• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Congress can fight Hamas's use of human shields

The constant examples of "I never said that", when anyone caring to look can see that it WAS said, is truly tiring here. As tiring as the pathetic attempts to double down on it.

The point remains that Gaza overall is not so densely populated that Hamas can ONLY fire from areas populated by civilians.

Of course if it took to firing from less populated areas, the argument of "lining up like ducks in the field" would once again be applied.

Any which way the wind blows.


If it was said you would be able to quote it, that you haven't confirms that it is your own posts that are full of deceit and misrepresentations. I have been highlighting them for months and you have been forced to attack by proxy/indirectly because of it. Them's the facts and I'm not surprised to see the same tactics being deployed by you, thread after thread, with unbelievably obvious, hypocritical/bs excuses being offered up for the justification. They are non serious/comedic rubbish/sociopathic garbage that are made up of deceit and misrepresentations, out of context quotings, outright lies etc etc but if that's all you got that's all you got I suppose
 
Last edited:
Keep bleating about "feasible precautions" as Hamas continues the tactic of using human shields.

Your protestations are laughed at heartily. Another poster predicted your response accurately.


Anybody who thinks that the definition of what it is to be a human shield, in a debate about the possible use of human shields, is " irrelevant prattle" should, imo, fall on their sword and acknowledge the total lunacy of the statement, along with leaving the debate with apologies for wasting everyones time.
 
Anybody who thinks that the definition of what it is to be a human shield, in a debate about the possible use of human shields, is " irrelevant prattle" should, imo, fall on their sword and acknowledge the total lunacy of the statement, along with leaving the debate with apologies for wasting everyones time.

And still no discussion about how Congress could stop Hamas from using Palestinians as human shields...

That is exactly what Hamas is doing.

And the one who should "fall on their sword and acknowledge the total lunacy of the statement" is the one that couldn't be bothered to understand the geography of Gaza.
 
If it was said you would be able to quote it, that you haven't confirms that it is your own posts that are full of deceit and misrepresentations. I have been highlighting them for months and you have been forced to attack by proxy/indirectly because of it. Them's the facts and I'm not surprised to see the same tactics being deployed by you, thread after thread, with unbelievably obvious, hypocritical/bs excuses being offered up for the justification. They are non serious/comedic rubbish/sociopathic garbage that are made up of deceit and misrepresentations, out of context quotings, outright lies etc etc but if that's all you got that's all you got I suppose

And more bleating about things that are not the subject of the thread.
 
And still no discussion about how Congress could stop Hamas from using Palestinians as human shields...

That is exactly what Hamas is doing.

And the one who should "fall on their sword and acknowledge the total lunacy of the statement" is the one that couldn't be bothered to understand the geography of Gaza.
:rolleyes:
 
"The principal killer in the May 2021 Israeli-Hamas war was Israeli air power, which surged up to 160 sorties in a single operation at its peak. The mainstay of the bombardment were U.S.-built short-range F-16 jet fighters... Israeli ground forces fired over 500 shells at Gaza with both direct and indirect fire, which appeared to issue primarily from 155-millimeter M109A5 armored self-propelled howitzers of U.S. manufacture."


I think helicopters as opposed to artillery and fighter jets pose far less threat of collateral damage when it comes to Israeli missions into Palestine. America extensively used helicopters in the Vietnam War where Viet Cong militants in the rainforests were far more concealed than urban guerrillas in Palestine. The Somali 1993 operation where America launched air-raids against local warlords had a similar city-setting and climate to Palestine and yet America choose to use helicopters as opposed to jets. Despite the fact that some of their helicopters in Somalia were shot down the mission was an overwhelming military success given the extremely one-sided casualties against regional militias. It was a PR failure simply because of America's unwillingness to get bogged down in a war with any American casualties whatsoever rather than it being an actual Somali victory. Therefore reports of extreme anti-aircraft threats to Israeli helicopters in Palestine are grossly exaggerated. Reducing civilian casualties are important not only from an ethical standpoint but also for minimising the radicalisation of Palestinian youth. Therefore even if Israeli pilots suffered casualties from Palestinian rockets there's still the argument that more Israeli soldiers would be saved overall by reducing the frequency of future conflicts.


"However, the helicopter also has some disadvantages. Of primary concern is the high vulnerability of an expensive and sophisticated platform to cheap and unsophisticated weapons such as antiaircraft artillery (AAA) or machine guns. The helicopters that fly at low attitudes are more exposed to AAA. Thus, for example, in October 1993, Somali rebels using RPG-7 unguided, shoulder-launched, antitank rocket-propelled grenade launchers shot down two US UH-60 Black Hawks in Mogadishu, Somalia, during Operation Gothic Serpent... F-16 attack airplanes were used to destroy entire buildings belonging to the Palestinian Authority, including command and municipal centers and ammunition dumps. However, whenever the need arose for surgical bombing due to fear of potential civilian casualties, the Apache was deployed... However, the danger of collateral damage persists even in targeted killing. In future operations, the IDF must always consider the damage to a terrorist organization versus the impact such an attack will have on the image of Israel if noncombatants are hurt.

"President Clinton's special envoy to Somalia and a Marine Corps general who directed United States military operations there say there were 6,000 to 10,000 Somali casualties in four months last summer, either in clashes with United Nations peacekeepers or in fights between rival factions... Somali casualties have been largely overlooked by reporters, who have focused on the allies' casualties. United Nations and Pentagon officials say they have no accurate estimates because Somalis remove their dead and wounded before they can be counted. Somali custom requires that the dead be buried as quickly as possible...
By comparison, 83 United Nations peacekeepers have been killed in combat and 302 wounded since May 4. Of those, 26 Americans were killed and 170 wounded. The death of 18 Americans in a clash on Oct. 3 and the ensuing outcry at home led the Administration to pull back from the aggressive United Nations policy... Relief officials, who based their estimates on the number of Somalis treated in Red Cross hospitals, said at least 300 Somalis were killed and more than 800 wounded."


Black Hawk Down: Touching down
 
Last edited:
Palestinian militants have an incredibly low accuracy rate with their rockets and mortars against stationary land targets in Israel. This means that anti-aircraft fire against agile helicopters is likely to be even more inaccurate:
"Militants of the radical Palestinian movement Hamas have fired more than 1,500 rockets into Israel since the beginning of the aggravation of the situation on the border with the Palestinian enclave on Monday, Israel Defense Forces wrote on Twitter... Deaths of six Israelis were reported."
https://tass.com/world/1289083?utm_...m_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
 
"A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest."

Palestine has no weapons of mass destruction and they don't have the resources to equip an army capable of destroying the entirety of Israel. Their militants are attempting to kill Israelis though their weaponry would only allow them to make small incursions into Israel at most. Attacking disparate groups of Israeli citizens is nowhere near the scale of a genocide. The percentage of Israeli casualties relative to their entire population is small. A threat of genocide that they can't back up is an empty threat. In a domestic context a criminal court will only prosecute threats where the suspects are conspiring and performing the prerequisite actions to carry out the threat. Verbalising the threat is by itself not always sufficient to order an arrest warrant. If I threaten to single-handedly invade Mexico then I won't be arrested because my threat is laughably unachievable. Holocaust denial is verbally abusive and it could be deemed a minor threat in a national setting. However the extent of the threat would be nowhere near large enough to justify death penalties. Neo-nazi groups are incredibly racist and they might have the means to engage in small-scale terrorism. Although clearly their small numbers in America don't require the same level of vigilance against pre-WW2 Germany. By the same token responding to anti-semitic groups within Palestine with frequent bombing missions would be highly disproportionate. Israel has historically chosen not to launch an Afghanistan-style ground invasion of Palestine because the risk of future terror attacks is deemed to be much less than the casualties that would arise from the coerced regime change. Therefore Israel has tacitly and reluctantly consented to Hamas control of Palestine by the sheer fact that the number of assassinations against them is not enough to stem replacements. The improvised rocket attacks from Palestine are not a prelude to a Blitz-style invasion of Israel. These are terror attacks but not strategic attacks. This means Israel cannot use counter-invasion rhetoric to justify long-term bombardments in Palestine.

"The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews... What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would."
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/why-dont-i-criticize-israel
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom