4 ms·

> Purely from a numbers perspective if you put aside all other variables Why would you put aside variables that are more important to casualty numbers? It's no

> Purely from a numbers perspective if you put aside all other variables Why would you put aside variables that are more important to casualty numbers? It's not a symmetrical situation. One side tries to increase casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict. The other side tries to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict. How would comparing casualty numbers in this situation tell you anything about the conflict?

banannaise 5y ago
Bombing civilian buildings is not a way to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of a conflict. The more peaceful alternative to bombing civilian buildings is not sending leaflets and then bombing civilian buildings, it is declining to bomb civilian buildings. Using slightly less violence than is available to you does not make you the good guy, especially when the violence you use is drastically higher than the violence that is even possible from the other side.
- golergka 5y ago
  > civilian Citation needed. If a building is used for warfare, it is not civilian building.
  - banannaise 5y ago
    > If a building is used for warfare, it is not civilian building. Citation needed! Show that all the buildings Israel has bombed were being used for warfare.
deanCommie 5y ago
First of all, Israel's goal is not to decrease casualties: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/an-eye-for-a-tooth/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/an-eye-for-a-tooth/ Second of all, even if I accept your premise, that "One side tries to increase casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict. The other side tries to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict.", then clearly it's not working, right? Regardless of motivations, the outcome is Palestinian lives are being lost at a disproportionally higher rate than Israeli. That must be understood. The standard Israeli response to this is "Hamas uses human shields." OK....so you know this, and are still shooting missiles. That means you are knowingly killing human shields. OK, so maybe these human shields are protecting military equipment. Military equipment that is primitive and is completely neutralized by the Iron Dome. The point I'm making is that even if you accept ALL of Israel's narratives about Hamas, about IDF's strategy (which have all sorts of other problems, such as when they get caught sniping civilians and medical personnel), you still wind up in a situation where you have a massive power differential and one side knowingly killing civilians.
- golergka 5y ago
  > That means you are knowingly killing human shields. That means that you decrease amount of your citizens that will end up dead. > Military equipment that is primitive and is completely neutralized by the Iron Dome. It's not. IDF and official Israelis obviously want everyone to believe that, but in reality, Iron Dome is not limitless, and can simply run out of ammunition, if Hamas launch sites are not counter-attacked. Which means a couple of thousand, or tens of thousands, of dead israelis in a few hours.

banannaise 5y ago

Bombing civilian buildings is not a way to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of a conflict. The more peaceful alternative to bombing civilian buildings is not sending leaflets and then bombing civilian buildings, it is declining to bomb civilian buildings. Using slightly less violence than is available to you does not make you the good guy, especially when the violence you use is drastically higher than the violence that is even possible from the other side.

golergka 5y ago
> civilian Citation needed. If a building is used for warfare, it is not civilian building.
- banannaise 5y ago
  > If a building is used for warfare, it is not civilian building. Citation needed! Show that all the buildings Israel has bombed were being used for warfare.

deanCommie 5y ago

First of all, Israel's goal is not to decrease casualties: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/an-eye-for-a-tooth/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/an-eye-for-a-tooth/ Second of all, even if I accept your premise, that "One side tries to increase casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict. The other side tries to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict.", then clearly it's not working, right? Regardless of motivations, the outcome is Palestinian lives are being lost at a disproportionally higher rate than Israeli. That must be understood. The standard Israeli response to this is "Hamas uses human shields." OK....so you know this, and are still shooting missiles. That means you are knowingly killing human shields. OK, so maybe these human shields are protecting military equipment. Military equipment that is primitive and is completely neutralized by the Iron Dome. The point I'm making is that even if you accept ALL of Israel's narratives about Hamas, about IDF's strategy (which have all sorts of other problems, such as when they get caught sniping civilians and medical personnel), you still wind up in a situation where you have a massive power differential and one side knowingly killing civilians.

golergka 5y ago
> That means you are knowingly killing human shields. That means that you decrease amount of your citizens that will end up dead. > Military equipment that is primitive and is completely neutralized by the Iron Dome. It's not. IDF and official Israelis obviously want everyone to believe that, but in reality, Iron Dome is not limitless, and can simply run out of ammunition, if Hamas launch sites are not counter-attacked. Which means a couple of thousand, or tens of thousands, of dead israelis in a few hours.