Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[Bostonian]

You don't say? I wouldn't make a good military leader (noting you define "good" as minimising combatant losses by committing mass war crimes)? You're absolutely right. It's a good thing my career is something completely different then, and requires a sound understanding of the law!

Bless your cotton socks! That comment made my afternoon, another Top-50 contender!

Because quite clearly your military tactics are pee poor and would rival Pickett's Charge for incompetence.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the bigger picture.


So say they employ your tactics, take huge losses in doing so and then with a severely weakened army numerically are then attacked on 3 different fronts from 3 different combatants?

Get totally overrun due to not having the soldiers to defend their border and massacres occur everywhere.

Would that outcome suit you better then?

Less Palestinians would be dead but the State of Israel would be burning to the ground with far far greater casualties than what you see as an issue now.


So what is it?

 

[Zidane98]

Why would Hamas want to give themselves up?

What fantasy world do people live in to think this would happen?

They want Israel to over commit troops so they become weakened and make an easier target for the likes of Hezbollah and Iran to then attack them.

It makes zero sense to lose troops when you don't have this unlimited supply of them.

They are in the same position as Ukraine in that they need to not employ tactics that will see large losses of troops against a potentially far larger numerical wise enemy.

The difference is Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

 

[jason_recliner]

Because quite clearly your military tactics are pee poor and would rival Pickett's Charge for incompetence.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the bigger picture.


So say they employ your tactics, take huge losses in doing so and then with a severely weakened army numerically are then attacked on 3 different fronts from 3 different combatants?

Get totally overrun due to not having the soldiers to defend their border and massacres occur everywhere.

Would that outcome suit you better then?

Less Palestinians would be dead but the State of Israel would be burning to the ground with far far greater casualties than what you see as an issue now.


So what is it?

A lot of inter-related successive events would need to occur, each becoming progressively more improbable, for the scenario you described to occur. If it did it would be a tragedy. And if it occurs, I will probably be the first to start a thread documenting and discussing those war crimes.

 

[Bostonian]

The difference is Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

I was comparing Israel to Ukraine...

 

[faible]

ITT: Bostonian literally argues in favour of committing war crimes.

 

[jason_recliner]

The difference is Ukraine didn't attack Russia.

And some other things like GDP, defense budget, budget deficit, debt, military sophistication, size and military sophistication of their antagonists, occupying forces, collective punishment, nuclear weapons, and whether antagonists are a tiny state walled up in a 40km2 open air jail. But other than that, there are some similarities.

 

[Bostonian]

A lot of inter-related successive events would need to occur, each becoming progressively more improbable, for the scenario you described to occur. If it did it would be a tragedy.

How in an attack on Israel from multiple nations improbable when it's already happened on multiple occasions?

Like how do you not know that?

 

[Bostonian]

And some other things like GDP, defense budget, budget deficit, debt, military sophistication, size and military sophistication of their antagonists, occupying forces, collective punishment, nuclear weapons, and whether antagonists are a tiny state walled up in a 40km2 open air jail. But other than that, there are some similarities.

You left out the part where Israel is surrounded by ideological nutcases on every side.

Ukraine has allies at its back.

 

[jason_recliner]

How in an attack on Israel from multiple nations improbable when it's already happened on multiple occasions?

Like how do you not know that?

Go back to the scenario you proposed, re-read my response, consider the events that would have to take place including but not limited to an initial invasion on three fronts by three different combatants, bone up on stats and probability if necessary, and reconsider your question.

 

[jason_recliner]

You left out the part where Israel is surrounded by ideological nutcases on every side.

Ukraine has allies at its back.

Good point. I'm not the one analogising the Israel and the Ukraine situations.

 

[Bostonian]

Go back to the scenario you proposed, re-read my response, consider about the events that would have to take place including but not limited to an initial invasion on three fronts by three different combatants, bone up on stats and probability if necessary, and reconsider your question.

Do you even follow the news?

Hezbollah and Iran have already been involved in the conflict.

Attacks on Israel have occured.

Do you mean the three combatants in constant communication with each other who are being supplied with the tools for war by Iran?

Maybe you need to bone up on reality.

Not much at all needs to happen for an orchestrated attack on Israel.

But you're ok with that. That much is clear.

 

[Bostonian]

Good point. I'm not the one analogising the Israel and the Ukraine situations.

No, I'm the one comparing the two when it comes to not throwing your soldiers to the slaughter to appease people like you, the two share similar philosophies

 

[jason_recliner]

No, I'm the one comparing the two when it comes to not throwing your soldiers to the slaughter to appease people like you the two share similar philosophies

Is it accurate to say that you would rather 100 Palestinian civilians die than 100 IDF combatants?

 

[Bostonian]

Is it accurate to say that you would rather 100 Palestinian civilians die than 100 IDF combatants?

It's accurate to say if I'm in charge of the Army I'm making sure my soldiers receive as lower casualties as possible.

Why would I want my own people to die over the enemies people?

 

[jason_recliner]

It's accurate to say if I'm in charge of the Army I'm making sure my soldiers receive as lower casualties as possible.

Even if that requires committing war crimes? And what if you had to choose between saving 100 civilians, saving 100 of your soldiers, or pulling out and pursuing a different strategy?

Why would I want my own people to die over the enemies people?

The objective reason would be to comply with international law. Another reason might be because your people are paid combatants and the "enemies people" aren't the enemy at all, but rather ordinary people going about their lives. I, personally, would want to minimise civilian casualties on both sides but it's subjective.

 

[faible]

Zidane seeing Bostonians posts

 

[Bostonian]

Even if that requires committing war crimes? And what if you had to choose between saving 100 civilians, saving 100 of your soldiers, or pulling out and pursuing a different strategy?

Your grand plan seems to be to neuter Israel and let Hamas take minimal losses and keep their power intact.

You only want a strategy that sees more Israelis die.

The objective reason would be to comply with international law. Another reason might be because your people are paid combatants and the "enemies people" aren't the enemy at all, but rather ordinary people going about their lives. I, personally, would want to minimise civilian casualties on both sides but that's subjective.

Yes Israel has to be hamstring by these laws while their enemies have free reign to do as they please.

I remember ordinary people in the Vietnam War. Turns out a lot of them weren't that ordinary and were highly active in supporting the Viet Cong with all kinds of assistance.

You say ordinary but I don't agree that.

Not when they follow the ideology they do.

 

[faible]

Nobody's making excuses for Israel

Follow-up; just the entire last page or two of Bostonians posts.

 

[jason_recliner]

Your grand plan seems to be to neuter Israel and let Hamas take minimal losses and keep their power intact.

You only want a strategy that sees more Israelis die.



Yes Israel has to be hamstring by these laws while their enemies have free reign to do as they please.

I remember ordinary people in the Vietnam War. Turns out a lot of them weren't that ordinary and were highly active in supporting the Viet Cong with all kinds of assistance.

You say ordinary but I don't agree that.

Not when they follow the ideology they do.

Yes, I understand you aren't able to answer, they are extremely difficult moral and ethical questions. I'm thankful you are not in a position of power where you are required to make such decisions, as I'm sure you are. Take care of yourself.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Do you even follow the news?

Hezbollah and Iran have already been involved in the conflict.

Attacks on Israel have occured.

Do you mean the three combatants in constant communication with each other who are being supplied with the tools for war by Iran?

Maybe you need to bone up on reality.

Not much at all needs to happen for an orchestrated attack on Israel.

But you're ok with that. That much is clear.

Is this the same mainstream news sources that you have spent the past few years calling fake news?

You know, the ones that go on junkets to Israel, paid for by the Zionist lobbyists?

 

[Bostonian]

Yes, I understand you aren't able to answer, they are extremely difficult moral and ethical questions. I'm thankful you are not in a position of power where you are required to make such decisions, as I'm sure you are. Take care of yourself.

I have answered multiple times.

I would put my people's lives first.

That's an easy one.

I'm thankful you aren't either. You'd have us all butchered to make yourself feel better.

 

[faible]

You'd have us all butchered to make yourself feel better.

Advocates committing war crimes.

Tries to take moral high ground.

This just gets better and better.

 

[Bostonian]

Is this the same mainstream news sources that you have spent the past few years calling fake news?

It's called Associated Press.

It's only one.

Not the zinger you hoped for.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's called Associated Press.

It's only one.

Not the zinger you hoped for.

You have the MSM talking points on repeat dude.

It's weird how you've flip flopped on that.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Libertarian loves Israel, an apartheid regime with forced conscription.