Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[crazy_eoj]

How Hamas (and the UN) uses Gaza's casualty rate as propaganda against Israel:

http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/

the spike in fatalities among males starting in their late teens and peaking in their early to mid-twenties, and the divergence of the pattern of fatalities from the demographic pattern of the population, raises considerable doubt about claims that as many as 75% or more of the fatalities are non-combatants.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Just so I understand, are you saying that because Iron Dome is not useful against the type of weapons that Israel has, or that the US simply wouldn't give the Palestinians such aid?

Both. As long as Hamas is in power they shouldn't get any weapons style aid.

On top of that it seems that the aid that Hamas gets doesn't go towards reconstruction. It goes towards using construction materials (Concrete) and their labor force to build their tunnels into Israel.

As much as I want to see a long term ceasefire. I believe that there won't be a long term agreeable one until Israel gets the de-militarization of Gaza, and that won't happen as long as Hamas is in power.

I would expect that we'll be back in this same situation within 6 months to a year.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

That's too bad for the Palestinians.

It would be ludicrous for any western country to give a terrorist organization advanced military technology. Who would they arm next, hezbollah?

[redforever]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How Hamas (and the UN) uses Gaza's casualty rate as propaganda against Israel:

http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/

Hamas considers every death a civilian casualty.

Amnesty International came to these conclusions regarding civilian deaths compared to militant deaths from the conflict in 2009.

Difficulties in ascertaining an accurate Palestinian casualty count have been attributed to a number of factors. It was reported that Hamas fighters had been ordered not to wear military uniforms during the fighting. This practice led to the over-counting of civilian casualties and under-counting Hamas military casualties, as Palestinian casualties arrived at hospitals without weapons or any other signs revealing they were actually fighters. Further difficulties were encountered due to differing definitions of who should be counted as a combatant, and the lack of access to the conflict zone by independent media or human rights workers due to Israel's strict blockade of the borders before, during, and after the conflict.

Based on data collected by Amnesty International delegates in Gaza and on cases documented by local NGOs, Amnesty concluded that an overall figure of some 1,400 fatalities is accurate and that, in addition to some 300 children, 115 women and 85 men aged over 50, some 200 men aged less than 50 were unarmed civilians who took no part in the hostilities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War



Doing the math, that is about 40 to 50% militant deaths, consistent with what Israel and other sources have said as well.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by redforever

Doing the math, that is about 40 to 50% militant deaths, consistent with what Israel and other sources have said as well.

Perhaps one of you can explain to me the value of these statistics.

Is there a percentage where I can feel ok with the casualties? The percentage on the Israeli side is much more military than civilian, but why don't I feel good about that?

And if the point is that Hamas would lie about the percentages, then we already knew that. The IDF lies about operations and outcomes as well. The US lies about terrorists being present at the weddings it bombs. All these "official" mouthpieces lie. Nobody here has the moral high ground, and for those with limited empathy these are just distractions from the bigger picture.

Honestly, this type of exercise seems nothing more than a way to value some human lives more than others. It's rank tribalism and I find it rather appalling.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Perhaps one of you can explain to me the value of these statistics.

Is there a percentage where I can feel ok with the casualties? The percentage on the Israeli side is much more military than civilian, but why don't I feel good about that?

And if the point is that Hamas would lie about the percentages, then we already knew that. The IDF lies about operations and outcomes as well. The US lies about terrorists being present at the weddings it bombs. All these "official" mouthpieces lie. Nobody here has the moral high ground, and for those with limited empathy these are just distractions from the bigger picture.

Honestly, this type of exercise seems nothing more than a way to value some human lives more than others. It's rank tribalism and I find it rather appalling.

Equating Hamas' actions to that of the US and the IDF if rather appalling as well. It's clear that one of Hamas' goals is to identify the IDF as indiscriminately killing civilians, or the same as their own stated goal of murdering as many Israeli citizens as possible. Thus the lies regarding casualty rates.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Equating Hamas' actions to that of the US and the IDF if rather appalling as well. It's clear that one of Hamas' goals is to identify the IDF as indiscriminately killing civilians, or the same as their own stated goal of murdering as many Israeli citizens as possible. Thus the lies regarding casualty rates.

How is stating that all three lie about casualty rates "equating" them?

Every country involved in a conflict does it favourably to their own cause, this is not a revelation. They all do it for the very same reason: public opinion. Let's not pretend this is a new thing that Hamas just invented or is exclusive to terrorist outfits.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Equating Hamas' actions to that of the US and the IDF if rather appalling as well. It's clear that one of Hamas' goals is to identify the IDF as indiscriminately killing civilians, or the same as their own stated goal of murdering as many Israeli citizens as possible. Thus the lies regarding casualty rates.

Since you're concerned about them, what percentage is acceptable to you?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

How is stating that all three lie about casualty rates "equating" them?

Every country involved in a conflict does it favourably to their own cause, this is not a revelation. They all do it for the very same reason: public opinion. Let's not pretend this is a new thing that Hamas just invented or is exclusive to terrorist outfits.

Not sure every country inflates civilian casualty rates? In fact, that's kind of the point of the TIME article.

Could you please provide some evidence?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Since you're concerned about them, what percentage is acceptable to you?

The correct percentage is acceptable to me when being reported.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not sure every country inflates civilian casualty rates? In fact, that's kind of the point of the TIME article.



Could you please provide some evidence?

Did I say inflates? The US and IDF, being the "powers" in most disputes, consistently under-report civilian deaths caused by them.

For example:

Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a U.S.-based human rights group, said in a report this week that unnamed U.S. officials had put civilian deaths from drone strikes at 20 to 30 since the beginning of last year. Yet CIVIC's own small sample of nine strikes uncovered 30 civilian deaths, including at least 14 women and children.

The U.S. estimates of civilian casualties are far too low, said Christopher Rogers, Pakistan field fellow at CIVIC. "There's no accountability, no one is keeping count of the civilian deaths and no compensation is paid."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/1...&utm_term=news

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The correct percentage is acceptable to me when being reported.

So your problem isn't with innocent lives lost, it's if someone fudges the numbers?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Did I say inflates? The US and IDF, being the "powers" in most disputes, consistently under-report civilian deaths caused by them.

Ok so then do you agree that Hamas really is guilty of grossly inflating their civilian casualties in order to demonize Israel?

Further I reject your claim that "Every country involved in a conflict does [lies about civilian casualties] favorably to their own cause" based on your evidence that an unnamed US official misjudged victims of drone strikes by 10 or so people. Do you have further evidence to back your claim?

So your problem isn't with innocent lives lost, it's if someone fudges the numbers?

No that's not what I said at all.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You can't change a lexicon because it doesn't fit your view. It's an uneven and even atrocious thing that Israel is doing. I think Israel need to stop killing it's own citizens, but you can't tell everyone who calls this is a war (which it literally is by every definition) that they don't understand it. It's a war, you were just pointing out how one sided it is, and I agree.

In this instance, I am not the one changing a lexicon to fit my view.

Israel does not view Palestine as an independent nation. They do not regard them as sovereign and informally do not recognize Palestine's right to exist.

Domestically, Israel refers collectively to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan heights as 'The Occupied Territories', giving them a formal designation as the occupier.

Conversely, they also do not recognize Hamas as a legitimate government, and as such, Hamas is not a military but a militia.

Israel controls land, sea and air routes into and out of the occupied territories and claim them as their own territory. Hamas, as an illegitimate militia has no formalized national defense policy, as they are unable (as evidenced currently) to do anything meaningful militarily to advance their position. There is no overarching policy or doctrine which informs the other branches of government on how to behave in 'war time'. In polemology, these are all important factors for legitimizing something as a 'war', otherwise, you could make arguments like the Branch Davidians were at war with the United States at Waco, or the British were at War with the Irish in the 80s, White South Africans were at War with Blacks during the same period, or that Canada was at war with it's native population at Oka, all pretty obvious, inaccurate statements.

I mean, in your opinion, Israel is "killing it's own citizens" in reference to Palestinians. Do countries often wage wars against their internal population, or do we have a different, harsher term for that? Were the Turks 'at war' with their Armenian population? Were the Iraqi's 'at war' with their Kurdish population? Was Germany 'at war' with the French Resistance? Was South Africa at war with Nelson Mandela? Of course not.

Using the terminology of 'war' lends credibility to the use of often terrible violence. What were once cautionary tales of the reality of war are now delivered as half-hearted indifference towards the ugly realities of war, that are used to justify unspeakable violence that would not be tolerated in any theatre other than 'war', because of their barbarism. This has played itself out quite eloquently in this thread. As the violence worsened, the dogmatic responses of 'this is the reality of war' became stronger and stronger, as defenses of the brutal, assymetrical violence. Because, if you didn't have these hemmingway quotes to justify the violence, you might have to actually think of the results of that violence and whether it has a value.

By calling it a war, you can just abdicate responsibility and judgement by saying "well, bad things happen in war", which A) Completely and utterly undervalues the sacrifices made by whole populations during times of 'actual' war, and B) Legitimizes whole scopes of violence that would be obscene if justified with anything other than the 'war' label. It's an implicit acquiescence to one side of the conflict, regardless of how many appeals to the 'both sides are bad' argument one makes preceding or following.

Viewing this as a war is in and of itself an absolution of violence from one side of this conflict, by legitimizing their actions and motivations.

If I can call launching rockets into Israel terrorism, why can't you call launching bombs into gaza terrorism? Instead, it's terrorism on one side and war on the other.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Since you're concerned about them, what percentage is acceptable to you?

Totally, man.

I would have been ok with 9/11 if they had stuck with the world trade centre and the pentagon, but going with that plane in Pennsylvania? That was too much for me.

I can tolerate about 1800-2100 non-combatant deaths before I get all riled up.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ok so then do you agree that Hamas really is guilty of grossly inflating their civilian casualties in order to demonize Israel?

Further I reject your claim that "Every country involved in a conflict does [lies about civilian casualties] favorably to their own cause" based on your evidence that an unnamed US official misjudged victims of drone strikes by 10 or so people. Do you have further evidence to back your claim?



No that's not what I said at all.

Yeah, I do agree that Hamas is guilty of inflating civilian casualties in order to demonise Israel, where did I suggest anything even remotely otherwise?

That article, had you read it, said the US estimated no more than 20 to 30 over the stretch of two years. The group confirmed 30 deaths between just 9 drone strikes, how many drone strikes were there total over two years? Over 150...

The US has under-reported the civilian deaths caused by drone strikes repeatedly. This is partially because they count every military aged male (16-55 I believe) killed as a militant, no matter what. The actual civilian death toll as of 2011 was above 200 according to multiple journalistic and human rights agencies. The total according to US officials? 50, at most.

The point is, Hamas and IDF are both completely unreliable if you're looking for accurate totals concerning civilian deaths. Hamas is going to over-report, IDF is going to under report. The real number will be somewhere in the middle, likely reported by an organisation that is not Gaza or Israel based.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Totally, man.

I would have been ok with 9/11 if they had stuck with the world trade centre and the pentagon, but going with that plane in Pennsylvania? That was too much for me.

I can tolerate about 1800-2100 non-combatant deaths before I get all riled up.

Do you believe Israel targets civilians (genuine, not Hamas fighters in civilian clothes) in soft targets (public buildings, office buildings etc)?

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Do you believe Israel targets civilians (genuine, not Hamas fighters in civilian clothes) in soft targets (public buildings, office buildings etc)?

Of course they do. If that wasn't painfully obvious from this war I'm not sure how much clearer Israel could make it. Israel was even condemned by their number one allie in the United States. I have no question in my mind they targeted civilians to put pressure on Hamas. Israel is a disgrace to democracy.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Of course they do. If that wasn't painfully obvious from this war I'm not sure how much clearer Israel could make it. Israel was even condemned by their number one allie in the United States. I have no question in my mind they targeted civilians to put pressure on Hamas. Israel is a disgrace to democracy.

Wouldn't that just bolster Hamas' raison d'être? Kicking the hornets nest so to speak? How does that put pressure on them?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Wouldn't that just bolster Hamas' raison d'être? Kicking the hornets nest so to speak? How does that put pressure on them?

I can't speak for Arya, but it is at the very least arguable that a violent resistance towards Israel in the occupied territories is more beneficial to Israel than a beaten, willing to take any deal broken populace, though that might end up being the end game.

1) There is no substantial threat of reprisal of Israel as evidenced by the outrageously disproportionate casualty rates.

2) International efforts to mediate or prevent Israel's current offensive, let alone an acerbic remark, have been impotent at best, illusionary at worst.

3) The Americans keep paying for the hostilities to continue.

4) Israel continues to increase settlements.

Seems like a pretty sound strategy.

[FlameOn]

Hamas caught assembling and firing rockets next to civilian sites including right next to a hotel where a news crew was staying as well as a inhabited neighbourhood. They managed to get film most of the assembly and firing process. It's interesting to see the mobile weaponry used and how mobile and quick to assemble everything is. Horrifying to see it being set up so close to where a news crew could potentially get bombed. These things are far far more sophisticated than I originally thought they were...


Link here:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/nd...-lateststories