Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[Alceste]

So the recommendation is that Israel, and the Israeli civilians who are daily shuttling into and out of shelters with each Code Red, rely on Iron Dome while IDF ground sources are sent against Hamas without making any effort to address the heavy mortar or rocket barrage targeting these ground forces?

The aim is to stop the terrorist attacks.

Well, your first paragraph seems to indicate you didn't read anything at all that I wrote.

As to your second paragraph, slaughtering civilians willy nilly in Gaza has not stopped the terrorist attacks. So maybe Israel should try something new while there are still some people in Gaza left alive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, your first paragraph seems to indicate you didn't read anything at all that I wrote.

That is not at all true, Alceste.

 

[icehorse]

Well, your first paragraph seems to indicate you didn't read anything at all that I wrote.

As to your second paragraph, slaughtering civilians willy nilly in Gaza has not stopped the terrorist attacks. So maybe Israel should try something new while there are still some people in Gaza left alive.

I'm sorry "willy nilly" strikes me as grossly inaccurate. Even more inaccurate is your misuse of statistics.

 

[CMike]

Well, your first paragraph seems to indicate you didn't read anything at all that I wrote.

As to your second paragraph, slaughtering civilians willy nilly in Gaza has not stopped the terrorist attacks. So maybe Israel should try something new while there are still some people in Gaza left alive.

This is what occurs when you refuse to look at the facts.

 

[Alceste]

That is not at all true, Alceste.

OK, well maybe you misunderstood me then. I am not advocating "doing nothing" while rockets rain down on Israel, I am advocating caution and moderation with the specific aim of limiting non-combatant casualties in Gaza. By which I don't mean the IDF simply SAYING that Israel is being moderate and cautious, when they very obviously are not.

And the reason for my preferred strategy is that unless they intend to kill everybody in Gaza, slaughtering thousands of civilians (especially children) has the opposite effect to Israel's stated strategic aim, which is to topple Hamas from power. That's a reasonable objective, IMO, but one that can never be achieved by blowing up children.

Which is why I say, Israel should go in and get them if it wants them.

 

[RitalinOhD]

OK, well maybe you misunderstood me then. I am not advocating "doing nothing" while rockets rain down on Israel, I am advocating caution and moderation with the specific aim of limiting non-combatant casualties in Gaza. By which I don't mean the IDF simply SAYING that Israel is being moderate and cautious, when they very obviously are not.

And the reason for my preferred strategy is that unless they intend to kill everybody in Gaza, slaughtering thousands of civilians (especially children) has the opposite effect to Israel's stated strategic aim, which is to topple Hamas from power. That's a reasonable objective, IMO, but one that can never be achieved by blowing up children.

Which is why I say, Israel should go in and get them if it wants them.

The problem is, the Israeli Gov't must put a greater value on Palestinian people, which I don't see happening anytime soon. So far, collateral damage has been a very distant second to eliminating Hamas, which it is failing miserably at.

If their plan was to kill civilians and **** off the international community, well then, mission accomplished.

 

[metis]

How different or more extreme is Hamas when compared to other Palestinian groups?

Actually yes as Hamas has killed at least 180 of Abbas' Palestinian Authority along with many more imprisoned by them. Hamas is much more similar to ISIS than it is to el-Fatah.

 

[metis]

The problem is, the Israeli Gov't must put a greater value on Palestinian people, which I don't see happening anytime soon. So far, collateral damage has been a very distant second to eliminating Hamas, which it is failing miserably at.

If their plan was to kill civilians and **** off the international community, well then, mission accomplished.

That's quite a distortion, plus it seems just a convenient way of not holding Hamas responsible for any of its actions. As we have seen over and over again, Hamas has frequently violated cease-fires that it had agreed to, plus continues to target Israeli civilians. Don't you think they have some responsibilities as well? Israel has made it very clear, namely if you attack us we'll attack you back in return, and we have seen over and over again Hamas continuing to fire rockets/missiles into Israel well knowing that they put their own people at terrible risk for doing so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, well maybe you misunderstood me then. I am not advocating "doing nothing" while rockets rain down on Israel, I am advocating caution and moderation with the specific aim of limiting non-combatant casualties in Gaza.

OK. But, again, I'm looking for specifics.

Rocket barrages are being fired at Israel.

At least one forum member insists that the IDF not target the source of these attacks with air strikes but, rather, embark on a (presumably surgical) ground incursion. Bringing the forces into Gaza will obviously expose them to rocket, mortar, and small arms attack while the rocket barrages against Israel continue.

If it is to be at all consistent the suggestion then becomes that these ground forces be ordered to move forward without air support and, thereby, incur massive losses. Meanwhile, the rocket barrages against Israel are to continue unabated.​

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, Alceste. I'm asking you to take command of the IDF and clearly define what you will do to defend Israeli civilians, protect your troops, and minimize collateral damage.

 

[CMike]

Seriously, can you guys ever stop linking to Facebook to bolster your arguments? That's not evidence! Jeez Louise!

It is when you look at what is in the links.

Hamas leaders were boasting that they have been using their own civilians as human shields.

 

[CMike]

OK, well maybe you misunderstood me then. I am not advocating "doing nothing" while rockets rain down on Israel, I am advocating caution and moderation with the specific aim of limiting non-combatant casualties in Gaza. By which I don't mean the IDF simply SAYING that Israel is being moderate and cautious, when they very obviously are not.

And the reason for my preferred strategy is that unless they intend to kill everybody in Gaza, slaughtering thousands of civilians (especially children) has the opposite effect to Israel's stated strategic aim, which is to topple Hamas from power. That's a reasonable objective, IMO, but one that can never be achieved by blowing up children.

Which is why I say, Israel should go in and get them if it wants them.

They obviously are being cautious.

They are calling, texting, and dropping leaflets to be out of the area that is going to be hit.

To my knowledge no other country has ever done that.

As I have shown in actual Israel Air Force videos they have aborted attacking Hamas terrorists when there are civilians around.

The problem is that:

1) Hamas has faked civilian deaths for the camera

2) They are making up numbers

3) They are using their own civilians as human shields and want them to die for the cameras.

The even bigger issue is that the US (the Obama regime) and other Pro-Hamas countries not only legitimize Hamas but give them hundereds of millions of dollars that they use to remiliarize.

 

[CMike]

The problem is, the Israeli Gov't must put a greater value on Palestinian people, which I don't see happening anytime soon. So far, collateral damage has been a very distant second to eliminating Hamas, which it is failing miserably at.

If their plan was to kill civilians and **** off the international community, well then, mission accomplished.

Rediculous.

The problem is that Hamas knows that Israel puts more value on gaza civiians than they do. That's why they are using them as human shields thereby putting them in harm's way.

 

[Alceste]

OK. But, again, I'm looking for specifics.

Rocket barrages are being fired at Israel.

At least one forum member insists that the IDF not target the source of these attacks with air strikes but, rather, embark on a (presumably surgical) ground incursion. Bringing the forces into Gaza will obviously expose them to rocket, mortar, and small arms attack while the rocket barrages against Israel continue.

If it is to be at all consistent the suggestion then becomes that these ground forces be ordered to move forward without air support and, thereby, incur massive losses. Meanwhile, the rocket barrages against Israel are to continue unabated.​

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, Alceste. I'm asking you to take command of the IDF and clearly define what you will do to defend Israeli civilians, protect your troops, and minimize collateral damage.

Ok, I'm in charge of the army. First thing I do is categorically reject the Dahiya doctrine and sack every general who supports it, which apparently is roughly half according to a jpost article I read yesterday. This is the absurd idea that pounding civilian buildings and infrastructure with no regard to non-combatants casualties will magically poof the will to harm Israel out of existence in the area taking the pounding, even if a few people are left alive there, out of a frankly insane belief that fear is the only stimulus their enemies are capable of responding to.

Next thing I do is insist that the IDF stop using weasel words and clever jargon to make the army's criminal actions magically not criminal, for example calling anyone who gets killed by the excessive violence in Gaza a "voluntary human shield" instead of a civilian. Nobody is fooled by this outside of Israel and parts of the US.

Then, after I've fired all the genocidal madmen and got the army calling a spade a spade and sincerely attempting to be in compliance with international law, I stop the bombardment of everything that ISN'T an active rocket launch site, which I expect would cut the targets down significantly. So, no more blowing up a care home for disabled people because some anonymous tipster claimed a militant lives there. No more attempting to blow up tunnels and rocket storage sites that are hidden under the occupied homes of Gazan civilians. And of course, after my first step we would not be blowing up infrastructure any more (power stations, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, etc).

Then, after I've scaled the response back to addressing actual active rocket launch sites, I send in soldiers to kill or capture the individuals doing the rocket launching. Air cover would be present but with a preference for bullets over bombs.

The question Israelis should be asking themselves is whether the current approach has reduced the number of rocket attacks. I am certain it has had the opposite effect.

 

[metis]

Ok, I'm in charge of the army. First thing I do is categorically reject the Dahiya doctrine and sack every general who supports it, which apparently is roughly half according to a jpost article I read yesterday. This is the absurd idea that pounding civilian buildings and infrastructure with no regard to non-combatants casualties will magically poof the will to harm Israel out of existence in the area taking the pounding, even if a few people are left alive there, out of a frankly insane belief that fear is the only stimulus their enemies are capable of responding to.

Next thing I do is insist that the IDF stop using weasel words and clever jargon to make the army's criminal actions magically not criminal, for example calling anyone who gets killed by the excessive violence in Gaza a "voluntary human shield" instead of a civilian. Nobody is fooled by this outside of Israel and parts of the US.

Then, after I've fired all the genocidal madmen and got the army calling a spade a spade and sincerely attempting to be in compliance with international law, I stop the bombardment of everything that ISN'T an active rocket launch site, which I expect would cut the targets down significantly. So, no more blowing up a care home for disabled people because some anonymous tipster claimed a militant lives there. No more attempting to blow up tunnels and rocket storage sites that are hidden under the occupied homes of Gazan civilians. And of course, after my first step we would not be blowing up infrastructure any more (power stations, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, etc).

Then, after I've scaled the response back to addressing actual active rocket launch sites, I send in soldiers to kill or capture the individuals doing the rocket launching. Air cover would be present but with a preference for bullets over bombs.

The question Israelis should be asking themselves is whether the current approach has reduced the number of rocket attacks. I am certain it has had the opposite effect.

OK, what do you believe Hamas' responsibility should be? You tell us over and over again what Israel should or shouldn't do but I don't see you posting what Hamas' should or shouldn't do.

Secondly, what do you suggest should be done if Hamas ignores your recommendation and continues to target civilians in Israel? You say above Israel can attack the launch sites, which tells me that you simply do not understand how Hamas is actually launching their rockets/missiles, namely right from heavily-populated civilian areas. So, how would you suggest Israel neutralize these sites under these conditions that Hamas creates? Does Hamas have any responsibility here or do you give them a free pass?

 

[Koldo]

Then, after I've scaled the response back to addressing actual active rocket launch sites, I send in soldiers to kill or capture the individuals doing the rocket launching. Air cover would be present but with a preference for bullets over bombs.

How would you pull it off?
If sending soldiers becomes the norm, Hamas will be more than ready and prepared to fight back. It could easily ambush the soldiers and kill them all.

Also, forgive my ignorance on warfare, but is it possible for the air cover to use bullets efficiently without putting itself into harm's way?

 

[CMike]

Ok, I'm in charge of the army. First thing I do is categorically reject the Dahiya doctrine and sack every general who supports it, which apparently is roughly half according to a jpost article I read yesterday. This is the absurd idea that pounding civilian buildings and infrastructure with no regard to non-combatants casualties will magically poof the will to harm Israel out of existence in the area taking the pounding, even if a few people are left alive there, out of a frankly insane belief that fear is the only stimulus their enemies are capable of responding to.

Next thing I do is insist that the IDF stop using weasel words and clever jargon to make the army's criminal actions magically not criminal, for example calling anyone who gets killed by the excessive violence in Gaza a "voluntary human shield" instead of a civilian. Nobody is fooled by this outside of Israel and parts of the US.

Then, after I've fired all the genocidal madmen and got the army calling a spade a spade and sincerely attempting to be in compliance with international law, I stop the bombardment of everything that ISN'T an active rocket launch site, which I expect would cut the targets down significantly. So, no more blowing up a care home for disabled people because some anonymous tipster claimed a militant lives there. No more attempting to blow up tunnels and rocket storage sites that are hidden under the occupied homes of Gazan civilians. And of course, after my first step we would not be blowing up infrastructure any more (power stations, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, etc).

Then, after I've scaled the response back to addressing actual active rocket launch sites, I send in soldiers to kill or capture the individuals doing the rocket launching. Air cover would be present but with a preference for bullets over bombs.

The question Israelis should be asking themselves is whether the current approach has reduced the number of rocket attacks. I am certain it has had the opposite effect.

Sure and I'm sure the Hamas terrorist will be waiting there alone for Israel to capture them.

1) They will still attack behind their own women and children. The civilians would still still get killed.

2) The launchers are mobile so they can be moved.

3) It's a lot easier to target the Hamas terrorists by targeting where their rockets are coming from in real time.

 

[CMike]

Here is some more.

[youtube]giJlG3KXq8c[/youtube]

[youtube]gqt_XbjYEKo[/youtube]

[youtube]eOU6FYIs5d0[/youtube]

[youtube]lpTZUAkNOUA[/youtube]

 

[metis]

According to CNN at around 1:30 p.m. e.s.t., Hamas has now launched 137 rockets/missiles into Israel within the last 24 hours, plus they launched two missiles at an oil tower off-shore, both of which missed.

 

[Alceste]

OK, what do you believe Hamas' responsibility should be? You tell us over and over again what Israel should or shouldn't do but I don't see you posting what Hamas' should or shouldn't do.

Secondly, what do you suggest should be done if Hamas ignores your recommendation and continues to target civilians in Israel? You say above Israel can attack the launch sites, which tells me that you simply do not understand how Hamas is actually launching their rockets/missiles, namely right from heavily-populated civilian areas. So, how would you suggest Israel neutralize these sites under these conditions that Hamas creates? Does Hamas have any responsibility here or do you give them a free pass?

Here I am assuming my objective is to kill or capture Hamas militants, so their responsibility is to get killed or captured.

Obviously they should stop launching rockets at Israel, but it's to be expected that they will make an effort to defend themselves and seek out retribution. That's war for you.

 

[Alceste]

How would you pull it off?
If sending soldiers becomes the norm, Hamas will be more than ready and prepared to fight back. It could easily ambush the soldiers and kill them all.

Also, forgive my ignorance on warfare, but is it possible for the air cover to use bullets efficiently without putting itself into harm's way?

That's probably a question for RitalinOhD, who I would appoint to execute the strategy due to his 18 years of military experience. Yes, I expect some IDF soldiers would be killed or captured. That's war for you. To me a soldier killed in combat is preferable to a child killed by aerial bombardment.