the Hamas matter as more of a criminal issue, and address it more through policing, with utmost care to not harm civilians or their property. Israel rejects this argument, though.

Does Egypt get any blame for refusing admission to fleeing Palestinian civilians? Isn’t that wanton? (Definition- “deliberate and unprovoked”)

This war, I believe, is a serious issue, and I don’t think hyperbole in pursuit of a moral equivalency is helpful. 
 
As for war crimes, that is a real topic. It affects all armies. What differentiates them is how they are handled (or not handled, as the case may be). There are four U.S. servicemen, for example, imprisoned in Leavenworth, who will never again see the light of day as free men. They raped and killed a young Iraqi girl, and murdered her family to cover it up. I’m sure Iraqis think the punishment too lenient, perhaps rightfully, but there was a formal investigation and trial. As an American, I’m ashamed of these soldiers, but not ashamed of their handling and disposition. 
 
Similarly, the IDF has a formal process for investigating proposed war crimes. Do you believe it inadequate? How do you think it compares to the other belligerents in this conflict?

Edited by statsman
Posted
1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

"Official count" by who?

 

 

So you're ok with zero repercussions for the use of human shields? It's ok to allow terrorists to operate freely, and to attack civilians and military targets with no recourse? You think a sternly worded letter will be enough to get Hamas to fight "fairly", and to the standard you wish to hold Israel to?

In your mind the two options are either 1) kill all the human shields, or 2) strongly worded letter?

 

Posted
1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

"Official count" by who?

 

 

So you're ok with zero repercussions for the use of human shields? It's ok to allow terrorists to operate freely, and to attack civilians and military targets with no recourse? You think a sternly worded letter will be enough to get Hamas to fight "fairly", and to the standard you wish to hold Israel to?

Boy, that strawman sure took a thrashing.  Well done, you.

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Official? By who? Hamas (who counts all dead as civilians and refuses to count any as militants)? Or the UNRWA (with members in Hamas)? (Edited- I see your source article gets the data from the Gaza Ministry of Health, in other words, Hamas)
 
The IDF says they have killed 20,000 Hamas militants. I recognize they have a bias (I assume they are possibly victim to the same counting issues the U.S. had in Vietnam). 
 
Who is official?

Should we accept both? 41,000 dead, 20,000 of them Hamas militants, and 21,000 civilian Gazans caught in the (literal) crossfire? (Which is awful, but nowhere near as bad as civilian casualties in every other urban conflict, almost as if Israel really isn’t trying to kill civilians as it pursues Hamas through the towns and cities it bases in)  

Does Israel get any credit for warning civilians to leave areas? Is that “wanton”?

I get that there is another interpretation, that Gaza is not distinct from Israel, that Israel has jurisdiction over it, and responsibility for the Gazans. Per this argument, Israel should treat the Hamas matter as more of a criminal issue, and address it more through policing, with utmost care to not harm civilians or their property. Israel rejects this argument, though.

Does Egypt get any blame for refusing admission to fleeing Palestinian civilians? Isn’t that wanton? (Definition- “deliberate and unprovoked”)

This war, I believe, is a serious issue, and I don’t think hyperbole in pursuit of a moral equivalency is helpful. 
 
As for war crimes, that is a real topic. It affects all armies. What differentiates them is how they are handled (or not handled, as the case may be). There are four U.S. servicemen, for example, imprisoned in Leavenworth, who will never again see the light of day as free men. They raped and killed a young Iraqi girl, and murdered her family to cover it up. I’m sure Iraqis think the punishment too lenient, perhaps rightfully, but there was a formal investigation and trial. As an American, I’m ashamed of these soldiers, but not ashamed of their handling and disposition. 
 
Similarly, the IDF has a formal process for investigating proposed war crimes. Do you believe it inadequate? How do you think it compares to the other belligerents in this conflict?

I don't have time to get into a tit-for-tat on accounting.  As the article I posted noted, it is exceedingly difficult to count dead civilians in an active war zone.  Let it suffice to say that there are many thousands of dead civilians, which is consistent with the means and methods we've all seen Israel using.  And no, telling civilians to leave entire cities so that those cities can be leveled  is not to Israel's credit.  It smacks of collective punishment operating under the guise of civility.  

And yes--I think Israel is not doing an adequate job of policing its own war criminality.  For just one (relatively very small) example of that, see Israel's inaction in prosecuting the WFK murders.

  • Hook 'Em 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...