galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

You've certainly provided the single most biased source on this topic consistently from the past twenty years. Do you get all your news from there or just this conflict?

Gaza has not been occupied for over 15 years. Please get informed. This is not counter insurgency.

White phosphorous is used for illumination and obscuration and Israel is not signatory to the conventions banning its use wholesale. Nor is Russia or the United States. Offensive use is considered illegal to use in densely populated areas but so far there is only evidence for the offensive use in less dense areas to my knowledge.

Proving intent on deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets is going to be a high bar. Israel urged civilians to go south to avoid the heavy combat operations entering Gaza City. That doesn't mean they are not going to strike targets in the south and pointing in that general vicinity and shouting "SEE" does not mean they deliberately misled civilians. Their goal is to minimize civilian casualties. They will be taking both the north and the south before the end. That still requires shaping operations as Hamas is moving supplies through that area and still occupies it.

Again, literally every army on earth would do this. Some wouldn't even warn civilians to move like we saw with Russia in Ukraine.

Ironically, the rocket attacks are not inherently a war crime in the context of the current conflict. It is debatable if they serve a military purpose but literally nobody is focusing on that right now. They are focusing on the blatant attack on over a thousand civilians of multiple nationalities in a face to face fashion and taking of civilian hostages. That is the justification for the current conflict. Prior to that, the conflict was largely contained in spite of the constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks with no military purpose.

Israel left the occupation and Hamas was shortly thereafter elected despite significantly improving living and political conditions. How perverse these incentives and narratives are.

The sound troubleshooter will fix the issue sometimes if it is a driver or weird input issue.

Legal, ethical, and moral within the laws and context of armed conflict, both in the moment and as policy.

They are at war so yes. The bed to take the city and they need to take the tunnels out to take the city. This is not a new problem in war. These aren't insurance they are dealing with. Israel does not occupy the ground yet.

My perception is that negotiation with hostage takers only encourages them to take more hostages. I'm not smart on this so don't take my word for it.

I agree that it could bring about less civilian casualties but I'm mixed on the public perception. Air strikes are impersonal enough when it comes to winning the narrative and they save an order of magnitude more civilian lives in the end. A fully robotic army would turn a lot of folks against you while maybe saving more civilian and military lives. If all war is an extension of politics, perceptions are what win. The perception of who remain anyways.

What if they bomb you first? Is violence justified in response to violence?

My opinion is that pacifist opinions on violence should be held at the start of conflict and go no further when it comes to the ethics of force progression. It's just an opinion but don't expect too much support for your opinion when you are flatly against all war regardless of justification. Hitler loved folks like you.

What Israel is doing is not leveling entire cities. Look at Allepo or Mosul. Israel is far more targeted but they get blamed every time a building collapses because there was an unsafe tunnel under it.

Israel is systemically eliminating underground tunnels, enemy concentrations, and command structures prior to entering the city when they can clear buildings individually and dismantle the command structure.

It'll cost lives and they won't succeed. They'll fall back on indirect fire talking out entire buildings but now unable to be more selective.

Negotiating was what they were doing and it seemed to be working. All they were doing was use the time to build up resources for their massive terror attack. Prior to 2007 they were on the way to peace and then Hamas was elected.

There is literally no other option to remove Hamas. Prior to the current weapon set armies would simply level the city. That is so very much worse and also legal.

Sorry, which military were you thinking of?

You minimize civilian casualties as much as possible while still ensuring that it has a military purpose to the best of your ability. Beyond the use of specific weapons which causes unnecessary suffering with no military purpose, there is no specific limit. We may not like it but this is war. It comes with the territory because there is no other choice.

You write your Internet comments better than I write my memos.

The shareholders lost out too. They have never issued dividends and their stock has tanked. Stop spreading ignorance.

How do you suggest they take out Hamas otherwise? Just saying so doesn't solve the problem that simultaneously forces Palistinians under leadership they did not vote for and ensures future and sustained terror attacks directed against the civilian population of Israel as they've experienced the last 17 years.

Inaction is not a viable option anymore. Urban fighting favors the defender so sending in light infantry is suicide. Sending in light infantry supported by indirect fire is less suicide but worse for the civilians because it is slower and ensures the city is destroyed block by block a la Aleppo or Mosul.

I'm getting really tired of these reactionary responses by people who have never had to plan urban combat before. Literally every army on earth would do the same as Israel right now and it is overall legal.

It's why we have primaries. People's inability to understand the importance of primaries simultaneously means they don't vote in them and hate the results. (On average)

How do you take out the enemy? Answer the question. Your perspective is not useful when you have no alternative. They cannot access the tunnels without an explosive. Name a full conflict where civilian infrastructure was not hit when taking a city.

At what point were hostages brought up? Are you referencing some misinformation I'm not aware of or prescribing to me someone else's comment?

War is evil. Nothing they are doing is without military purpose. This is a justified conflict. Your perspective is naive and not based in reality and/or military law. Israel did everything they could to avoid this conflict, most of which has been misconstrued as genocide against Palestine.

What possible line of logic would lead to that conclusion?