Hamas and human shields

reply to post by dooper

Militarily speaking: During war, humanity is not part of the equation. Humanity considerations occur before and afterwar but never during.

It is not, as war is a simple minded "solution" to intricate and sensitive issues.

To be most merciful, one must be most ruthless.

This to me sounds fairly frivolous, so you may have to elaborate.

To do less, and try to enter humanity during a conflict, is to extend the conflict without resolution. This extension negates resolution, which extends much more suffering on both sides.

I cannot subscribe to this belief. Following a similar method, if we initially went into Iraq, removed the Ba'ath party and the notorious dictator we should have killed the first go around and immediately withdrawn for them to rebuild a new, there would be no harsh sentiments, at least deserved of America and it's actions, as it the responsibility would fall upon the people of Iraq.

Instead, our domineering presence and direct action into Iraqi affairs has created an unending conflict with no resolution. American/Allied/Iraqi deaths all around. This was after the implimentation of so called "humanity" after the initial conflict.

Get in, close with, destroy the enemy, and the net count indicates in all wars that lives are saved.

With my belief that this should be handled covertly, how much closer can you get than a cutthroat intelligence operation targeting only those responsible for influencing and operating these rocket attacks? This would keep Israeli soldiers out of harms way, hold Hamas militants directly responsible, and send fear flushing through the Hamas ranks.

This would be the opposite of what Israel is doing currently, correct? Aerial bombardment, white phosphorus, and cluster bombs isn't any definition of getting close with the enemy.

Infact, this brand of heavy handed "get in, get close, kill kill kill" "solutions" ended up costing America nearly 3,000 lives on 9/11 according to the people accused of committing these acts. Now the US and Israel will face the potential blowback from a whole new generation of enraged people. Instead of pissing off only those related to the Hamas movement, they've captivated the anger of an entire peoples, even those who may be unrelated to Hamas, PLO, etc... We will continue to instill this with every civilian killed.

History repeats itself. How do we not understand that by now?

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I disagree. The reason that there are so many unresolved problems is that too many ancillary considerations are permitted to keep one from obtaining a simple goal. That explains the lack of decisive success in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Gaza. And anywhere else ongoing conflicts continue to seep pus over decades unresolved.

I would suggest that the masters of warfare know much more than you, and they all agree with what I said previously. Grant, Sherman, Alexander, Marborough, Napolean and Suvarov, just to name a few.

But we can look at a couple of comments, and if they don't make the point, and you disagree, you do yourself no favor of understanding.

"It was very difficult to do one's duty. I was considered a barbarian because at the storming of the Praga, 7,000 people were killed. Europe says I am a monster. I have read this myself in the papers, but I would have liked to talk to people about this and ask them: is it not better to finish a war with the death of 7,000 people rather than to drag it out and kill 100,000?" Alexandr Suvarov, 1794

"War must be made as intense and awful as possible in order to make it short, and thus diminish its horrors." Napolean

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it is over." William Tecumseh Sherman

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving." Ulysses S. Grant

"There is one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." Gen. George S. Patton

"What is best is a quick victory and a speedy return." Meng Shi

"So the important thing in a military operation is victory, not persistence." Sun Tzu

"Limited war means unlimited suffering. Unlimited war means limited suffering." Michael C. Riggs

Again, to be most ruthless on the front end is to be most merciful on the tail end. Not pleasant, not philosophical, and humanity doesn't enter in until it's over.

Hamas using human shields?

Are you implying Israel does not?

reply to post by NuclearPaul


That's an Israeli boy, on a Palestinian tank isn't it? .. oh wait, Palestinians don't have tanks.

uk.youtube.com...
This is a little old, but is an example Israels disregard for Palestinian civilians

Originally posted by dooper
I find your mistaken assumption that one's response should be of equal or similar proportionality. ... Such a concept is a fool's errand, and a concept that has never, ever, been practiced in any battle, conflict, campaign, or war since 1479 BC. This very recent concept of proportional response is only touted by losers.

absolutely! The very notion of a 'proportional response' is absurd. The whole point is to WIN a war and get it over with. To drag it on, limiting yourself to match the enemy blow for blow is ignorant. It would cause more casualties on your own side which would make the enemy happy.

When someone hits you, you should turn around and blow the hell out of him. That way he wont' be able to hit you again, and others who want to hit you won't be so quick to do so.

Israel has been hit by 8,000 rockets in the past few years. All those rockets were intended to cause civilian deaths. They've been hit with suicide bombers as well. Also intended to cause mass civilian deaths. Israel has EVERY RIGHT to pound the hell out of Hamas. The fact that Hamas hides behind civilians shows what cowards they are. All civilian deaths are the fault of Hamas. All of them.



[edit on 1/12/2009 by FlyersFan]

So Israel used a boy to keep his friends from throwing stones, not very nice but I some how don't see how that is the same as bringing children into the fight so that they get blown up and make Israel look bad. All this proves is that no matter where you go cops are jerks. It is different to put a boy up on a truck to keep his friends from throwing rocks then to basically kidnap a bunch of people, kids included and drag them to a fight solely to get them killed. I mean it's messed up either way but it only really shows the differences in viciousness.

reply to post by thereallgone


very good article we need more of this...

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

I disagree. The reason that there are so many unresolved problems is that too many ancillary considerations are permitted to keep one from obtaining a simple goal. That explains the lack of decisive success in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Gaza. And anywhere else ongoing conflicts continue to seep pus over decades unresolved.

Israel has proven to have very little considerations, bombing UN schools, medical clinics, and ambulence services. There is no media stopping them from doing so, and very little humanitarian aid let inside Gaza with very tight restrictions. I think this would fall under what you believe war should be. I will guarantee you that this will not only fail to destroy Hamas and other militant groups but encourage them. Israel has given them a reason and given those around the world with harsh feelings towards Israel an even better reason to dislike/distrust them.

I would suggest that the masters of warfare know much more than you, and they all agree with what I said previously. Grant, Sherman, Alexander, Marborough, Napolean and Suvarov, just to name a few

But we can look at a couple of comments, and if they don't make the point, and you disagree, you do yourself no favor of understanding.

You're absolutely right. They do, and I do not argue that. Where I do understand and you fail to, is that the harsh dynamics of this war are uncompatible with your quotes. All of those quotes are men that are masters in conventional warfare, and though classic are not applicable to this fight.

As I said before, this conflict is intricate. And though Israel might make Hamas surrender, Hamas did not lose. With the 1,000+ presumed to be dead while this is over, comprised mostly of civilians, they have concreted hatred that will having a resounding effect for generations to come, ensuring that this cycle of violence will not end.

Though you think all war alike, there is no way that Israel can waltz in like Patton, kill a thousand civilians and think that everything will be peachy later on. By proxy they just gave way to the next wave of suicide bombing and rocket attacks.

Good strategy











[edit on 12-1-2009 by DeadFlagBlues]

Children of Hamas


Hamas Map Found in Operation


Hamas In Their Own Voices

To the OP:
If you knew exactly what Israel has been doing during the past 60 years then the first thing you'd know is that this war machine does not care whether palestinian children die or not..

Do you know how many people live in Gaza?
Do you know how small Gaza is?

Look up the information, and do the calculation of how many meters square each palestinian in Gaza have.. Do you think Hamas would be *using human shields* or is it Israel that's playing tricks on you?

In a place as crowded with people as Gaza, it's very easy to say that Hamas uses human shields..

I hope you get the idea..

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I'm not sure where you've been, but we noted in both Iraq and Afghanistan that these "people" hide weapons caches in homes, schools, mosques, and even hospitals.

This is done intentionally, relying on bleeding hearts to allow them to continue this abominable practice.

So when the other side performs military necessity and destroys these caches, or groups of hiding Hamas, then exactly who is responsible? Come on. Who is responsible for placing them there to be destroyed?

The only reason Israel's actions would encourage others is if Israel allows humanitarian/political considerations to negate military principle. Only if political considerations does not allow the military to use all methods, all weapons, and all tactics of war to absolutely destroy their enemy. Of my enemies, those I killed twice, never, ever came back and posed a threat again. Not one.

You quote me, and suggest that these earlier generals only understood conventional warfare. Friend, your study of the military realm could use a bit of expansion.

Aside from Thebes, Tyre, Carthage, and any number of cities/states that were put to the sword to end a problem, we did the same by putting entire cities to the sword just a few decades ago. Dresden, Berlin, Kobe, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Bremen, on and on we brought down hell on earth.

To the civilians.

Your suggestion that this is not applicable here is the precise problem as to the ongoing nature of this conflict.

This will continue until one side wipes the other out. You can do it today, or you can do it later, prolonging the misery. How long all sides wish for the suffering to continue is anyone's guess.

Eventually, one side or the other will have a belly full.

One follows the principles of warfare, and the conflict is over in thirty days. For generations.

According to the Masters of Warfare since recorded history, you destroy your enemy conclusively, completely break their hearts and will to fight further, and that's one group who will not cause you a problem again for decades.

Consider the highly militaristic, strongly nationalist people of Germany or Japan.

Don't see much aggression lately.

Odd.

reply to post by dooper


That's not war. That's genocide.

And we haven't seen much of anything, as journalists are barred from entering Gaza.

And in this situation, diplomacy did work, at least until Israel broke the latest cease fire agreement with Hamas. Claiming infact, Hamas wasn't responsible for the rocket attacks that supposedly brought the cease fire to a close.

War is hell, we all understand that. We also understand that suffering of innocence is wrong. Killing is wrong. Because deplorable acts have been committed in the past does not somehow make the same acts acceptable in modern times. Even in the case of war that the taking of innocent lives is never justified. War is not an excuse to become a barbarian. Not by a long shot.