Today's discussion about the news

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

Rick you seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that people suggesting Israel are behaving badly means they think Hamas are great.

Look, I’ve been more critical than most on here on the strategic value of occupying Gaza. There is a reason they left in 2005 and that hadn’t changed.

But to criticise the IDF tactics for acting rationally in response to Hamas human shield tactics is stupid.

Hamas fire rockets deliberately from heavily populated areas. Why do you think that is? The nato link summarises it well.

Disagree with the sentence and the word "rationally"

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

Rick you seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that people suggesting Israel are behaving badly means they think Hamas are great.

Look, I’ve been more critical than most on here on the strategic value of occupying Gaza. There is a reason they left in 2005 and that hadn’t changed.

But to criticise the IDF tactics for acting rationally in response to Hamas human shield tactics is stupid.

Hamas fire rockets deliberately from heavily populated areas. Why do you think that is? The nato link summarises it well.

Disagree with the sentence and the word "rationally"

Ok how would you wage your invasion of Gaza if the IDF are doing it so wrong?

“I would simply not invade” is not an option.

You do understand the human shield problem, so what you gonna do? Just have your lads die because you’re too frightened of the PR about attacking a school?

rick_chasey

Fun thing is the arguments being used here are all in that nato link

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

Rick you seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that people suggesting Israel are behaving badly means they think Hamas are great.

Look, I’ve been more critical than most on here on the strategic value of occupying Gaza. There is a reason they left in 2005 and that hadn’t changed.

But to criticise the IDF tactics for acting rationally in response to Hamas human shield tactics is stupid.

Hamas fire rockets deliberately from heavily populated areas. Why do you think that is? The nato link summarises it well.

Disagree with the sentence and the word "rationally"

Ok how would you wage your invasion of Gaza if the IDF are doing it so wrong?

“I would simply not invade” is not an option.

You do understand the human shield problem, so what you gonna do? Just have your lads die because you’re too frightened of the PR about attacking a school?

Of course not invading is an option.

I'd go a step back and not monumentally drop the ball on defence.

If that's not an option I guess arrive at what you can make a case for being a proportional response. This isn't that.

Equating not wanting to kill civilians with being "frightened of the PR" is pretty gross.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

Fun thing is the arguments being used here are all in that nato link

I don't know what link you are referring to tbh.

rick_chasey

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

Rick you seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that people suggesting Israel are behaving badly means they think Hamas are great.

Look, I’ve been more critical than most on here on the strategic value of occupying Gaza. There is a reason they left in 2005 and that hadn’t changed.

But to criticise the IDF tactics for acting rationally in response to Hamas human shield tactics is stupid.

Hamas fire rockets deliberately from heavily populated areas. Why do you think that is? The nato link summarises it well.

Disagree with the sentence and the word "rationally"

Ok how would you wage your invasion of Gaza if the IDF are doing it so wrong?

“I would simply not invade” is not an option.

You do understand the human shield problem, so what you gonna do? Just have your lads die because you’re too frightened of the PR about attacking a school?

Of course not invading is an option.

I'd go a step back and not monumentally drop the ball on defence.

If that's not an option I guess arrive at what you can make a case for being a proportional response. This isn't that.

Equating not wanting to kill civilians with being "frightened of the PR" is pretty gross.

But that’s part of rhe tactic of human shields, right?

I’m not gonna take heat for explaining the logic of human shield tactics.

Why do you think Hamas use UN medic vans to ferry troops?


The Israeli strategy is entirely wrong, but the idea that the IDF tactics are entirely wrong really baffles me, and I think in general people are unable to separate the two.

TheBigBean

Rick - are you aware one war crime doesn't legalise another? You seem confused on this point and are basicallly making the Braverman argument that international law is no longer appropriate.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

The onus is on Israel to prove it. Under international law, if there is uncertainty, then it must not be attacked. No amount of "but Hamas had a tunnel" will meet the required threshold for good reason.

.

I mean, Hamas wage their entire war via tunnels and they are not being dug for any other reasons; so "having a tunnel" is a pretty good indicator the Hamas military are using it for something, else why would there be a tunnel?

Like I said, there is precedent for Hamas using hospitals. Hell, it was like this in the last gaza war and sure enough, they did use it then.

I would consider people on here to be in the top couple of $ of sensible people and yet after the Israelis did not blow up the other hospital and we were told it did not matter because blah, blah, blah

I have come to the conclusion that the Israelis may as well do what the fvck they like because it will make no difference to the way they are judged

If Harold Shipman was wrongfully accused of a particular murder, would it be slanderous?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

Rick - are you aware one war crime doesn't legalise another? You seem confused on this point and are basicallly making the Braverman argument that international law is no longer appropriate.

I genuinely don’t know what you expect soldiers to do when the enemy uses human shields. Unless you explain how you would I can’t take this argument seriously,

TheBigBean

Also some of the US/UK interpretation of international law is not great and I've argued this point with an army lawyer. You can't shoot an unarmed soldier, but you can use a drone to target and kill an unarmed soldier along with loads of civilians.

It's also ok to invade a country, put in place a government and then accept their invite to occupy. That makes the occupying force legal, so attacks by the former local army are actions of terrorists or insurgents.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

Also some of the US/UK interpretation of international law is not great and I've argued this point with an army lawyer. You can't shoot an unarmed soldier, but you can use a drone to target and kill an unarmed soldier along with loads of civilians.

It's also ok to invade a country, put in place a government and then accept their invite to occupy. That makes the occupying force legal, so attacks by the former local army are actions of terrorists or insurgents.

Now this is some good whataboutism.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Also some of the US/UK interpretation of international law is not great and I've argued this point with an army lawyer. You can't shoot an unarmed soldier, but you can use a drone to target and kill an unarmed soldier along with loads of civilians.

It's also ok to invade a country, put in place a government and then accept their invite to occupy. That makes the occupying force legal, so attacks by the former local army are actions of terrorists or insurgents.

Now this is some good whataboutism.

Just an aside. Not attempt to justify anything at the moment.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Rick - are you aware one war crime doesn't legalise another? You seem confused on this point and are basicallly making the Braverman argument that international law is no longer appropriate.

I genuinely don’t know what you expect soldiers to do when the enemy uses human shields. Unless you explain how you would I can’t take this argument seriously,

As I said, you don't believe international laws are appropriate. Wish you just said that.

TheBigBean

Incidentally you could probably bring in a hobby horse. Many African leaders feel that international laws are just a western system to pick on them and are never applied to western powers. i think to full on hobby horse you'd need to connect this to colonialism and historic racism.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Rick - are you aware one war crime doesn't legalise another? You seem confused on this point and are basicallly making the Braverman argument that international law is no longer appropriate.

I genuinely don’t know what you expect soldiers to do when the enemy uses human shields. Unless you explain how you would I can’t take this argument seriously,

As I said, you don't believe international laws are appropriate. Wish you just said that.

You cannot wage war against an enemy that uses human shields (which is a war crime), without getting stuck into civilian infrastructure. That is what the “all reasonable efforts to avoid civilian casualties” means.

If your enemy puts a load of school kids on the roof with a sniper, they are committing the war crime - you are not if you bomb the roof to stop the sniper as awful as it is.

You are just allowing immunity for Hamas to fight from hospital schools and peoples houses.

TheBigBean

Ok. Back to arguing it is lawful despite the threshold for attacking a hospital clearly not having been met.

briantrumpet

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

How would you conduct extremely dense urban warfare with an enemy that hides in amongst civilians?

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

How would you conduct extremely dense urban warfare with an enemy that hides in amongst civilians?

Not my area of expertise, you'll not be surprised to know, so I've no idea, but there must still be a point at which indiscriminate killing of innocent lives becomes immoral surely? Does the presence of one Hamas fighter give carte blanche for any amount of civilian death, or is there some duty on the IDF to consider proportionality, despite the cynical use by Hamas of human shields?

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.

As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.

That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.

As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.

That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.

The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

how can they be two sides of the same coin when one side has a stated aim of wiping the other out?

laurentian

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

how can they be two sides of the same coin when one side has a stated aim of wiping the other out?

. . . which side is closer to "wiping the other out"?

pblakeney

laurentian said:

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

how can they be two sides of the same coin when one side has a stated aim of wiping the other out?

. . . which side is closer to "wiping the other out"?

Yeah, that.
.

rjsterry

To paraphrase SC's argument on Covid, if a bunch of blokes on a cycling forum can spot that that is the trap, why have Israel blundered into it?

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.

As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.

That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.

The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.

Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.

That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.

I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.

Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.

Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves

Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.

So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.

As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.

That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.

The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.

Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?

Bombs are the wrong tool in this instance.