Israel is dropping 2k pound bombs on an area smaller than most USA metros. they arent minimizing anything. jesus man use some common sense.

It has been indiscriminate. This is pretty much uncontroversial. To argue that this is necessary to clear the path, fine, but there's been very little discrimination between civilians and terrorists when you kill this many women and children. Surgical strikes are impossible in urban warfare, so basically anything from the air is indiscriminate, justifiable or not.

When the enemy uses human shields and the territory is occupied by you, it's absolutely necessary to initiate a full counterinsurgency campaign on the ground.

Just as civilians will die in war, so will soldiers. This isn't immoral logic. This is how a just war is conducted.

It's immoral to value soldiers over civilians. Soldiers are combatants, too. Just with coordinated costumes.

Now, if Gaza were a state with sovereign borders, you'd have something resembling an argument, but it isn't, so you don't. Because they're occupied anyway, a ground invasion from the get-go would have been completely reasonable.

I entered the national guard after high school in 2001. I've seen action. Didn't expect to, but I did. But that's irrelevant. Can we move on?

it is highly controversial, and false.

and every single civilian died as a human shield is a fiar target btw, it's not like you reward using human shields by denying yourself the possibility of bombing.

targeting building with Hamas inside isn't indiscriminate killing of civilians when civilians there die.

indiscriminate is targeting all buildings without info of who is occupying them for weeks, which never happened.

it is not immoral to value YOUR SOLDIERS more than THEIR CIVILIANS lol. it's actually morally imperative to do so, one of your soldier can be worth 100, 500, 5k civilians we can argue on the ratio, but it's certainly orders of magnitude more worthy of preservation for your country, morally.

Gaza wasn't occupied at all and was de facto sovereign since 2006. it was partially blockaded but that's not an occupation.

Israeli weren't inside Gaza.

now Gaza has been invaded to fight a war against the state-lile entity which governs it, a war where the state like entity uses human shields, and you want Jews to die more to reward the use of human shields?

this is truly ****ed up horror morality. you don't negotiate with terrorists , and if they use human shields and the shields die, the terrorists are the only people morally responsible for those deaths and no one else

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internatio...6601904_4.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/w...en-strike.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-...taffer-killed/

I can keep going if you want.

I've never supported negotiating with Hamas. I've proposed quite the opposite. I support extrajudicial assassinations of Hamas operatives.

You have a lot of conviction you are analyzing the situation correctly, but it isn't obvious to me you are. Like I say, I have read/listened to people who do this stuff for a living who argue Israel is tactically handling the situation as well as possible, given their military objectives. Should your uninformed convictions outweigh their experienced analysis?

I think Hamas should just give up the hostages, and lay down their arms; and then no one will need to die. And the entire international community, including Biden, doing nothing to try to pressure them at all is a great moral failing of our times. How in the world does Hamas get to act the way they are, and Turkey and Qatar are laying out the red carpet for them, and we are putting no pressure ourselves and seemingly completely indifferent to this? WTF is even going on?


But that is just me.

Common sense, tho, or something.

We agree on a lot more than I think you think we do.

And Andrew Exum, a leading expert on counterinsurgency, disagrees. I can PM you his Atlantic article. It's paywalled, so I can't post the text here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ar-idf/677790/

errors (the second)doesn't mean indiscriminate lol.

indiscriminate means never giving a **** at all, Just carpet bombing everything all the times and ofc aids are not at all in the picture if there is indiscriminate disregard for civilians at all. why take the risk, just stop all aid, that is indiscriminate.

In the Battle to retake Manila, McArthur elected not to bomb to save the city infrastructure as much as possible and not to risk the lives of American POWs as much as possible. There were 250,00 civilian casualties with 100,000 dead. And this wasn't even a hostile populace. And 1,000 American soldiers died verses 16,000 Japanese soldiers (they basically fought to the last man).

If we assume Hamas numbers are correct (LOL), the ratio of 1,000 American military to 116,000 (civilian and military) dead in the Battle of Manila is already about the same as Israel military to Gaza civilians 250 to 30,000.

So now that we have a baseline that Israel military casualties are already around the same ratio as a historical war that had no bombing at all where they elected to go hand to hand street by street, what ratio does your gut tell you that Israel should be aiming for? And what tactics do you think McArthur did wrong resulting in so many civilian casualties that Israel would do better in your hypothetical?

Based on the first 2 paragraphs, he seems to be making a strategic argument Israel is making strategic blunders. Does he actually go into battlefield tactics and make tactical critiques for how Israel could be tactically meeting its goals minimizing casualties; and does he estimate what Israel's casualties would be following different tactics?

I have no military acumen to draw upon. If a West Point professor of urban warfare (who I accept probably has his own biases, or he wouldn't even be going on a Sam Harris podcast) tells me Israel is doing about all they can to minimize civilian casualties while achieving their military objectives, and I have no informed counterpoint to go off of, I have to assume the expert is correct.

When there are no good tactics for a strategy then it's a bad strategy.

I can easily believe that all the tactics for rhis urban warfare are horrific

That's understandable from the perspective of attacking from the air as the best strategy. I'm saying it wasn't.

https://www.youtube.com/live/UraLh-2xV38?start=12793&

Dawah invites you to Islam

Israel now 2nd favourite for the Eurovision song contest having been backed in from 50-1 yesterday.

She was booed during rehearsals and during the semi final by pro-Palestine protesters, because y'know you should definitely blame a singer for the actions of Israel.

Why approach the answer to my question in that manner? lmaooo that should be this sub-forum's motto

Gotta be honest. The more I see the pro Hamas protests, the more resolve I have that Israel is on the right track. Seems to me the protesters calling for infintada are getting the war they want, so I am not sure what their complaint is at this point. I take it they want Palestinians to fight and Israel to just let them win?

they want the west to stop helping Israel , to boycott Israel, and to help Palestine destroy israel

They're a bunch of tards.

There's a way to protest the Israeli attacks. This isn't it.

That said, I oppose BDS.

so what's a way to protest this that's ok in your eyes by those who want civilians being killed every day to end ?

Nobody wants civilians killed

Well besides hamas

Baruch hashem and chag sameach