My question was specific. The video that I've seen shows the fighting taking place in a highly populated area. Leaving human shield accusations aside, Hamas and non-combatant Palestinians are in the same space.
When I see a video of a bunker buster being used to blast the bottom out of talk buildings, collapsing then into their footprint,…
My question was specific. The video that I've seen shows the fighting taking place in a highly populated area. Leaving human shield accusations aside, Hamas and non-combatant Palestinians are in the same space.
When I see a video of a bunker buster being used to blast the bottom out of talk buildings, collapsing then into their footprint, it is said that there was a Hamas command center in it, with an unmentioned mostly not Hamas in it. Assuming that the command center was in it, is destroying the whole building the right thing?
Population centers and their infrastructure are being destroyed, making the place unlivable. That seems to be beyond going after Hamas. Ignoring words, with my own eyes I see widespread destruction and airburst WP over population centers. I wouldn't burn a house down to kill a mouse.
My question pertains to how, and I'm not saying human shield, do you fight in that environment? I am ignoring good guys vs bad guys and focusing on friend or foe where I treat non-combatants as friend. The conduct of warfare in and urban setting. How it is being conducted, rather than why?
"My question pertains to how, and I'm not saying human shield, do you fight in that environment?"
Your military knowledge far exceeds mine, but I think the most enlightening way to answer this question is to ask what Israel would do if those "unmentioned mostly not Hamas" were Israeli instead of Palestinian civilians. I think there's still a point at which they'd accept those casualties. But I think they'd be far more likely to hit targets like that with troops instead of bombs in that instance. Troops allow for a degree precision and restraint that bombs don't.
Military forces have claimed that civilian-filled targets were covers for military infrastructure forever. There's no way to confirm which claims are true and which are false. But I don't know what military target, especially in a place like Gaza, justifies over 4000 dead children.
"Military forces have claimed that civilian-filled targets were covers for military infrastructure forever. There's no way to confirm which claims are true and which are false. "
While it was training for riot control it would also apply to counter insurgency. "They are your fellow Americans. Use the minimum force necessary, but all that is necessary." The uncomfortable meaning is clear. I can never forget those words.
My question was specific. The video that I've seen shows the fighting taking place in a highly populated area. Leaving human shield accusations aside, Hamas and non-combatant Palestinians are in the same space.
When I see a video of a bunker buster being used to blast the bottom out of talk buildings, collapsing then into their footprint, it is said that there was a Hamas command center in it, with an unmentioned mostly not Hamas in it. Assuming that the command center was in it, is destroying the whole building the right thing?
Population centers and their infrastructure are being destroyed, making the place unlivable. That seems to be beyond going after Hamas. Ignoring words, with my own eyes I see widespread destruction and airburst WP over population centers. I wouldn't burn a house down to kill a mouse.
My question pertains to how, and I'm not saying human shield, do you fight in that environment? I am ignoring good guys vs bad guys and focusing on friend or foe where I treat non-combatants as friend. The conduct of warfare in and urban setting. How it is being conducted, rather than why?
"My question pertains to how, and I'm not saying human shield, do you fight in that environment?"
Your military knowledge far exceeds mine, but I think the most enlightening way to answer this question is to ask what Israel would do if those "unmentioned mostly not Hamas" were Israeli instead of Palestinian civilians. I think there's still a point at which they'd accept those casualties. But I think they'd be far more likely to hit targets like that with troops instead of bombs in that instance. Troops allow for a degree precision and restraint that bombs don't.
Military forces have claimed that civilian-filled targets were covers for military infrastructure forever. There's no way to confirm which claims are true and which are false. But I don't know what military target, especially in a place like Gaza, justifies over 4000 dead children.
"Military forces have claimed that civilian-filled targets were covers for military infrastructure forever. There's no way to confirm which claims are true and which are false. "
I think "false" is a far safer presumption.
While it was training for riot control it would also apply to counter insurgency. "They are your fellow Americans. Use the minimum force necessary, but all that is necessary." The uncomfortable meaning is clear. I can never forget those words.
"With the border wide open, open warfare at home within the USA is a certainty"
Some would opine that that is the true purpose of the wide open border, to enable terrorism to strike at home and inspire support for war.
Read the book link I posted and the morality will become clear.