Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[Flankerl]

We've already acknowledged that soldiers will die. That's the job. Dead soldiers vs. dead civilian children. That's the choice that has to be made, and any authentically moral individual can plainly see which it has to be.

If you don't like it, get out of the war business.

Ah yes of course. Its common military tactic to let your soldiers die because of civilian deaths.

History is full of such examples.
10/10 thats how war is being fought.


Also who is we? Is the discussion over? How about a mod closes this thread then?!

 

[Alceste]

What comes first, though?
Civilian lives or killing/capturing enemy fighters?

IMO, civilian lives always come first. That's why I am anti-war.

 

[Alceste]

Also who is we?

The two people Koldo was talking to before you thrust your consistently sarcastic, condescending self into the debate.

 

[Koldo]

IMO, civilian lives always come first. That's why I am anti-war.

Always?
If civilian lives always come first, wouldn't you be against any action that could threaten civilian lives?

 

[CMike]

Always?
If civilian lives always come first, wouldn't you be against any action that could threaten civilian lives?

Such as using them as human shields?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Until Bush's wars, Canada's troops were deployed as UN peacekeeping forces, and the majority of Canadians prefer it that way. We're not that into fighting in other people's wars.

Sorry, but given what I believe to be true of URWA and UNIFIL I have zero interest in trusting family and friends to UN forces.

 

[CMike]

We've already acknowledged that soldiers will die. That's the job. Dead soldiers vs. dead civilian children. That's the choice that has to be made, and any authentically moral individual can plainly see which it has to be.

If you don't like it, get out of the war business.

Unfortunately, Israel can't get out of the war businesss.

It's a tiny country surrounded by enemies that want to kill all the jews in the country.

Also there is a draft for men and women so there is no choice.

There will always be dead civilians in war. There will be a lot more dead civilians if there own government wants them to die.

 

[Flankerl]

The two people Koldo was talking to before you thrust your consistently sarcastic, condescending self into the debate.

Arent internet forums amazing? Its almost as if people are meant to write to each other.

 

[CMike]

That doesn't show that Hamas is anything other than a whole bunch of individuals doing awful things. Individuals are "specific targets". Many of the US operations against al Qaeda involved taking out specific targets. I objected to all the operations that did not.

Hamas is also their elected government in Hamas.

It's a terrorist organization.

Unfortunately it recieves billions of dollars of money from countries including the US that goes for it's terror operations.

 

[CMike]

Nice

[youtube]Q0UyQV4MSpk[/youtube]

 

[CMike]

The dismantling of "terrorist infrastructure" (by which I assume you mean tunnels and armories) can come after any given sector is cleared of civilians and the militants therein have been killed or captured. The method of destruction should depend on where it is. If there's a bunch of rockets in a hospital basement, you go in and get the rockets. You don't have to blow up the whole hospital and kill or maim everybody inside. If there's a tunnel, it can presumably be filled or collapsed while inflicting minimal damage to the surrounding buildings and no damage to the surrounding civilians.

Alternatively, disarmament and the destruction of tunnels can be a condition of peace negotiations (with the PA, obviously, not Hamas) after a calmer approach results in a calmer response (which I believe to be inevitable). That's how things progressed in Northern Ireland, so I see no reason it couldn't work that way in Palestine.

And whose fault is it that the rockets are in the hospital?

 

[Alceste]

Always?
If civilian lives always come first, wouldn't you be against any action that could threaten civilian lives?

I am, but I was asked what I would do as commander of the IDF, not what I would do if I were in charge of Israel's entire foreign policy. If I were, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. There would be a free Palestinian state along the 1967 borders in exchange for disarmament.

 

[RitalinOhD]

His method of choice ( or the last the only one he mentioned ) is to use a few soldiers to check the situation and then proceed with an attack coming from air if the enemy is found and collateral damage is considered acceptable.

Your method of choice is to send ground units to kill and/or arrest the enemy with air cover.

There is a disagreement on what to do.

Actually, I believe I had stated that this was only one option. I also stated this this was not the end all be all strategy, implying that other forces would be required.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Yes ground invasions into cities are known to keep the death toll on everyone involved low.

This is why its common military tactic all around the world to just walk into a city you are besieging. There are no drawbacks at all.


t. internet wisdom

Misguided sarcasm noted.

At no point did I infer that there were no drawbacks, or that this would "keep the death toll on everyone involved low". However, it would significantly lower the civilian death toll, which is what were actually talking about here. And lay off the sarcasm. There's no need for it.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Of course. It also has the potential to incur extensive civilian loss as the citizens of Gaza find themselves caught in the crossfire. And it has the potential to fail miserably, incurring enormous Israeli military losses and while allowing the rocket barrages against Israel to continue unabated.

Perhaps that would happen. No one can know for sure. What is known is their current strategy is a failure of epic proportions. Thousands dead, and they haven't effected Hamas's ability to launch rockets in any measurable way.

But what about this: what about a massive multinational force that marches into Gaza with the expressed intent of demilitarizing Hamas, destroying its terrorist infrastructure, transferring power to the PLO, and proceeding with reconstruction?

I would absolutely agree with this strategy, however, I don't see it happening. But out of all available options considered, I see this one as having the most potential, assuming it doesn't resolve through political pressure.

 

[RitalinOhD]

I don't think so.
He mentioned the TAC-P, and from what I have seen so far, that is essentially used for directing air strikes.

Correct. Having someone on the ground with eyes on a target is much more reliable than a pilot flying at 25,000 feet or higher.

This doesn't nullify the need for additional forces in the area when an airstrike just isn't feasible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps that would happen. No one can know for sure. What is known is their current strategy is a failure of epic proportions.

Given the military options available, that borders on hyperbole. There is an enormous amount of terrorist infrastructure and leadership destroyed, Hamas has been qualitatively diminished in the occupied territories, and it has been significantly estranged from Egypt and the PLO alike.

IMO, the failure of epic proportions was Netanyahu's failure to negotiate with Abbas in good faith. More generally, the failure of epic proportions is the occupation.

I would absolutely agree with this strategy, however, I don't see it happening. But out of all available options considered, I see this one as having the most potential, assuming it doesn't resolve through political pressure.

… which would be an excellent assumption.

 

[metis]

Oh really? Because as I recall, once I was given control of the IDF, my strategy after sacking all the maniacs at the generals' table and stopping the bombardment of homes, schools, civilian infrastructure and hospitals, was to go in with ground forces supported by air artillery and kill or capture Hamas militants until they're no longer a threat.

And you think it's really that easy? What would you do, for example, to deal with the launching of roughly 7000 rockets and missiles being launched against civilians in Israel with the vast majority being launched from inside Gaza City or neighboring villages?

 

[metis]

We've already acknowledged that soldiers will die. That's the job. Dead soldiers vs. dead civilian children. That's the choice that has to be made, and any authentically moral individual can plainly see which it has to be.

If you don't like it, get out of the war business.

So, you actually believe that any country would agree to maximize its loss of soldiers using this strategy? Can you name a country and/or war whereas this was done?

 

[metis]

Until Bush's wars, Canada's troops were deployed as UN peacekeeping forces, and the majority of Canadians prefer it that way. We're not that into fighting in other people's wars.

Really? How about WWII? Canada was not attacked but very much got involved. How about the Persian Gulf War that involved Canadian forces?