"Five Israeli talking points, debunked".... Interesting

[Sparko]

That's not what, in my understanding, the current ground offensive is about. You're not responding to my points in the slightest.

sure I am. You just told Zym that the artillery response was pointless. The alternative would be to use ground troop responses. But they would take too long and be less useful than you think the artillery response is.

If Israel sees a rocket launch, it can send back a shell almost instantly, which will kill the terrorists. If they send in ground troops, it would take probably up to an hour to get through the streets to where the launch occurred and the terrorists would be long gone. And all the time the ground troops were traveling, they would be targets of other terrorists and ambushes.

If Hamas actually cared about the people they live among, they would not launch rockets from the midst of those people. They would send them away first. Hamas WANTS their own people killed so they can cry how evil the Israelis are. The Israelis are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't just sit there and let Hamas bomb them into extinction, and if they respond in any effective way at all, civilians get injured or killed, not because of them, but because of Hamas.

So why are you condemning Israel and not Hamas for those civilian deaths?

[Spartacus]

sure I am. You just told Zym that the artillery response was pointless. The alternative would be to use ground troop responses. But they would take too long and be less useful than you think the artillery response is.

I fail to see the value of a retaliatory strike that gives civilians a warning with adequate time to evacuate, since giving civilians time to evacuate is giving militants equal time to evacuate and to take their toys with them.

[Cow Poke]

[Cow Poke]

I fail to see the value of a retaliatory strike that gives civilians a warning with adequate time to evacuate, since giving civilians time to evacuate is giving militants equal time to evacuate and to take their toys with them.

Judging from some of the videos showing multiple secondary explosions after a strike, I'm thinking they don't always manage to collect their toys.

[Cerealman]

Judging from some of the videos showing multiple secondary explosions after a strike, I'm thinking they don't always manage to collect their toys.

During random teenager guy time at football practice we started talking about Israel and Palestine(see? We do do more than look at our phones). Surprisingly none of us are mad at Israel.

[Spartacus]

Judging from some of the videos showing multiple secondary explosions after a strike, I'm thinking they don't always manage to collect their toys.

OK, so they're not UTTERLY ineffective... but are they more cost-effective than using those resources on reinforcing the Iron Dome, and is giving Hamas the civilian casualties it craves worth destroying rockets that would most likely be destroyed by the Iron Dome anyway?

[Cow Poke]

OK, so they're not UTTERLY ineffective... but are they more cost-effective than using those resources on reinforcing the Iron Dome, and is giving Hamas the civilian casualties it craves worth destroying rockets that would most likely be destroyed by the Iron Dome anyway?

That's actually a good question for which I don't have a smoking gun answer. I think that they must think they're destroying more "toys" and "command and control", but I can't demonstrate that.

[Cow Poke]

During random teenager guy time at football practice we started talking about Israel and Palestine(see? We do do more than look at our phones). Surprisingly none of us are mad at Israel.

I think this is because there are ALWAYS people out to destroy Israel, and, indeed, some of the land that is now in dispute was gained by Israel NOT by attacking their neighbors, but from successfully defeating their aggressors.

If the Arabs ever dropped the "we're not happy til Israel is wiped off the face of the earth", it might be harder to side with Israel. What other country on the planet is surrounded in such close proximity by enemies who have sworn to destroy her?

[Cow Poke]

This is a picture I took several months ago from atop the observation mount in the Golan Heights. Looking off to my right, you can see Syria, and looking off to my left, you can see Lebanon, both of which attacked Israel from this incredible vantage point. We stayed in a Kibbutz at the base of this mountain, and the Kibbutz had concrete bunkers and trenches between the bunkers because the Jewish occupants, prior to 1967, were constantly fired upon with both sniper fire and mortar fire.

Golan Heights.jpg

Yeah, I know, this ain't Gaza.

[Sparko]

I fail to see the value of a retaliatory strike that gives civilians a warning with adequate time to evacuate, since giving civilians time to evacuate is giving militants equal time to evacuate and to take their toys with them.

sounds like the only solution you would consider is Israel surrendering.

Or do you have something else you think would work?

[Spartacus]

sounds like the only solution you would consider is Israel surrendering.

Or do you have something else you think would work?

Already addressed this to zymologist.

[Sparko]

Already addressed this to zymologist.

and round and round we go. When you want to have an honest discussion instead of whining and then running away when someone answers you, let me know.

[Spartacus]

and round and round we go. When you want to have an honest discussion instead of whining and then running away when someone answers you, let me know.

lol

[Spartacus]

when you actually read and respond to my posts instead of answering what you wish I'd said, maybe it'll be possible to have a discussion with you.

[Teallaura]

Hold up there, cowboy-- my issue is not with the fact that Israel is fighting back (I've not said a word on the ground offensive), but the fact that Israel's continued aerial and artillery bombardments seem to be pointless if not counterproductive.

To be fair, I was of the same opinion. It wasn't that clear.