The problem with this is that if the IDF ceases targetting Hamas when Hamas hides behind civilians, I don’t see how the IDF can target Hamas at all. Whichnis exactly why Hamas behaves in this way.
Is there a point between “all Palestinian children dead” and where we are now where you’d say “Too much, stop”? Where would that point be?
I understand what you’re saying about “consider the alternative.” As far as I can tell, almost any alternative–including the one where Hamas thinks they got away with it–is still better than the atrocities we’re seeing now. It’d be really really bad for Hamas to think that–but what’s happening now is unimaginably bad.
IDF could target them with 10% of the Hamas-kill-rate of their current methodology. Go much, much more targeted, forgoing most of their opportunities to kill Hamas, and only taking the opportunities where they could get them with a much lower risk of civilian casualties.
I know it’d make the IDF less effective. Given Hamas’s brutal tactics, that’s the only morally defensible approach.
So you would teach Hamas that using civilians as human shields is effective and they should do it even more, then.
Hey you sociopathic fuckwit, piss off.
Yes, absolutely. Not being a military expert, I don’t think I can describe it to you in a way that is meaningful. Certainly not in terms of “hOw MaNy DeAd KiDs LaWl” as some have asked.
If it was just about what Hamas thinks, that would be one thing. If we could trick Hamas fighters into thinking they’ve won and they can all go to Qatar and party for the rest of their lives, I’d support that effort. The problem is what Hamas would be able to practically accomplish following this. They would rearm and refortify and eventually attack Israel again, and then we would be right where we were on Oct 8, forced to start all over again with an extremely costly assault to remove them.
I don’t see a way to remove Hamas without armed force, and I don’t see a way to remove Hamas with significantly less armed force than is currently being used. If that is the case, then stopping the war would just reset progress back to 0 and mean that next time this happens Israel has to enter grinding urban combat for months, killing thousands of Palestinians, just to get here; and then we’d need to keep going anyways (assuming we didn’t give up again and kill all those Palestinians for nothing, too).
Again, I am not a military expert, but my layman understanding is that applying 10% of the military force doesn’t necessarily mean you will proceed at 10% the pace - it could mean that you fail to advance at all, because you haven’t reached the critical threshold that causes your opponent’s supply to break.
This thread looks as if nobody wants to let anybody else have the last word! 
What about Israeli troops, who are currently fighting street to street, house to house, tunnel to tunnel? How many of them should the Israeli government allow to die in order to lower the risk to Palestinian civilians? This is not an air war. This is a ground war with air support.
I’ve been an infantry squad leader. If I was advancing through an enemy city, and someone opened fire on my men from a house, I would call an airstrike on that house, whether or not I knew whether there were civilians in it. Any squad leader in any army in any war would call an airstrike on that house; hell, Captain America would call an airstrike on that house. That’s the sort of situation we’re dealing with here.
On topic: they’ve been asked more than once to take it to one of the many available hamas israel topics. They seem unable or unwilling to. It’s rude, and self serving. What are they thinking. I posted on it twice and I’ve committed to not add to the hi-jack again.
Fair, and sorry. I tend to pay attention to the conversation more than the topic title, and too easily get pulled into hijacks.
I know right? I’ve struggled not to dive into this. On the other hand I don’t want to go to the other threads because I find it so depressing.
It’s happening here, I think, because the other threads are being strictly policed to keep ad hominems out of the discussion, and here they can attack the poster rather than the post. Given the inflamed passions created by this war, I’d say it’s inevitable that the Pit would see this happening.
Maybe a Pit mod should take the Israel/Hamas posts out of this thread and deposit them in their own black hole of a new thread.
There are several Pit threads touching on the subject:
Is the most general option. And much more appropriate.
There’s another couple, mostly involving attacks on Babale, Walken_After_Midnight, and a few other noticeable posters with strong opinions on the conflict. But I figured the general purpose one is easier.
LHOD took the actual discussion back to the discussion thread.
The poster whose bullshit I called out in this thread was mod noted for said bullshit.
We now return to your regularly scheduled calling out of posters…
That’d be great. I’m already weary of Israel/Hamas issues from the actual threads, and to have this devolve into really simplistic ad hominems has been exhausting.
Agreed. Glad we can set that aside and start bitching about a few of the folks over here instead:
Commencing with the poisoned well in the OP and going downhill from there.
The usual suspects plus a couple of surprise guest stars will make their appearance.
Indeed, that’s a good thread to point to for this thread’s purposes. For example, a certain poster just took a massive thread dump there (already flagged).
Please, please do not dump me in with that poster.
That’s not at all what I was clumsily trying to point out.
Any person can be what they are. I don’t care. I don’t think I’m better than anyone, more privileged more whiter, more anything.
I just don’t think this board needs to only use they/them pronouns. I think it’s hard to remember and hard to read.
That’s all.
Beck. I say this with all due respect. What the fuck are you talking about?
No one suggested that the board should only use they/them pronouns. Nobody.
One poster asked if it would be a violation of the rules for them to only ever use gender neutral pronouns (not even they/them but e/em, pronouns of that user’s own creation). They were told "yes that would potentially violate the rules.
Another poster, maybe more then one, said they strive to use they/them by default, and that they believe that English would shift that way eventually.
But no one said that we should change board rules to force everyone to use only gender neutral pronouns.
So I ask again - what the fuck are you talking about?