Iron Swords vs. Al-Aqsa Deluge - Israel/Palestinians (again)

[txtree99]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

 

How is returning fire murder?   Your sources seem biased here

[Mighty_Zuk]

Gazan at the scene of the fire in Rafah says the target was a Hamas vehicle loaded with ammunition. I saw footage of a vehicle yesterday but didn't want to comment on it until more details came out. I speculated at the time that perhaps senior Hamas members carry munitions with them, perhaps thinking Israel knows and thus would be deterred from attacking them in their vehicles. This however would be the first time I hear of this, so it's likely a new strategy. From now on I'm sure the IDF is at least somewhat deterred from assassinating them like that.

Translation:

A: They attacked a storehouse (of Hamas)?

B: Not a storehouse! A vehicle loaded with bullets and (combat) equipment.

B: It's an SUV.

B: Your eyes see, Sheikh - we can only trust Allah.

B: At every moment, a rocket could hit us. Relieve us, and rid us of this nightmare. Enough! We're through. We wish to die just to avoid these sights.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

15 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I just did some googling, so not reliable, but it said 44 Israeli children killed (7th and in the West Bank) vs 116 Palestinian children killed in the West Bank and 26% of 24,000 identified deaths, or 6,240.  So the child death rate would be 6356 to 45 if that were correct, or a ratio of 141 to 1.

 

More German children died during WW2 than American. 

[Ssnake]

The whole proportionality argument is BS, and Glenn knows it. So, par for the course, actually.

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

Proportionality is a basic factor in determining if a war is just.  Always has been. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

49 minutes ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

Proportionality is a basic factor in determining if a war is just.  Always has been. 

It actually hasn't and that's one of the biggest misconceptions about warfare.

Proportionality is a legal term that not only doesn't refer in any way to side A / side B casualty ratios, but actually de facto defines the legality of killing civilians, rather than preventing them.

More precisely, proportionality in the context of LOAC/IHL is the number of acceptable civilian casualties per strike/military action. And this number is defined by the warring party. So technically if Russia decides that it wants to kill 100 civilians per airstrike with near meaningless military gain, but in reality only kills 50 civilians per strike, then we could say Russia's strikes meet proportionality standards.

 

Another thing - no party has ever fought a war in a way that can be objectively said to be absolutely just. i.e. with no injustices. But it is accepted that the west has maintained the highest standard by far. Yet when we compare the war in Gaza with any other conflict involving western nations, we can see that the level of acceptable civilian casualties in Gaza is much lower than what has been practically demonstrated by other western nations. By a significant margin.

Bottom line: If we consider proportionality, then the war in Gaza is prosecuted in perhaps the most just way possible by any nation on earth.

[Perun]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The whole proportionality argument is BS, and Glenn knows it. So, par for the course, actually.

By your own logic Palestinians have more reasons for just war

[Perun]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

Proportionality is a basic factor in determining if a war is just.  Always has been. 

Not really. Far more Germans died of strategic bombing than Britains and Americans, but that doesnt mean our cause wasnt just, even if the methods were often as brutal as what the Germans were doing.

Similarly more people died of strategic bombing and atomic bombing of Japan than the United States. Does that therefore make it an unjust war?

The justification for a war are the reasons why it started, and the reasons why it ended.Yes, since medieval times its always been a consideration to do it with as limited a loss of life as possible. The problem is, in the medieval era when it was believed to be gods will to keep loss of life limited, it was still legal to slaughter entire towns if they didnt give quarter.

[Perun]

 

[sunday]

35 minutes ago, Perun said:

 

Of course it is not likely that a country compliant with the rules-based international order would resort to assassination as a tool of foreign policy.

Or perhaps yes.

Edited May 28 by sunday

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Of course it is not likely that a country compliant with the rules-based international order would resort to assassination as a tool of foreign policy.

Or perhaps yes.

Imagine having secret services and not expect them to do services secretly.

 

I wonder how many times Perun can post the same footage.

Edited May 28 by Mighty_Zuk

[WRW]

There seems to be some issues regarding the USArmy  floating harbour. Bits breaking off!

[sunday]

Just now, WRW said:

There seems to be some issues regarding the USArmy  floating harbour. Bits breaking off!

To some glee in the US Navy ranks...

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Similarly more people died of strategic bombing and atomic bombing of Japan than the United States. Does that therefore make it an unjust war?

You are confusing two basic concepts, the concept of proportionality and the concept of the just war.  They are not the same thing.  A just war is a conflict undertaken to make the world a better place.  Proportionality means that any given military target has an acceptable civilian casualty level attached to it.  For example, in the attack yesterday the Israelis exceeded any standard of acceptable civilian casualties by killing 45 people to kill 2 Hamas leaders.

In terms of the bombing of Germany vs the bombing of Gaza, the  per capita death rate in Gaza is about 3 times higher than that for Germany.  Factoring in that the bombing of Germany really was about a 3 year campaign while Gaza is only 8 months old, Gaza is about 12 times worse than the strategic bombing campaign.  All this to kill a couple hundred or thousand Hamas terrorists, whereas in WW2 the Allies were trying to rid Europe of a far larger threat.

 

 

Edited May 28 by glenn239

[txtree99]

 

[Perun]

is there any confirmation of this

Edited May 28 by Perun

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

For example, in the attack yesterday the Israelis exceeded any standard of acceptable civilian casualties by killing 45 people to kill 2 Hamas leaders.

No they haven't. If credible information says 2 Hamassies will die and 2 civilians will die, then that's the proportionality. So far there is no indication whatsoever that the Israeli strike itself resulted in any civilian casualties, be it fatalities or injuries. 

A Hamas rocket launcher detonated nearby, causing a large fire. This is solely Hamas's responsibility.

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

In terms of the bombing of Germany vs the bombing of Gaza, the  per capita death rate in Gaza is about 3 times higher than that for Germany.

Germany lost over 10% of its pre-war population in WW2.

Gaza lost 1.2%.

1.2 < 10x3

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Factoring in that the bombing of Germany really was about a 3 year campaign while Gaza is only 8 months old, Gaza is about 12 times worse than the strategic bombing campaign.

That's a wrong way to look at things. The war in Gaza is clearly past it high intensity phase.

Not only has the death toll in Gaza significantly slowed down, it has in fact reduced quite significantly recently. Over 11,000 formerly dead people are now alive, reducing the total from 33,000 to 22,000 back in March.

[glenn239]

44 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Germany lost over 10% of its pre-war population in WW2.

Gaza lost 1.2%.

Stuart was referring to the strategic bombing campaign.  500,000 out of 89,000,000 is 1/3rd of 35,000 out of 2 million.  Factor in 3 years vs. 8 months, and you get the 12 times the tempo business.  

[Mighty_Zuk]

24 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Stuart was referring to the strategic bombing campaign.  500,000 out of 89,000,000 is 1/3rd of 35,000 out of 2 million.  Factor in 3 years vs. 8 months, and you get the 12 times the tempo business.  

Stuart was talking about Japan, not Germany.

And why are you talking about specific campaigns in Germany, but the entire war in Gaza?

Why are you saying 89 million when neither Japan nor Germany had that population? 

Why are you saying 35k killed in Gaza but saying 8 months? The death toll is unlikely to reach 35,000 before at least some 2-3 years of continued war.

[Perun]

 

[sunday]

CNN could be anti-semitic, but this could be on par with Abu Ghraib.

Strapped down, blindfolded, held in diapers: Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention center

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You are confusing two basic concepts, the concept of proportionality and the concept of the just war.  They are not the same thing.  A just war is a conflict undertaken to make the world a better place.  Proportionality means that any given military target has an acceptable civilian casualty level attached to it.  For example, in the attack yesterday the Israelis exceeded any standard of acceptable civilian casualties by killing 45 people to kill 2 Hamas leaders.

In terms of the bombing of Germany vs the bombing of Gaza, the  per capita death rate in Gaza is about 3 times higher than that for Germany.  Factoring in that the bombing of Germany really was about a 3 year campaign while Gaza is only 8 months old, Gaza is about 12 times worse than the strategic bombing campaign.  All this to kill a couple hundred or thousand Hamas terrorists, whereas in WW2 the Allies were trying to rid Europe of a far larger threat.

 

 

If its a just war, one tries to be proprortionate, but often cannot be. Blowing Monte Casino to ratshit was not proportionate, but it didnt stop it being a just war. Hamburg dying in firestorm was not proportionate, but it was still a just war. Hiroshimia was not proportionate, but it was still a just war. This is self evident, not by the actions undertaken in fighting the war, but the way the war started and the way the war ended. When the Germans started a war, we started bombing them, when they surrendered, we stopped. Cause and effect.

The truth is, you are just typical of a particular brand of liberal, whom gets a gift wrapped a great victory, and doesnt particularly like the ribbon the box is wrapped in. Ive heard carping about what Bomber command did for the last 50 years. Truth be told, I dont care. Few of those people had a grandfather in a POW pen in Germany whom was slowly starving to death. So yes, you might say I get israeli concerns about their hostages, and am less inclined to worry about the people whom, after all, voted for the people that started the war. Sorry about their kids, but clearly they didnt worry about them when they voted for homocidal maniacs.

I find comparisons like that meaningless. The death rate is higher, because the sortie rate is higher. Instead of having to fly to the ruhr and back, Gaza is less than 10 minutes from their bases. Instead of having to fly at night or bomb through cloud, they can bomb by daylight. Population density is way, way higher than found in Berlin at the end of the war. However, here is the important thing to mention. The number of bombs being dropped are dwarfed by the RAF and USAAF. It doesnt mean that they are going all in to kill civilians. It means they are trying to advance in an urban situation and doing the best they can. Try fighting in an urban situation sometime, like Stalingrad, or some of the places the US army fought in Iraq, and come back and lecture them.

I said much earlier, does anyone here have any better ideas how to advance into Gaza than the way the Israeis are going? There were no replies. There is still a lot of harping, but no solutions, and unless you are content to offer one, one might  do well to hit the squelch button and stfu.

Yes, I have misgivings about what Israel is doing .I dont like the aid convoys being blocked. I cant justify that, even as im aware that HAMAS are part of that problem too.  They need to do more to fix that. The rest though, there is damn all else they can do. And if the International community are not willing to solve the problem for them, they too should stfu and stop pretending there are other solutions to a total war. HAMAS had their chance to negotiate an end to this war without further loss of life on either side. They blew it. This is on them.

Edited May 29 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Stuart was talking about Japan, not Germany.

And why are you talking about specific campaigns in Germany, but the entire war in Gaza?

Why are you saying 89 million when neither Japan nor Germany had that population? 

Why are you saying 35k killed in Gaza but saying 8 months? The death toll is unlikely to reach 35,000 before at least some 2-3 years of continued war.

In reality i was talking about them both, but never mind, it still went over his head in any case.

Im still far from convinced that the death toll is as high as claimed. Yes, HAMAS have been accurate in the past. OTOH, they were not fighting a war of   survival before, and the figures, if they cannot be substantiated by outside observers, must be treated with suspicion.

Using the WW2 argument, there was a fine book on the bombing of Dresden by holocaust denier David Irving, earlier in his career before he went largely nuts. And it is, make no bones about it, a damn good book. He was a good historian once, lets give the guy credit. The only flaw in it, and one thats rather telling, at every subsequent reprinting, he inflated the death toll of residents in Dresden. Partly this was to make the allies look just as bad as the Nazi's, or political reasons you can probably guess at. Partly because he kept finding new sources, many of which were Soviet, whom had their own political interests in inflating the death toll.

I guess the point im making is, if the allies killed 6 million German civilians in strategic bombing, or more, lets say 20 million. It would not, through the method of our warmaking, make us as bad as the Nazi's. Because every last one of those Germans died purely because of decisions the Nazis made. And you know, in the present environment of debate, people woudl have said 'well you still created the war, because of the treaty of versailles'. That is how truly stupid the commentary now is about israel.

I dont defend the mistakes Israel has made since 1947. Some of them were cruel, some of them just crassly stupid. Some of them were, in my view, early on at least, terrorism.But it STILL doesnt justify HAMAS action's on October 7th, and Israel is 'just' bringing that war they started to an end. If people dont like it, maybe they shouldnt have been justifying radical palestinians as freedom fighters, giving them the illusory belief they had some justification for child murder and rape.

Palestinians dont like the way the Israelis make war? Well dont fucking fight them then you utter fuckwits.

Edited May 29 by Stuart Galbraith

[ink]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

I dont defend the mistakes Israel has made since 1947. Some of them were cruel, some of them just crassly stupid. Some of them were, in my view, early on at least, terrorism.But it STILL doesnt justify HAMAS action's on October 7th, and Israel is 'just' bringing that war they started to an end. If people dont like it, maybe they shouldnt have been justifying radical palestinians as freedom fighters, giving them the illusory belief they had some justification for child murder and rape.

Palestinians dont like the way the Israelis make war? Well dont fucking fight them then you utter fuckwits.

Where were you with that logic when the ICTY was prosecuting Serbian military and political leaders for Srebrenica?