3 ms·

> And where should Hamas be? Well this is a good example for it now - Hamas is deliberately threatening Gazans not to evacuate the North. It wants to use them

> And where should Hamas be? Well this is a good example for it now - Hamas is deliberately threatening Gazans not to evacuate the North. It wants to use them as human shields so Israel will be pressured to stop the invasion for humanitarian reasons. Hamas could have allowed the evacuation and went up North to fight for example, but obviously it won't do that. > How so? If people concentrate in one place, they'll just be easier to kill. Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South.

megous 3y ago
> Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South. It's a simple fact, more people in one place are more vulnerable, easier to kill, and less resources will be available to them to survive, etc. Not sure what's not understandable about it. I didn't talk about intention or anyone's motivations. Anyway, tell me a simple thing, how many civilians in Gaza are you ok with Isreal killing (one number for direct killing and one for indirect killing), if Hamas doesn't do what Isreal wants for whatever reason, before you'd call Israel's state actions immoral and criminal and want them to stop? Where's the cut-off value for you? It doeesn't need to be exact. Can you please give two numbers: What would be the number for direct killings (by bombs, shelling, suffocating/dehydration/bleeding/burning to death under collapsed buildings, being shot, dying from shrapnel injuries, bullets, etc.): - 1/3 of them will be children due to demography, and being more vulnerable in general (and that's the ratio right now, so extrapolating from that) What would be the number for indirect killings (dehydration, death from preventable diseases due to being forced to drink polluted water, dying from simple injuries due to shutting down of health system after resources run out, etc. - basically deaths due to effects of Isreal siege and preventing other countries/people of providing humanitarian aid, etc.) Upper limit is 2.3 million or so. Lower limit would be the current casualty numbers. How does the math work for you? What are the cut off numbers?
- fillit 3y ago
  [flagged]
- weatherlite 3y ago
  You should direct this question first to Hamas supporters. Hopefully as few non involved civilians as possible will get hurt but its obviously not up to me. If you're talking about militants killed I have no problem seeing tens of thousands of Hamas militants getting killed. They can choose to run away or surrender, if they want to fight I hope they get killed.

megous 3y ago

> Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South. It's a simple fact, more people in one place are more vulnerable, easier to kill, and less resources will be available to them to survive, etc. Not sure what's not understandable about it. I didn't talk about intention or anyone's motivations. Anyway, tell me a simple thing, how many civilians in Gaza are you ok with Isreal killing (one number for direct killing and one for indirect killing), if Hamas doesn't do what Isreal wants for whatever reason, before you'd call Israel's state actions immoral and criminal and want them to stop? Where's the cut-off value for you? It doeesn't need to be exact. Can you please give two numbers: What would be the number for direct killings (by bombs, shelling, suffocating/dehydration/bleeding/burning to death under collapsed buildings, being shot, dying from shrapnel injuries, bullets, etc.): - 1/3 of them will be children due to demography, and being more vulnerable in general (and that's the ratio right now, so extrapolating from that) What would be the number for indirect killings (dehydration, death from preventable diseases due to being forced to drink polluted water, dying from simple injuries due to shutting down of health system after resources run out, etc. - basically deaths due to effects of Isreal siege and preventing other countries/people of providing humanitarian aid, etc.) Upper limit is 2.3 million or so. Lower limit would be the current casualty numbers. How does the math work for you? What are the cut off numbers?

fillit 3y ago
[flagged]
weatherlite 3y ago
You should direct this question first to Hamas supporters. Hopefully as few non involved civilians as possible will get hurt but its obviously not up to me. If you're talking about militants killed I have no problem seeing tens of thousands of Hamas militants getting killed. They can choose to run away or surrender, if they want to fight I hope they get killed.