Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vizage]

Okay people I am not talking about "Precision" in terms of accuracy here but it terms of collateral damage. Unless the stockpile was comically piled up in the sandbox outside of the school the tanks would very likely have to shoot through something to destroy them.

A disposal team on the other hand may be able to enter the building and defuse/disarm the weapons. (After its properly cleared by IDF forces for traps and enemy combatants.) Remember folks in her own article these sites were listed as "Vacant" so its a pretty safe assumption there weren't any people inside, furthermore if there were, given the fact that these sites were known to be vacant proper presumptions could be made about anyone who was inside.

[Vikarion]

Okay people I am not talking about "Precision" in terms of accuracy here but it terms of collateral damage. Unless the stockpile was comically piled up in the sandbox outside of the school the tanks would very likely have to shoot through something to destroy them.

A disposal team on the other hand may be able to enter the building and defuse/disarm the weapons. (After its properly cleared by IDF forces for traps and enemy combatants.) Remember folks in her own article these sites were listed as "Vacant" so its a pretty safe assumption there weren't any people inside, furthermore if there were, given the fact that these sites were known to be vacant proper presumptions could be made about anyone who was inside.

I mean, I get that popping a school with a HE round or twelve to get rid of some rockets is sorta hard on the school and also on those who go to it.

The only issue I have with just saying the above, though, is that there's always this thin little voice in my head asking "who the hell stores rockets in a school?"

[orange]

Okay people I am not talking about "Precision" in terms of accuracy here but it terms of collateral damage. Unless the stockpile was comically piled up in the sandbox outside of the school the tanks would very likely have to shoot through something to destroy them.

A disposal team on the other hand may be able to enter the building and defuse/disarm the weapons. (After its properly cleared by IDF forces for traps and enemy combatants.) Remember folks in her own article these sites were listed as "Vacant" so its a pretty safe assumption there weren't any people inside, furthermore if there were, given the fact that these sites were known to be vacant proper presumptions could be made about anyone who was inside.

Let's start from the end.

Disposal team disarming each weapon, at a site distant from the building where the cache is - ignore everything surrounding it.  It can be a building in Canada or Iceland.  Consider the time involved in doing just that action.

Add time for possible traps/IEDs that must be disarmed before proceeding with disarming and moving the actual weapons.

Now, add significant security detail - IDF forces surrounding the school and corridor by which the defused weapons are exfiltrated for further disposal (since the requirement is to not damage the building in which it is cached).

Lastly, the IDF forces are now in a fixed position for X amount of time to protect the operation. The IDF may take sniper fire, possibly returning fire, to include tank fire into the building from which they are being sniped.  They may be engaged by hit-and-run attackers.  They are however now fixed in place to protect the disarming operation.

It was likely better to accept the collateral damage to the building to dispose of the munitions in-place versus the potential pitched battle to disarm and exfiltrate the munitions.

Also, I know a lot less about air power than ground weapons, but I was under the impression that the accuracy of a JDAM was about five meters.  Which is really really good, but still, not anywhere close to a main tank gun.

That impression is accurate to keep things simple - a lot goes into how accurate a GPS fix can be from the number of satellites in view, their position, how cloudy it is, whether it is solar min or max, etc.  The type of receiver also matters (even on the civil side, a surveying receiver vs a smartphone have different error margins).

LGB's are a different story entirely.  (Video example)  Those suckers follow the laser in.

[Vizage]

Let's start from the end.

Disposal team disarming each weapon, at a site distant from the building where the cache is - ignore everything surrounding it.  It can be a building in Canada or Iceland.  Consider the time involved in doing just that action.

Add time for possible traps/IEDs that must be disarmed before proceeding with disarming and moving the actual weapons.

Now, add significant security detail - IDF forces surrounding the school and corridor by which the defused weapons are exfiltrated for further disposal (since the requirement is to not damage the building in which it is cached).

Lastly, the IDF forces are now in a fixed position for X amount of time to protect the operation. The IDF may take sniper fire, possibly returning fire, to include tank fire into the building from which they are being sniped.  They may be engaged by hit-and-run attackers.  They are however now fixed in place to protect the disarming operation.

It was likely better to accept the collateral damage to the building to dispose of the munitions in-place versus the potential pitched battle to disarm and exfiltrate the munitions.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree about how you interpret what its like on the ground in The Gaza Strip. Hamas' is not an ever present enemy that fires at IDF forces indiscriminately when they are inside Gaza. Hamas' attacks almost exclusively come in the form on mortar, rocket, and most recently attempt drone use that strike INTO Israel proper.

I may be wrong about this but from what I've read and understand there aren't these ground fights like you think of with Iraqi Insurgency, Hamas' simply doesn't operate like that.

Another reason for this being the heavy handed retaliation IDF frequently respond with making outright gun battles highly risky as IDF is prone to carpet the area the second they even suspect Hamas fighters are present.

[orange]

If I was a ground commander in any conflict, the last thing I am going to do is purposely become immobile, in order to prevent physical damage to a building with no chance of noncombatant causalities.  I am going to take the swiftest action possible to destroy the weapons cache and move on.  It isn't about what Hamas has done in the past, it is about what they could do.

Hamas is engaging the IDF in urban warfare, right now, in Gaza.  Yesterday, as IDF forces lost 13 soldiers to hostile actions/fire. 

Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban all learn from each other how to fight their Goliaths.

[Silas Vitalia]

We should stop using the term 'collateral damage.'

Those are people like you and me.

Devaluing certain human beings in order to accept high levels of civilian murder and misery becomes much easier for the killers when the victims are systematically reduced to abstract things.

'collateral damage' is a much easier term to discuss and hand to the media and news talk shows than 'exploded children' 'mothers with limbs blown off'

It's the same reason the US never showed coffins returning from Iraq for years, and the US news media self-censors and never shows mutilated and destroyed bodies in the aftermath of mass shootings and violence. 

If the public actually saw what was being done in our names, we wouldn't be doing it. 

[orange]

We should stop using the term 'collateral damage.'

Those are people like you and me.

Devaluing certain human beings in order to accept high levels of civilian murder and misery becomes much easier for the killers when the victims are systematically reduced to abstract things.

'collateral damage' is a much easier term to discuss and hand to the media and news talk shows than 'exploded children' 'mothers with limbs blown off'

It's the same reason the US never showed coffins returning from Iraq for years, and the US news media self-censors and never shows mutilated and destroyed bodies in the aftermath of mass shootings and violence. 

If the public actually saw what was being done in our names, we wouldn't be doing it. 

I specifically used the term in reference to the destruction of a building/property, collateral to the destruction of other property, specifically weapons.   Others before me were also referencing the destruction of property (but may have been using the term more liberally).

I was not discussing inadvertent and noncombatant casualties of war.

The increasing precision of modern weapons is driven in part to reduce collateral damage (property) and reduce noncombatant casualties.

[scagga]

Finally, settlements. The big doozy. Here's the thing: I'm not actually against settlements. In fact, I think possibly the best hope for the region is in settlements. There are plenty of examples of Israelis and Palestinians working together in the West Bank, and this kind of continued cooperation should be heavily promoted. In the future, settlements should be planned for both sides with an eye towards promoting cooperation and peaceful neighbors. If this means limiting settlement to those with a stated interest in that, then do it - on both sides.

Thoughts?

Esna, I would agree with the steps you suggested for both sides to start with to reduce tensions.  I would suggest that the promise of lifting of the blockade is essential to help improve living standards in Gaza. Prior to this violence there was effectively rationing of what was allowed in and out, all air/sea/land trade prohibited, preventing any form of economic activity and promoting an environment where violence seems to be the only option to be taken notice of.

The thing that I can't get my head round, and would like you to explain a bit more, is why you think the illegal settlements are a good idea.  You do appreciate that more than 500,000 settlers have been placed into the west bank since it was occupied in 1967?  Are you aware that they are often placed on the best land with a very unequal share of the resources, and that Palestinians are prohibited from developing their own land in most areas?  There are a lot of other issues that I won't go in to for the sake of brevity, but how is it that  you see settlements as a 'good thing', if you take into account the reality they create? (other than the 'let's get along' videos of a few people eating together, and jobless palestinians accepting work to build more settlements as the alternative is to starve...)

[scagga]

Final post for me in this thread chaps, happy to continue it privately.

Sign off it with a youtube music video that describes a sentiment I suspect is widely held in Gaza at present.

Dam - meen erhabe (who's the terrorist?)

[Alizabeth]

Orange has the right of it.  Staying in place for however long with the number of troops needed to secure the site is bad ju-ju.  Sounds to me the iDF did the best they could. 

Silas, what do you want me to call them?  Civilian causalities?  That and collateral damage are the two most commonly used terms in the military.  And while you may wax poetically that if we (not sure who the we is here) saw what was going on, we would not do it.  The public knows about the effects of weapons, civilian deaths.  I will point out that war has not stopped.
You're an idealist, or maybe a hopefulist (yeah, I just made that up.)  Humans are a fallen creation.  We, frankly, revel in death.  The Romans piled into the arenas and cheered at each death.  In Sparta, the ruling class declared war on their slaves on a regular basis.  Genghis Khan's troops would collect ears.  Now, we watch movies like Saw or Game of Thrones where the violence is as realistic as it's ever been and pay good money to do so.  Images of civilian deaths are actually quite common.  We just don't care.

Every Sunday the priest prays for world peace.  I pray for it, too.  I just don't expect it.

[Kala]

Now, we watch movies like Saw or Game of Thrones where the violence is as realistic as it's ever been and pay good money to do so.

Um, hi.  Just a minor niggle on your point.  I get you're talking in more general terms about society at large and how-much-has-changed-and-how-much-has-changed-the-same but I think it's worth pointing out that while Saw and Game of Thrones can certainly glamorize violence (and there's an argument for desensitization)  I don't think there's much correlation between watching violent fictional media and being accepting or approving of real-life violence, personally.

I can only speak for myself, but certainly my enjoyment of watching last season of Game of Thrones doesn't translate to me being able to pop someone's eyeballs with my fingers, or watch someone do that in front of me in real-time or be anyway ok or blasé about that scenario  (not least because I'm squeamish about eyes!)

I think caring, and the extent of it is subjective - some people will care more than others.  I would comment that things happening far away can take on an abstract component; this is why news stories sometimes go for the "human angle" or personalize tragedy so people can empathise. I think sometimes there is a limit to our caring and where it can be spent - the internet and global events and a barrage of information would require constant caring and that would be deeply emotionally draining.  The concept of the monkey sphere is probably relevant as well (most of your caring is probably automatically invested in your nearest and dearest and things that effect you directly). 

I don't think that's callousness.  More a defence mechanism. To do otherwise would be overwhelming.
(Frankly, I do get overwhelmed with the world's awfulness from time to time, and then it's time to turn off the computer and go to bed)

I certainly think it's not that people don't care about death or violence because they're completely desensitized to violence through media saturation and portrayals - just that it's difficult to conceptualize when it's not happening to them or in front of them.  (Which leads in well to someone's earlier point about the use of terms like "collateral damage" referring to people, as that makes it difficult to conceptualize/empathise, whereas mentioning the names of people who died would personalize things, making it easier to conceptualize/empathise).

[kalaratiri]

The solution!

[Davlos]

Meh.

The best way to fix this constant back and forth is to let Iran have The Bomb (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb). That is the only way to ensure good behavior from the Israelis since they're using the "peace process" and IDF vs Hamas to obfuscate and distract people from the continuous land grabs on the part of the settlers. Once again, Israel is blundering themselves into a rush for tactical superiority and losing in the strategic big picture (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141647/ariel-ilan-roth/how-hamas-won). It's funny that the Israelis are so cognizant that they're constantly playing into the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas, but yet the only thing they do is to perform ground invasions that result in quagmire clusterfucks for them. Cue that quote about insanity.

Another cause for concern is in the attitudes of Israeli and American Jews towards the value of Palestinian life. Nearly 4 years of living in the United States has brought me into contact with Jewish classmates and roommates who tell me of privately-run Jewish schools in New Jersey and Maryland where teachers repeatedly refer to Arabs as "cockroaches" or "little snakes". Many Israeli Jews refer to the cycle of offensives into Palestine as "mowing the lawn". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/thousands-of-gazans-flee-homes-as-israel-promises-to-press-the-fight/2014/07/13/d37eed04-0ac6-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html) I'm sorry, but even a people who lay claim to historical victimhood of this scale do not have the right to use that language on other people.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Giving Iran the bomb is not a good solution to the problem, as they will just try to flatten the entire area which will draw a large part of the Western World into yet another shitty war that no one really wants in a volatile region.

[Laurentis Thiesant]

Iran does not want the bomb.

<.<
>.>