The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
So why did the USA etc bother to invade Iraq? Why didn't they just bomb it back to the stone age?

Looks like the flaws are all on you.

But yeah, I agree, the moral thing to do is definitely to bomb schools and hospitals and palm the collateral off as human shields right?

I've had enough to arguing with people trying to justify the deaths of women and children. Go take your fascist talk to someone else, I'm out of this thread for good.


Because the belief at the time was that Iraq had WMD's. You can't find WMD with an airstrike, silly. Of course the WMD's were later proven not to be there, but still the point remains. Air strikes would no accomplish the task on its own, a ground invasion was necessary. In the case of Israel today, their intent it to destroy the launch sites and the equipment that is used. This can be done by drone strikes. However their mission and intent is evolving into destroying the tunnels, and this requires a ground invasion.

I'm not trying to do some crusade bs and justify deaths of innocents (I refrain from using the term of women and children, since women are equally capable of fighting as men, and children can become indoctrinated child soldiers, and men are just as easily capable of being innocent as women and children are)

I am simply saying why your logic is flawed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by miavdbt
Furthermore, Gush Katif, plus a few other settlements which were not found in Gush Katif were demolished after 2005. Ultimately, Gaza could have done anything with the empty land.


And they decided to "rebuild" it for the Gazans making it a civilian area...

If Hamas knew it wanted to develop its military and send rockets over to Israel, why would it build on every single settlement and make it civilian? Don't tell me Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Whereas Gaza has 8666 people per square mile, Manila has 113, 810 people per square mile (simply for comparison purposes).


Comparing cities to what is effectively a "country" of some sorts? Is that the only way you believe you can make a valid point?

Thus, if Hamas wanted there to be military bases in Gaza from which it could fire without threatening its civilian population, it could have done so. It's not like there is no room for it, it's just lack of will.


I'm saying from WHERE? Name me a place in Gaza, or show me on a map, where they will be able to fire rockets without incurring civilian casulties.

I've made it easier for you. Here is a map of Gaza (may not be entirely accurate), now direct me towards such a place:

(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by merrill
Because the belief at the time was that Iraq had WMD's. You can't find WMD with an airstrike, silly. Of course the WMD's were later proven not to be there, but still the point remains. Air strikes would no accomplish the task on its own, a ground invasion was necessary. In the case of Israel today, their intent it to destroy the launch sites and the equipment that is used. This can be done by drone strikes. However their mission and intent is evolving into destroying the tunnels, and this requires a ground invasion.

Posted from TSR Mobile


So why didn't they carpet bomb the 1KM Israeli imposed buffer zone?
Original post by tsr1269
So why didn't they carpet bomb the 1KM Israeli imposed buffer zone?


Because that is pointless? Their original intent was to destroy the missiles, the equipment that goes with them and the soldiers that manned them. Not to destroy infrastructure and/ or maximise casualties.

Plus it is a waste of ammunition that can be used in a better way.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tsr1269
And they decided to "rebuild" it for the Gazans making it a civilian area...

And that's fine! If they didn't wish to engage in military action of any sort, that would be fine! But, if they planned on firing rockets into Israel, then they should have thought about that before rebuilding it for the Gazans.

Comparing cities to what is effectively a "country" of some sorts? Is that the only way you believe you can make a valid point?

It's a 'country' when it suits you, it's the most densely populated area in the world when it suits you! The point is, one is much more densely populated than the other. Why not build civilian areas separate from where you will potentially be firing and storing your rockets? Would that be so difficult? Sure, you would have more people living in one area, but at least you will have them separate from where you'll be firing rockets thus you will not be putting your civilians at risk. The Israelis will not be able to fire onto civilians if the rockets are not stored or fired from civilian areas, they would have no excuse to do so!

If Hamas honestly believes that Israel is trying to annihilate Gaza by destroying civilian areas, why not make such provisions that such areas are kept safe by not making them potential military targets?

​Gaza is by far NOT the most densely populated area in the world. This could be achieved.


I'm saying from WHERE? Name me a place in Gaza, or show me on a map, where they will be able to fire rockets without incurring civilian casulties.

I've made it easier for you. Here is a map of Gaza (may not be entirely accurate), now direct me towards such a place:




​As I said, this should have been accounted for when those settlements were being rebuilt. Furthermore, I was just reading an article on Asda City, and it turns out that it's not just residential in nature.

Asda City is big enough for farm land to exist and to be leased to farmers. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely farm land would be big enough for rockets to be fired when the need arises? It would be playing fair, wouldn't it? If you were to fire a rocket from within an empty farm field rather than within a school parking lot, for instance?

Here is the exceptionally anti- Israel, pro- Hamas article where it mentioned that farmland was being leased to local farmers, if you don't believe me.

http://pulitzercenter.org/articles/gaza-gush-katif-settlement
Original post by merrill
Because that is pointless? Their original intent was to destroy the missiles, the equipment that goes with them and the soldiers that manned them. Not to destroy infrastructure and/ or maximise casualties.

Plus it is a waste of ammunition that can be used in a better way.


I think my previous response could have been a little unclear so allow me to clarify.

You have stated that a "ground invasion is needed for the destruction of the tunnels", I'm simply asking why not just carpet bomb the Israeli imposed 1KM buffer zone?
Original post by merrill
I don't know where you have been taught, but I at Sandhurst, along with many others from other institutions such as West Point in USA have always been taught and experienced that a ground invasion is always more costly in terms of life and wealth than air strikes. If Israel did have a full ground invasion (as it is considering) more soldiers and civilians would die than if they just continued with the drone strikes. Simple.

Hamas, as I am sure you know, reside in a densely populated area. Sometimes they do knowingly and willingly fire short range missiles from civilian compounds or houses. Other times they dont wish to endanger civilians but have no choice as there is nowhere else to fire them from other than a hospital parking lot (lack of launch space). Don't be absurd in suggesting that Israeli propaganda says Hamas uses babies as body armour, because they have never said anything of the sort. What they do say, is that because Hamas is so ingrained into the local community and hides amongst it, there is bound to be civilian casualties.

Posted from TSR Mobile



good for you mate...but like I said, I'm done trying to explain to people there is no justification ever for killing babies.
Original post by miavdbt
And that's fine! If they didn't wish to engage in military action of any sort, that would be fine! But, if they planned on firing rockets into Israel, then they should have thought about that before rebuilding it for the Gazans.


You seem intent on addressing something which is not there.

If ALL the areas inside Gaza are considered "civilian areas", where do you think they should fire their rockets from?

Something about the availability of "military areas" in Gaza
See question above.

Leasing to farmers


A farm field is not empty. It has crops which is vital to the survival of the Palestinian people as it provides nourishment and keeps starvation at bay, especially considering the fact that Israel restricts a lot of imports.

As such, it can be considered a "civilian are"...
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
good for you mate...but like I said, I'm done trying to explain to people there is no justification ever for killing babies.


What are you on about? I am not justifying the killing of babies, or any other non combatant. There is nothing to justify since it was not intentional. Justification requires the intent of something; the IDF never intends to kill civilians.

I was explaining the flaw in your logic and the reason why civilians die. Not justify.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tsr1269



A farm field is not empty. It has crops which is vital to the survival of the Palestinian people as it provides nourishment and keeps starvation at bay, especially considering the fact that Israel restricts a lot of imports.

As such, it can be considered a "civilian are"...



Yes, but would you rather fire from within a hospital or within a corn field? If you're so intent on firing, why would you risk losing people's lives as opposed to crops? You can't seriously tell me that crops > human lives.

Also, though Gaza does rely on some of its crops, it does get food imported from sources such as the UN. So even if their crops were destroyed, they wouldn't all starve. Whereas, when their civilian areas are hit, plenty of people die. Tell me what makes more sense to you, definitely putting civilians at risk by firing from areas where they live or take shelter or possibly putting civilians at risk by firing from areas where they grow their crops?

As for the other points, the only thing I was saying is that they should have accounted for the fact that they want to develop their military and fire into Israel. The way they've rebuilt Gaza, it's almost like they WANTED to only be able to fire from civilian areas. Which, you know, couldn't possibly be the case because all they'd gain from that is tons of civilians dead and an outcry from the international
community. But Hamas are not such monsters, to spill their own civilians' blood just so they get sympathy, right?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by merrill
What are you on about? I am not justifying the killing of babies, or any other non combatant. There is nothing to justify since it was not intentional. Justification requires the intent of something; the IDF never intends to kill civilians.

I was explaining the flaw in your logic and the reason why civilians die. Not justify.

Posted from TSR Mobile


lol

ok whatever. Just like the IRA never 'intended' in killing civilians with their bombs right?
Original post by Et Tu, Brute?
lol

ok whatever. Just like the IRA never 'intended' in killing civilians with their bombs right?


You don't actually have an argument here do you? Just resorting to pulling whatever you can out of your magic hat. This thread is about the current Israel and Palestine conflict. If you want to discuss the IRA, open a new thread and I shall happily discuss things there with you.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by miavdbt
Yes, but would you rather fire from within a hospital or within a corn field? If you're so intent on firing, why would you risk losing people's lives as opposed to crops? You can't seriously tell me that crops > human lives.

Also, though Gaza does rely on some of its crops, it does get food imported from sources such as the UN. So even if their crops were destroyed, they wouldn't all starve. Whereas, when their civilian areas are hit, plenty of people die. Tell me what makes more sense to you, definitely putting civilians at risk by firing from areas where they live or take shelter or possibly putting civilians at risk by firing from areas where they grow their crops?

As for the other points, the only thing I was saying is that they should have accounted for the fact that they want to develop their military and fire into Israel. The way they've rebuilt Gaza, it's almost like they WANTED to only be able to fire from civilian areas. Which, you know, couldn't possibly be the case because all they'd gain from that is tons of civilians dead and an outcry from the international
community. But Hamas are not such monsters, to spill their own civilians' blood just so they get sympathy, right?


What happens if they fire from crop areas, and the Israeli's obliterate them (the crops etc)? Will the rockets then move into civilian areas because there is no more land from which to fire from?
Original post by tsr1269
What happens if they fire from crop areas, and the Israeli's obliterate them (the crops etc)? Will the rockets then move into civilian areas because there is no more land from which to fire from?


Are you joking? How will there be no more 'land to fire from'? Sure, the crops might be gone, but the land will be there! It's not like when the Israelis fire there, all that will be left is this black void of nothingness! It will still be land.

Even better, it will be completely empty, desolate land. Perfect to launch rockets from and far away from civilians.

Frankly, I don't understand your argument.

I'm asking you again, do you think it's justified that Hamas fires and stores rockets form within residential areas or do you think that it would make more sense that they simply fired from their farm fields if they truly had no non-civilian land to fire from?
Has anyone seen Russell Brand's spat with Fox New's presenter Sean Hannity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_m98GAdqKM

Pure gold. Got so much more respect for RB now. :biggrin:
Original post by miavdbt
Are you joking? How will there be no more 'land to fire from'? Sure, the crops might be gone, but the land will be there! It's not like when the Israelis fire there, all that will be left is this black void of nothingness! It will still be land.

Even better, it will be completely empty, desolate land. Perfect to launch rockets from and far away from civilians.

Frankly, I don't understand your argument.

I'm asking you again, do you think it's justified that Hamas fires and stores rockets form within residential areas or do you think that it would make more sense that they simply fired from their farm fields if they truly had no non-civilian land to fire from?


You think HAMAS are stupid enough for Israel to destroy both them and the crops the Palestinians rely on?

You want to firstly, starve out the Palestinians, making them suffer, as well as inflicting more deaths on them?

I don not mean to come across as callous but what with the dire situation in Gaza at the moment, food is more vital than human life.

You would rather have less mouths to feed than 1 million mouths to feed without no source from where to derive it from.
Original post by tsr1269
You think HAMAS are stupid enough for Israel to destroy both them and the crops the Palestinians rely on?

You want to firstly, starve out the Palestinians, making them suffer, as well as inflicting more deaths on them?

Who said anything about starving out Palestinians? Gaza cannot rely fully on the crops that it grows for sustenance (if even just because they can't grow everything they need due to climate issues) . Just the other
day, the UN brought more food aid to Gaza. Gaza gets food aid from outside, and if the situation gets so dire that they are starving, I'm sure even more aid will arrive from outside countries and the UN.

Sure, Middle Eastern countries are reluctant to aid Hamas, but many have sent Humanitarian aid to Gaza. This includes food.


I don not mean to come across as callous but what with the dire situation in Gaza at the moment, food is more vital than human life.

See above.

You would rather have less mouths to feed than 1 million mouths to feed without no source from where to derive it from.


They do have sources, as I said. So you're saying that ultimately it is better to fire from civilian areas so more civilian people die, and less people have to be fed rather than destroy the crops, save the civilians and rely on a little bit more Humanitarian aid than usual for a few years after the conflict?

​It seems like you're running out of arguments here.

Another thought I had is, while the tunnels are being destroyed now, this was not the case before. In fact, there was no ground invasion, just airstrikes. Why didn't Hamas place their civilians in the tunnels, originating in various areas in Gaza? They could have acted as shelters for the time being, and would have decreased the human casualties.
Original post by merrill
You don't actually have an argument here do you? Just resorting to pulling whatever you can out of your magic hat. This thread is about the current Israel and Palestine conflict. If you want to discuss the IRA, open a new thread and I shall happily discuss things there with you.

Posted from TSR Mobile



The conflicts essentially parallels, so there is a lot of relevance to that conflict in this thread. But that is besides the point.

I'm merely pointing out that people like you don't bat an eyelid when Israel are blowing up babies in hospitals simply because their official statement is that they didn't mean to. I merely countered that outlook by applying it to a very similar conflict in which another group's official line is not to kill civilians. They too bombed public areas (though weren't quite bad enough to sink as low as hospitals and the likes) in which civilian casualties were highly likely but still said they 'didn't intend for it to happen'.

Support the actions of one, you support the actions of the other in my opinion.
Original post by tania<3
Has anyone seen Russell Brand's spat with Fox New's presenter Sean Hannity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_m98GAdqKM

Pure gold. Got so much more respect for RB now. :biggrin:


I saw that! The host was such a dick to his guest. I'm all for supporting the Israeli cause, but he didn't even let his guest be heard. It was disgusting.
Original post by tania<3
Has anyone seen Russell Brand's spat with Fox New's presenter Sean Hannity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_m98GAdqKM

Pure gold. Got so much more respect for RB now. :biggrin:


I saw that and then Sean Hannity got three guests on his show to back him up and that went hilariously wrong

The US has a lot of far right evangelical Christian types... which is probably why US foreign policy is favourable towards Israel (even though its not really in their interests)

Why the UK and Europe support Israel ive no idea - possibly post WW2 guilt?

Latest