You're viewing part of a thread.
You make two pretty bad assertions here bud. First, there's no incentive. That's the point. It's kind of a big part of self-governing. Like when somebody puts a grocery cart away instead of leaving it in the parking lot, except where this example is ultimately of no consequence, not killing innocent people is the baseline.
Second, military tactic my ass. I'm not talking about military tactics, I'm talking about ways to punish Hamas. There's a lot of ways to do it, and this GENOCIDE is THE wrong way to do it.
Journey before destination, be better. End of.
This is the whitest take I ever read in my entire life and it shows that you know nothing about warfare whatsoever. There's a tangible military goal: Dismantling Hamas. They want to keep fighting and hide behind meat shields which makes them exceptional cowards, even for terrorists. So yeah, stop guzzling the cum of people who would gladly slice your throat for being an infidel. Or don't I don't care and neither does Israel.
The answer to someone using a meat shield is never to just shoot through it. That's my whole point. The IDF is in the wrong.
You can defend the usage of human shields if you want but international law disagrees with your perspective. Israel is still working with caution, if they shot through every meat shield the death toll would be at least one order of magnitude higher.
Brother are you stupid? I'm not defending the use of human hostages, nor human shields. Here, maybe I have to spell this out for you. Just because I think the IDF is doing a bad thing, does not mean I think Hamas is doing a good thing. I think both sides are doing pretty deplorable things, actually. I'm critical of the IDF because they're funded and operated by a sovereign nation, and therefore should be held to high standards. Is that bite size enough for you, or do I need to cut the sentences into smaller chunks?
Israel issuing a warning that they're going to bomb a location does not mean that they aren't going to hit Innocents. That's not careful.
I'm going to use a hypothetical here, let me know if that's too advanced for you.
Say Hamas takes a hostage, right, and hides in a hospital. Israel says they're going to bomb the hospital, so all Innocents should leave. Do you actually think Hamas would just let the hostage go? If the IDF then bombs that hospital, then the hostage dies, right?
You clearly consumed all of the stupid juice lmao. You're basically giving hamas a blank check on using human shields if you say that no amount of civilian casualties due to human shields are acceptable. You're pretty much asking them to shield their fighters, ammo and fuel with as many civilians as they possibly can. Almost sounds like you are the one who wants them killed so you can yell about how bad Israel is.
Let me spell it out again: If you use civilian infrastructure to conduct military operations you are painting a target sign on them since they become legitimate military targets. Israel still has to do strike assessments but if they figure out it's worth it the can strike it.
Imagine you had a policy that cops can never shoot puppies and some psycho wraps himself in a dozen of them and goes to shoot up an elementary school. Would you want someone to pull the trigger and potentially get some of the puppies killed or would you want them to wait until he runs out of ammo or maybe just negotiate with the psycho and convince him to just kill half of the children or something?
To address your scenario: Hospitals have a somewhat higher protection class than most other civilian assets. As opposed to the opinion of random shitters on the internet, they won't just bomb anything without doing a strike assessment first. This encompasses things like - How will engaging this target advance our goal of taking out hamas? Will an attack take out high value targets or assets? How many civilians and friendly soldiers are likely to die if we take a specific action?
Running through this analysis, using a large diameter bomb on a hospital is off the table from the get go. Hamas has already shown that they gladly get their own civilians killed, since dead civilians are bad for Isreals international standing. Instead they may opt to storm it with infantry and clear it this way. The issue is, this could still get lots of civilians killed and also their own soilders. Since the IDF are pretty limited on people they won't take engagements where they can expect to get like 30% of the people they send in killed or wounded. They may go for a third option and use something like those hellfire missiles. This may or may not work, will likely still get civilians killed and maybe not take out the people they want to. In that scenario they'd likely opt to not engage the target and wait for a better opportunity.
If you can't see how fucked up it is for someone to use hostages and first and foremost their own people as a bargaining chip to perform military actions against another country then I can't help you. Be better. Don't simp for terrorists.
LMAO I've been living in your head rent free all week huh? I've already made my point, you are not worth my time any longer. Goodbye.
If you consider me replying after a week or so because I didn't even read your message until now "rent free" then I guess your brain is just a bit broken. Makes sense considering your opinion. Farewell, there's no fun in dunking on people with mental deficiencies anyways.