4 ms·

That had military targets including rocket depots, as you said targeted and that after doing a roof knock to notify the residents to evacuate. They have a few h

That had military targets including rocket depots, as you said targeted and that after doing a roof knock to notify the residents to evacuate. They have a few hours to do so before the building was destroyed, keep in mind that Hamas had offices there and rocket depots. This is not the same as lighting up a fuse to a rocket aimed at dense populated areas.

patmcc 5y ago
Ah, so it's fine to destroy civilian homes if they live near military targets and you give them some warning? Interesting. Do you apply that logic both ways? If Hamas sent a warning to Tel Aviv residents to evacuate because they would be firing rockets, would that satisfy you?
- TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
  Yes it is, if there is a rocket depo in a building in central Gaza. There is a big difference between loss of life and loss of property. I don't know of any military in the history of armed conflict that notify the targets to evacuate, keeping in mind that armed militants and rockets are in that building. Do you think Israel should just let that site continue firing? I don't believe any country would allow that. No, that will not satisfy me because they are shooting for maximum civilian casualties not military targets, what's the purpose of firing into Tel-Aviv, Rishon, Ashkelon, Jerusalem? It's to create terror.
  - patmcc 5y ago
    Israel is occupying Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestine is firing into cities because it has no other means to defend itself. It doesn't have an air force or the ability to pinpoint target missiles. Imagine a much more powerful group was occupying your area, and you didn't have the technology to target your strikes carefully against only military targets. Should you simply roll over and allow their occupation to continue?
    - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
      Let's start with that Israel isn't in Gaza, you can say that there is a sea blockade, ok, why? Remember Karine A? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_affair Israel can keep it's border with Gaza closed, yet it's not, yes, it allows goods to come and go. There is border with Egypt yet it's the same. Water, electricity flow from Israel to gaza unpaid very colonialist of Israel. I'm not saying that Israel isn't in the West bank, it is. Are their life better than the ones in Gaza? Absolutely yes. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield and that there is corporation between the PA defense forces and Israel. Do they live normal life? No. Israel stand is that peace will be met with peace Israel is rarely the aggressor. "Palestine is firing into cities because it has no other means to defend itself" this isn't self-defenses that's terrorism. You want to fire at military checkpoints, at soldiers at military vehicles and compounds fine, it's an armed conflict. If by your standards anything goes then don't hold Israel to a different value. If I was under occupation I would target the military, I would target the the ones that are in my city I wouldn't go to a busy shopping center and blow myself up. I wouldn't fire rockets to kills as many people as I can, I wouldn't add ball bearings to create maximum affect.
      - patmcc 5y ago
        According to nearly everyone - Amnesty International, the UN, the EU, the WHO, Oxfam, the Red Cross, the UK, etc. - Israel is occupying Gaza by virtue of all the control they have over it, even if they don't have troops literally living there. Israel itself says it's not occupying it, because that would be illegal, but they're hardly unbiased. In any case they control all airspace, territorial waters, what goods can be imported, they enter with troops at their leisure, etc. Then there's the West Bank, which even Israel acknowledges it is occupying (except Jerusalem, it still disputes that). >>>...Israel is rarely the aggressor. This completely depends on whether you consider military occupation aggression. I certainly would. If Israel stopped occupying Gaza and the West Bank and removed the settlements, then it would be a very different situation. As long as they're occupying Palestine, I don't know how you can see them as not being aggressors. >>>If I was under occupation I would target the military I suggest that if you were under military occupation, and you saw fellow civilians injured (or killed) and their homes destroyed, you might consider any methods that could stop that acceptable.

patmcc 5y ago

Ah, so it's fine to destroy civilian homes if they live near military targets and you give them some warning? Interesting. Do you apply that logic both ways? If Hamas sent a warning to Tel Aviv residents to evacuate because they would be firing rockets, would that satisfy you?

TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
Yes it is, if there is a rocket depo in a building in central Gaza. There is a big difference between loss of life and loss of property. I don't know of any military in the history of armed conflict that notify the targets to evacuate, keeping in mind that armed militants and rockets are in that building. Do you think Israel should just let that site continue firing? I don't believe any country would allow that. No, that will not satisfy me because they are shooting for maximum civilian casualties not military targets, what's the purpose of firing into Tel-Aviv, Rishon, Ashkelon, Jerusalem? It's to create terror.
- patmcc 5y ago
  Israel is occupying Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestine is firing into cities because it has no other means to defend itself. It doesn't have an air force or the ability to pinpoint target missiles. Imagine a much more powerful group was occupying your area, and you didn't have the technology to target your strikes carefully against only military targets. Should you simply roll over and allow their occupation to continue?
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
    Let's start with that Israel isn't in Gaza, you can say that there is a sea blockade, ok, why? Remember Karine A? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_affair Israel can keep it's border with Gaza closed, yet it's not, yes, it allows goods to come and go. There is border with Egypt yet it's the same. Water, electricity flow from Israel to gaza unpaid very colonialist of Israel. I'm not saying that Israel isn't in the West bank, it is. Are their life better than the ones in Gaza? Absolutely yes. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield and that there is corporation between the PA defense forces and Israel. Do they live normal life? No. Israel stand is that peace will be met with peace Israel is rarely the aggressor. "Palestine is firing into cities because it has no other means to defend itself" this isn't self-defenses that's terrorism. You want to fire at military checkpoints, at soldiers at military vehicles and compounds fine, it's an armed conflict. If by your standards anything goes then don't hold Israel to a different value. If I was under occupation I would target the military, I would target the the ones that are in my city I wouldn't go to a busy shopping center and blow myself up. I wouldn't fire rockets to kills as many people as I can, I wouldn't add ball bearings to create maximum affect.
    - patmcc 5y ago
      According to nearly everyone - Amnesty International, the UN, the EU, the WHO, Oxfam, the Red Cross, the UK, etc. - Israel is occupying Gaza by virtue of all the control they have over it, even if they don't have troops literally living there. Israel itself says it's not occupying it, because that would be illegal, but they're hardly unbiased. In any case they control all airspace, territorial waters, what goods can be imported, they enter with troops at their leisure, etc. Then there's the West Bank, which even Israel acknowledges it is occupying (except Jerusalem, it still disputes that). >>>...Israel is rarely the aggressor. This completely depends on whether you consider military occupation aggression. I certainly would. If Israel stopped occupying Gaza and the West Bank and removed the settlements, then it would be a very different situation. As long as they're occupying Palestine, I don't know how you can see them as not being aggressors. >>>If I was under occupation I would target the military I suggest that if you were under military occupation, and you saw fellow civilians injured (or killed) and their homes destroyed, you might consider any methods that could stop that acceptable.