Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Gush Katif, now Asda City is a civilian area...
    Nowhere in the wikipedia article you provided did it state that (unless I missed it) . It simply stated that it was a military base. Which,if you're right, is even worse, because if you'd read the link I posted, this ultimately means Hamas is breaking a treaty which it agreed to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miavdbt)
    Nowhere in the wikipedia article you provided did it state that (unless I missed it) . It simply stated that it was a military base. Which,if you're right, is even worse, because if you'd read the link I posted, this ultimately means Hamas is breaking a treaty which it agreed to.
    So you didn't know that "Gush Katif" (Asda City) is now a civilian area?

    I suggest you engage in some research before deciding to issue foolish statements which you are unable to corroborate or substantiate...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Gush Katif, now Asda City is a civilian area...
    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.

    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).

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    So you didn't know that "Gush Katif" (Asda City) is now a civilian area?

    I suggest you engage in some research before deciding to issue foolish statements which you are unable to corroborate or substantiate...
    See my other post in which I quoted you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
    The number of dead soldiers wouldn't increase dramatically. Certainly not to 1500 soldiers anyway, the majority of them being women and children.

    Also, I highly doubt that it would protect a 'couple' of civilians. It would protect a couple thousand more civilians likely.

    Israel tries to justify them all as human shields. But at the end of the day, even if Hamas literally wore babies as body armor as they are portrayed in Israeli propaganda, it still doesn't justify killing the 'human shield'.


    Anyway, I've had enough of this rubbish
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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/g...tif-settlement
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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"...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.