I'm reliably informed that the sister of someone whose uncle is a mechanic that works on a street where a cousin of someone who once walked by a Hamas member was hiding out in this school and orphanage.
I think that person had a very high NCV so that lots of deaths are justified. Or is it that they have a low NCV and therefore the inverse of their coefficient is high and therefore lots of deaths are justified? Anyways, definitely justified. No laws broken.
For people who need tl;dr pointers with time stamps on the video, it's death and destruction at the first second. And also at some various seconds after that.
Awesome, more equations so that we can figure out how many people we're allowed to kill without it being N+1 over the line. Hopefully gvitaly fills us in on the exact NCV coefficients for every case so that I can solve the equation for the peak value.
I wonder how it feels being a useful idiot advancing the immoral cause of mass deaths.
If you fail to acknowledge that this is the calculus of war then your position needs to be much less nuanced. It should become All war no matter the reason is unjust whether defensive or offensive in nature.
Awesome, more equations so that we can figure out how many people we're allowed to kill without it being N+1 over the line. Hopefully gvitaly fills us in on the exact NCV coefficients for every case so that I can solve the equation for the peak value.
I wonder how it feels being a useful idiot advancing the immoral cause of mass deaths.
Your childish remarks reflect badly on you, and take away from the arguments you're trying to make.
Would I love it if there would be zero civilian casualties? Absolutely!
Would I love it if there was no war? Hell yes!
Do I think that the situation in Gaza right now is the lesser of the evils? Also yes.
People who cheer on, dismiss, and attempt to discredit civilian casualties and support warmonger far right governments can’t also pretend they’d love it if those things weren’t true.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Ffs. No it's not all that there. That is an opinion piece in a Jewish magazine written by a Jewish statistician. If he had any confidence in his work he'd throw it out for peer review.
And remember. These are are direct deaths that are being reported. The same article estimates conservatively that when indirect deaths from the actions of the Israeli genocide regime are factored in you're creeping up to 200k.
Out of curiosity how many civilians do you think have been slaughtered? Six? Seven?
Does Hamas have incentive to exaggerate the numbers? Does Hamas have incentive to show dead terrorists as civilians?
Nice touch adding the "genocide regime" at the end. Also good word choice in "slaughtered" implying it is deliberate once more.
I think there's probably around 20-30 thousand civilians dead in Gaza right now.
Do I think that civilians were deliberately targeted? Absolutely not.
Are there instances where Israeli soldiers target civilians? I'm sure there are. There's hatered on both sides, and there would always be individuals that think they're above the law in a warzone.
Do I think it represents the IDF as a whole? No.
Do I think that a significant number of those civilians died from Hamas fire? Yes.
Do I think that Hamas is endangering the civilians by fighting from within the civilian population? Absolutely.
Hamas is the governing body in Gaza and it is its job to protect its civilians. Yet somehow that was never a priority. You know what would protect all the civilians in Gaza? A surrender!
Do I think that the situation in Gaza right now is the lesser of the evils? Also yes.
Do you think, considering their capacity to smuggle bombs into Hezbollah's communications devices, that maybe there was different options for the IDF in response to Hamas than the actions they took/are currently taking?
Those are heavy accusations, and I would personally wait for Israel to respond so I can hear both sides before jumping to conclusions. I hope they aren't true, because that certainly doesn't accomplish a military objective.
---
As far as the invasion of Lebanon.
Hezbollah had a year to back down. It was the agressor for the past 11 months. That's why the whole of Northern Israel, about 10% of its territory and 70,000 civilians were forced to leave.
The justification of supporting Hamas' fight is just it. Hezbollah can't claim it was fighting occupation or anything of that sort. It was simply doing it because it knew that Israel wouldn't want to commit to a large scale retaliation while in Gaza.
Now the Israeli government's job is to protect its citizens and return them home.
Conveniently enough everyone forgot about the UN's resolution 1701. Israel was given assurances that Hezbollah wouldn't have a military presence and munitions south of the Latini river. That's why there were 10,000 Unifil peacekeepers stationed in southern Lebanon. Yet somehow Hezbollah was allowed to construct its military infrastructure under the nose of said peacekeepers for 18 years!
Now that Israel has to enter Lebanon, despite it attempting not to go down that path, everyone remembers they want a ceasefire. Preferably one that would give Hezbollah just long enough to regroup.
Why is the Latini river the goal? Because it would push the majority of the rocket artillery and anti tank missiles out of range of Israeli towns. That way Hezbollah's only threat would be the more expansive medium range missiles.
I also find it interesting that the Lebanese government is completely absolved from any blame. Hezbollah gets to fire rockets into Israel from its territory, and the government doesn't even attempt to stop them because they wouldn't be able to. It's a pretty convenient stance.
The Following User Says Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
Do you think, considering their capacity to smuggle bombs into Hezbollah's communications devices, that maybe there was different options for the IDF in response to Hamas than the actions they took/are currently taking?
I've been asked this before. No, I don't think it was an option. Can I back that opinion up? Noo but here's what I think:
1. Israel was focusing the majority of its intelligence resources on Hezbollah
2. The Syrian civil war gave Israel a good opportunity to infiltrate Hezbollah in some sort of senior capacity
3. I don't think that Israel smuggled bombs into Hezbollah communication devices, as much as it was a part of the supply chain for said communication devices. I'm guessing that Israel either replaced the batteries with ones that would explode, and/or replaced a capacitor that would cause the initial current discharge that would trigger the explosion. I'm pretty sure that an explosive device would've been detected in airport security for example.
4. Israeli sources were speculating that such an operation took over 15 years to plan and execute.
Why couldn't Israel do the same to Hamas:
1. Based on October 7th Israeli intelligence on Hamas was lacking. They didn't see that blow coming, and were reeling from it.
2. The mass casualties, the chaos, and the need for an immediate response didn't allow for a careful, and slow operation.
2.b. The Israeli public was demanding an immediate response, and an immediate attempt to release hundreds of hostages.
3. The hostages were a huge factor. So an attempt was made to recover them in all haste. The overwhelming offensive left Hamas reeling, and made it release a large amount of hostages in exchange for a temporary ceasefire and a much lower amount of prisoners than deals like Gilad Shalit(1027 terrorists for 1 soldier)
4. The statements from Hamas saying they would repeat October 7th again and again, forced Israel into a decision it would have to get rid of Hamas once and for all, at all costs.
3. There were explosives in the pagers. Not that they precise method matters.
And Israel failed the same way the US failed on 9/11. Ignoring the facts and warnings presented to them.
Quote:
But Hamas had been drafting attack plans for many years, and Israeli officials had gotten hold of previous iterations of them. What could have been an intelligence coup turned into one of the worst miscalculations in Israel’s 75-year history.
Tell me about the the other evils if they are greater than genocide.
Again, it isn't genocide.
The greater evil is an endless conflict. One that recurs every 5-10 years with ever increasing numerous casualties on both sides. The greater evil would be to leave Gaza in the hands of a terrorist government, that would make money of the population while doing absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life of Palestinians, and instead focuses on the destruction of Israel.
Conveniently enough everyone forgot about the UN's resolution 1701. Israel was given assurances that Hezbollah wouldn't have a military presence and munitions south of the Latini river. That's why there were 10,000 Unifil peacekeepers stationed in southern Lebanon. Yet somehow Hezbollah was allowed to construct its military infrastructure under the nose of said peacekeepers for 18 years!
Convenient that UN resolutions only matter to you when they support Israel’s position. Did you conveniently forget about the UN resolutions that condemn what Israel is doing?
Convenient that UN resolutions only matter to you when they support Israel’s position. Did you conveniently forget about the UN resolutions that condemn what Israel is doing?
Was there a UN security council resolution that I missed?
Or was it the regular general assembly? Because it's pretty easy to pass anti Israeli resolutions when you have 57 Muslim member countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...2334#By_Israel
This is a good one, particularly the reaction by Bibi, telling us all we need to know about there settlements and how he thinks it's insulting to Israel to have people tell them to maybe obey the Geneva convection and stop being dicks. This is the reaction you'd expect from a person who has no interest in peace through anything but violence. Dude should be in prison, not running a country.
Was there a UN security council resolution that I missed?
Or was it the regular general assembly? Because it's pretty easy to pass anti Israeli resolutions when you have 57 Muslim member countries.
Huh, today I learned there isn’t almost 200 countries in the world represented at the UN.
If Israel was as moral as you think they are, surely they shouldn’t have any issues with the other 140 countries, as they are staunch Israel supporters, right? Right??
The greater evil is an endless conflict. One that recurs every 5-10 years with ever increasing numerous casualties on both sides. The greater evil would be to leave Gaza in the hands of a terrorist government, that would make money of the population while doing absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life of Palestinians, and instead focuses on the destruction of Israel.
We will see when the conflict is done but you could have a lot of deaths over the years to pay for the 20,000 direct dead plus indirect deaths from this conflict.
Even in terms of Israeli deaths they are sitting at 400 or so post Oct 7th vs 1100 on October 7th so slowly catching up. I think it’s unclear if this conflict will ever payback the number of people that died to justify from a utilitarian standpoint.
Also to your point 4 above. Getting rid of Hamas at all costs isn’t what they are doing. They are getting rid of the current integration of Hamas at Palestinians cost. The cost to Israel has not been that high.
If you fail to acknowledge that this is the calculus of war then your position needs to be much less nuanced. It should become All war no matter the reason is unjust whether defensive or offensive in nature.
The calculus of war is what the very smart people talked about while scratching their chins and explaining to us why the US had to go into Iraq. They did all the math! But lo and behold, they all look like murderers now with millions dead or displaced with no nuclear weapons recovered and the mastermind Saddam hiding in a dirt hole in the countryside.
You should also watch Morris’s Fog of War with McNamara. He too scratched his chin, spoke of nuance, and assured everyone he did all the calculations for Vietnam. But at the end of the day, there were just dead humans.
So spare me talks about nuance. We’re watching humans butcher other humans. Those trying to explain why it must be so are aiding and abetting the slaughter. It’s not complicated.
The calculus of war is what the very smart people talked about while scratching their chins and explaining to us why the US had to go into Iraq. They did all the math! But lo and behold, they all look like murderers now with millions dead or displaced with no nuclear weapons recovered and the mastermind Saddam hiding in a dirt hole in the countryside.
You should also watch Morris’s Fog of War with McNamara. He too scratched his chin, spoke of nuance, and assured everyone he did all the calculations for Vietnam. But at the end of the day, there were just dead humans.
So spare me talks about nuance. We’re watching humans butcher other humans. Those trying to explain why it must be so are aiding and abetting the slaughter. It’s not complicated.
Just to be clear. You think there is no amount of civilian death acceptable to kill a person regardless of the threat of the person?
The Ukraine should surrender to Russia to avoid killing civilians?
