freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 4:57pm:


Ahh I see - so they do somethimg by not doing something 

Are you really fooling yourself into thinking this makes sense??

So what don't they do FD? Chain drag the entire strip? I've already explained why that is a red herring argument.

Israel hits each and every target they want to hit with as much force as they deem necessary to destroy it. There is no shred of evidence that:

a) some hamas targets are avoided because they are in residential areas
b) some hamas targets are hit with less firepower than they would otherwise because they are in residential areas.

To spell out again why its perfectly logical to assume Israel does not "scale down" their attacks on Hamas targets in residential areas - or in other words, Israel hits hamas targets with complete disregard to any potential collateral - because a) there has been crap load and disproportionate number of civilians killed during which time (presumably) all Hamas targets were hit (no reason to assume otherwise), and b) they can (and do) simply use the "human shield" BS propaganda, and absolve themselves of responsibility - which evidently, enough people like you are gullible enough to swallow for this to work.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:


So what things don't they do FD? Are you *EVER* going to address my points? Does it occur to you that "not doing things" that have absolutely no value in relation to destroying their intended targets, does not in any way entail a "scaled down attack"?

And yes FD, it really has sunk in - its sunk in well and deeply that you have completely lost the plot and simply resort to finding slightly more creative ways of repeating your useless and evasive non-responses.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 6:03pm:


proving that:

a) some hamas targets are avoided because they are in residential areas
b) some hamas targets are hit with less firepower than they would otherwise because they are in residential areas.

is *NOT* proving a negative. It is something specific, something tangible that you claim Israel *DID*, something that *HAPPENED* - not something Israel *DIDN'T* do, or didn't happen. And as such it requires evidence to be substantiated.

Would you like me to explain that in another language? Would that help you understand this exceedingly simple concept.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:


Maybe one day it will get through to you that "wiping them out completely" was never the Israeli's intention.

Israel is not interested in creating a power vacuum - for obvious reasons.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:


If Israel believes they are "hiding" somewhere in an apartment building, they will happilly take out the entire building - and not give any consideration to any civilians that might still be in that building. We know they have been doing that, and justifying the death of civilians by saying "oh but we told them to get out" - and the "Hamas ordered them to stay" BS. Taking out the entire city would be completely unnecessary, and a stupid red herring argument by you.

Do you understand that yet??

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:


Good argument FD.  Unfortunately, along with the rockets stopping, so would Israel's existence.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:


They don't do it because it would be completely bloody pointless. Israeli objectives (which again, is not to wipe out Hamas), are served perfectly well by targeted strikes of identified hamas targets - and to hell with the civilians inside.

You can't "scale down" from a planned attack that never existed in the first place.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:


Would you like photographic evidence of a completely retarded and irrelevant non-argument?

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 9:27pm:


No, but at least your first sentence is a marginal improvement of your comprehension of my position. The second sentence is completely incomprehensible drivel.

What is "up to you", is to substantiate your BS claim that Israel somehow executed a "scaled down" attack on Hamas targets. Pretty simple really.

And while your at it, you can explain what "scaled down" even means.

But thats just in this little tangent - I am also still after a coherent explanation for why Israel's "human shield" argument must be blindly accepted with no evidence at all, and why the independent reporters on the ground in Gaza, directly refuting Netanyahu's BS and baseless claims of Hamas ordering civilians to stay in the line of fire, are (in your words) "full of absurd leaps of logic".

But I do acknowledge my patience for this will need to be virtually boundless.

Quote:


It is far less than what they are capable of, yet insufficient to wipe out Hamas. It doesn't get any simpler than that Gandalf. I can point the bleeding obvious out to you, but cannot force you to see it.

Quote:


It is not blindly accepted without evidence. The overwhelming evidence puts it in the bleeding obvious category. Hamas owes it's continued existence to hiding among civilians.

Quote:


He seems to have painted himself into a corner where Israel would not want to take more drastic action, even if it could, and thus the presence of civilians makes no difference. Apparently letting a vastly inferior enemy militia lob rockets at you for years on end is a standard military strategy. Their current response is somehow the optimum one, and anyone arguing any different needs to provide the evidence. All the 'bleeding obvious' evidence is simply dismissed with Gandalf's "pre-optimised" theory of retaliation. It does not matter that Israel could destroy Hamas if it was willing to kill more civilians - they choose not to, for entirely non-humanist reasons. Such is the mental gymnastics that Muslims put themselves through to defend Hamas from unfair criticism from those who consider it wrong to deliberately draw fire into civilian areas so you can capitalise politically on human misery. I am beginning to think that Gandalf was actually serious when he likened Hamas to the invincible alien enemy (was it Fifth Element Gandalf?) that grew stronger the more you blow the crap out of it.

Still, I think this is a slight improvement on Falah's argument that Hamas must keep lobbing rockets because a glorious military victory for the Islamists is just around the corner, and the have not lost the war if they refuse to surrender.

Datalife wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:


Bingo. Plus the fact that they don't want a power vacuum in Gaza.

Datalife wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:


restraint - as in "restraining" themselves from an attack that was never on the agenda anyway - sure. Perhaps you can understand why I find FD's term of a "scaled down" attack such nonsense. The only way the term could make sense is if they would have gone for a "chain drag" or whatever option - but were forced to "scale" it down on account of civilians being in the way. Which is rubbish - the chain drag option was never on the table in the first place - a point that FD cannot seem to comprehend. In fact he can't even explain what the attack was "scaled down" from.

Israel hit Hamas exactly as hard as they always intended to.

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2014 at 9:27pm:



Having seen what the jews have gone through in history I am almost sure Israel would not seek out war deliberately...

maybe I am wrong but seems to me the Jews have been fighting off religious groups since time began...why this is I am not 100% sure...fear for the most part I guess..

but really the Palestinians elected Hamas...so they must be in  favour of them trying to push back this monster called Israel..David and Goliath.... wrong on both sides right on both sides....

is Hamas looking after its people????????...

are they really?