In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[Malthus]

But that is a complete cop-out. You claim you don't know how many lives were saved, and hence you simply imagine that enough are saved to justify thousands of casualties.

No, I'm saying it is literally impossible to determine how many lives were saved, because one cannot know an alternate version of history in which Hamas attacks and Israel doesn't defend itself using this tactic.

That's why the test ought not to be "proof" that the Israeli (or indeed any) tactics work, but the lesser test of whether it is "reasonable in the circumstances" that they work.

I addressed this precise point in the scenario you asked - I said that I would want to see some reason to believe that the threat actually existed before I accepted that hundreds of innocent lives were a reasonable price to pay to prevent it.

No, you copped out. I asked a simple question that you refused to answer. 

Answered it perfectly in fact, and noted that if your example where in alignment with this example, I would not support bombing Mexicans in the manner in question.

And there is plenty of evidence that Hamas rocket attacks don't work, even absent Israeli bombing. The complete lack of any effect at all, EVER, is in fact pretty good evidence that they are not effective. You simply continue to pretend like this FACT does not exist.

Because this FACT doesn't exist.

Of course it does.

There is no period in which Hamas fired rockets into Israel without fear of Israeli retaliation.

That is infantile. What reason do you have to believe that in thousands of attacks over years and years, every single time they could not shoot straight because they were so afraid of being bombed in retaliation, and that deterrent is 100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed despite the claim that absent it these "threats" attacks would be effective?

That is just stunningly idiotic. So much so that I cannot believe that you actually buy into it.

Once again, you are arguing from the observed results without taking into account that the observed results could be caused by the factor under discussion. This is a totally fallacious way of arguing - you are ignoring causation.

No, I am looking at observed results and make a very reasonable inference from them based on a long history and large data set to surmise from  - you are the one saying that since the attacks never work, we should assume that the reason they never work is bombing civilians, and we absolutely must continue bombing civilians to make sure they never work.

Now, IT MAY be the case that there is no causation - that, with or without the Israeli habit of blowing the shit out of Hamas rocket launchers, and Hamas reasonable fear of the same, Hamas STILL would (only rarely) score a hit.

That is almost certainly the case given the evidence we have that their current hit miss rate is something like 99.99%, and that is true whether they are being actively bombed, recently bombed, not bombed in months, or not bombed in years.

With active bombing: 0%
With recent bombing: 0%
With threat of bombing: 0%
With vague memories of once being bombed: 0%

yeah, it takes a incredible leap of intution to suspect that perhaps it isn't the bombing that is the problem...

But you have no "facts" to demonstrate that this is the case. You simply assume it is. Is that assumption at all reasonable? I say it is not.

Except of course I do have facts to demonstrate just that. Zero effective attacks under a variety of various circumstances. You don't have to imagine that of all the things Israel does, one thing isn't the key lynchpin...oh it just so happens to be the one thing that results in massive civilian casualties.

If what you are saying is true, then Hamas rocket attacks when they were confident that there would not be an immediate response, which has happened many times, ought to have some greater effect - but nope, still zero.

So give the very rational and reasonable conclusion that the problem with Hamas rocket effectiveness is not likely to be linked to Israel bombing, one has to wonder why you are so insistent that Israel keep on bombing them. At the very least, that insistence is NOT congruent with having a single shred of empathy for the people being killed.

*That* regardless of who is right, is inescapable. Empathy means the abiltiy to see things through their lives, to understand how they might view an action, to feel for them. You cannot possibly EVER convince me you give a shit about them while arguing that killing them in the hundreds is ok because NOT doing so *might* result in some certainly fractional number of "your" team being harmed.

Even if you are right, and it is the threat of bombing, you don't know that - but you DO know that hundreds have been killed on the other side, and you have stated unequivocally that that is "reasonable". That is the very opposite of "empathy".

Of course, in Berkut-speak, my whole post above can be summarized as "I long to chew the living guts of Palestinian babies. With extra hot sauce".

No, in Berkut speak you simply don't care that much. Which is obvious.

Lord, with that much straw, you could build a whole fucking ARMY of straw-men.

That is infantile. What reason do you have to believe that in thousands of attacks over years and years, every single time they could not shoot straight because they were so afraid of being bombed in retaliation, and that deterrent is 100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed despite the claim that absent it these "threats" attacks would be effective?

That is just stunningly idiotic. So much so that I cannot believe that you actually buy into it.

Yes, that WOULD be idiotic. If I said anything like that. Which I did not.

Let's add some facts to your screed. First fact: Hamas rocket attacks have not been 'totally useless'. Just not very effective. Since 2006, they have killed and injured around 2,000 Israelis. Cite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Casualties.2C_Fatalities_and_rockets_fired

Since 2001, there have been around 15,000 attacks by rockets and morters.

This means that for every 7 or so Hamas rockets/morters fired, an Israeli is injured or killed - on average. No doubt that sucks (for Hamas) in terms of accuracy and effect, but it is hardly the case that the rockets are without effect - particularly as they are designed to cause terror - i.e., you never know when the siren goes off if it will be you.

So we can nail the next in a long line oif "Berkut is wrong on the facts" - the rockets are not 'harmless as a kid throwing stones'. Unless you kid happens to be capable of killing and injuring 2,000 people.

Next, the notion that the Israeli counter-battery fire has to be "100% perfectly effective such that it has never, ever, EVER failed ". Again, Berkut is full of shit. No such claim was made. In fact, the position all along - and Berkut had ADMITTED IT - is that the "forcing Hamas to cut and run by playing wack-a-mole on them" is PART of a BUNCH of Israeli tactics, which COLLECTIVELY have rendered the rocket attacks progressively less effective.

Don't believe me - believe Berkut. Here is what he had to say, when his ass was NOT in the mangle for making dumb statements:

The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

To the underlined: yes, exactly.  However, as you will note, the threat was obviously not "near zero" the whole time, as it resulted in 2000 casualties over the years.

[grumbler]

If the guy with the spear is dumb enough to attack him, the soldier can certainly shoot him.

He probably should not shoot three other unarmed people who happen to be walking by, then claim that he he was just defending himself from the guy with the spear, and killing those other people was necessary to save himself from the spear guy.

He had to shoot the other guys. The spear guy was holding them hostage and using them as human shields.  If hostages get unavoidably killed in a shootout with police, are the police to blame, or the hostage-takers?

I don't think you quite understand what "reasonable" means in this context.  You keep arguing that the Israeli response isn't "reasonable" and, yet, it seems to have reason behind it, after all.  You might not agree with their reasoning, but to argue that the Israelis have abandoned reason, without any evidence to that effect, seems shrill.

[Berkut]

If the guy with the spear is dumb enough to attack him, the soldier can certainly shoot him.

He probably should not shoot three other unarmed people who happen to be walking by, then claim that he he was just defending himself from the guy with the spear, and killing those other people was necessary to save himself from the spear guy.

He had to shoot the other guys. The spear guy was holding them hostage and using them as human shields.  If hostages get unavoidably killed in a shootout with police, are the police to blame, or the hostage-takers?

The hostage takers, of course.

That being said, if the police know there are human shields being used, they should mostly certainly take that into account and modify their tactics accordingly in order to minimize the risk to the hostages.

They need to decide if that risk is adequately balanced by a threat from the spear guy such that risking their lives is "reasonable" given the threat the spear chucker presents.

If previous interactions with spear chuckers has shown that their spears never hit anyone, and they don't really pose any actual threat, then blowing away the hostages to get at the spear guy is probably not reasonable.

I don't think you quite understand what "reasonable" means in this context.  You keep arguing that the Israeli response isn't "reasonable" and, yet, it seems to have reason behind it, after all.  You might not agree with their reasoning, but to argue that the Israelis have abandoned reason, without any evidence to that effect, seems shrill.

This context means their actions are reasonable, which has a different meaning from "reasoned".

[Berkut]

Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

[Berkut]

To the underlined: yes, exactly.  However, as you will note, the threat was obviously not "near zero" the whole time, as it resulted in 2000 casualties over the years.

28 killed in 14 years? Compate that to how many have died in suicide bombings over that same time frame, I bet it is an order of magnitude greater.

The threat from rockets is trivial, if spectacular.

What they do accomplish is getting Israel to over-react. Mission accomplished.

[Malthus]

Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Yes, I am quite sure that if someone fired rockets into the US killing an injuring 2,000 Americans, and putting whole US cities in fear over months and years, the only reasonable reaction would be to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Just some 'rock throwing'.

Do you really believe this?

[Josephus]

In the end, if Israel really wanted to they have enough gunpowder to level all of Gaza, the WestBank and Syria to dust within 5 minutes.

[Malthus]

To the underlined: yes, exactly.  However, as you will note, the threat was obviously not "near zero" the whole time, as it resulted in 2000 casualties over the years.

28 killed in 14 years? Compate that to how many have died in suicide bombings over that same time frame, I bet it is an order of magnitude greater.

The threat from rockets is trivial, if spectacular.

What they do accomplish is getting Israel to over-react. Mission accomplished.

I see that for some strange reason you are ignoring the 1,970 Israelis injured by rocket attacks. I guess they "don't count"? 

It is true that suicide bombing is more likely fatal. Actual *casualties* - that is, killed *and* wounded together - tell a different story: over the "last 14 years", the total number of casualties from suicide bombing has been: 1,395. So in fact *less* by a considerable margin than the total casualties from rocket/morter attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_casualties_of_war#Suicide_Bombings

[Berkut]

Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Yes, I am quite sure that if someone fired rockets into the US killing an injuring 2,000 Americans, and putting whole US cities in fear over months and years, the only reasonable reaction would be to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Just some 'rock throwing'.

Do you really believe this?

And you accuse me of strawmen?

[Malthus]

Nicely done Malthus - way to add in another means of attack, then combine the numbers, then apply them to only one argument, how very Fox News of you.

It doesn't change anything though - the rockets are still totally ineffctive. 2000 injuries over 15000 attacks. and 28 fatalities over 14 years? You are proving MY point, not your own. And those casualty rates have declined considerably recently (presumably because of advancing Israeli technology) to an injury every 40 attacks, and a death ever 700 or so.

This compared to 300 odd Palestinian fatalities and more injuries in the last few weeks than Israel has seen over the last decade?

Sorry, my "facts" are just fine, at least insofar as the effectiveness of the attacks. They would be better off throwing rocks.

Yes, I am quite sure that if someone fired rockets into the US killing an injuring 2,000 Americans, and putting whole US cities in fear over months and years, the only reasonable reaction would be to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Just some 'rock throwing'.

Do you really believe this?

And you accuse me of strawmen?

"They would be better off throwing rocks." Your words, not mine.

[grumbler]

The hostage takers, of course.

That being said, if the police know there are human shields being used, they should mostly certainly take that into account and modify their tactics accordingly in order to minimize the risk to the hostages.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

They need to decide if that risk is adequately balanced by a threat from the spear guy such that risking their lives is "reasonable" given the threat the spear chucker presents.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

If previous interactions with spear chuckers has shown that their spears never hit anyone, and they don't really pose any actual threat, then blowing away the hostages to get at the spear guy is probably not reasonable.

Agreed, but not applicable.  The Hamas rockets have hit things and killed people.  The Israelis are not required to play tit-for-tat.  They have a right to self-defense, within reason.  If the hostage takers only kill bystanders at a rate of one per six hours, that doesn't mean the police have to conclude that this rate is tolerable.

This context means their actions are reasonable, which has a different meaning from "reasoned".

So you are arguing that the requirement of international law is purely subjective?  Saying that "reasonable" means "reasonable" doesn't advance your argument very far.

[Berkut]

The hostage takers, of course.

That being said, if the police know there are human shields being used, they should mostly certainly take that into account and modify their tactics accordingly in order to minimize the risk to the hostages.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

They need to decide if that risk is adequately balanced by a threat from the spear guy such that risking their lives is "reasonable" given the threat the spear chucker presents.

Agreed.  The Israelis have arguably done this.

If previous interactions with spear chuckers has shown that their spears never hit anyone, and they don't really pose any actual threat, then blowing away the hostages to get at the spear guy is probably not reasonable.

Agreed, but not applicable.  The Hamas rockets have hit things and killed people.  The Israelis are not required to play tit-for-tat.  They have a right to self-defense, within reason.  If the hostage takers only kill bystanders at a rate of one per six hours, that doesn't mean the police have to conclude that this rate is tolerable.

Exactly, they have a right to self defense within reason.

The effectiveness of the rocket attacks is nearly zero. The odds of a rocket killing or injuring someone are about as likely as the spear chucker killing a SWAT team member. Possible, but damn unlikely.

I think overall Israel has done a reasonable job, most of the time. If the reports that they've killed some 300 people and injured 1300 in air strikes, almost all of which are civlians, then I think that is not reasonable, given the threat posed by the rockets...which is, as Malthus data shows, about as dangerous (odds wise) as being hit by lightning in your lifetime.

This context means their actions are reasonable, which has a different meaning from "reasoned".

So you are arguing that the requirement of international law is purely subjective? 

Doesn't sound like a debate I want to get into.

Saying that "reasonable" means "reasonable" doesn't advance your argument very far.

Saying that reasonable means reasonable, and not reasoned does a fine job of responding to your point though.

[crazy canuck]

her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Death by siren?  I wonder if the Israelis will rethink their protocol as it seem the reaction to the alert may be more dangerous than the cause of the alert.

[Josephus]

her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Death by siren?  I wonder if the Israelis will rethink their protocol as it seem the reaction to the alert may be more dangerous than the cause of the alert.

It's people who are not following the rules that are the problem. The protocol itself, duck and cover when rockets are going off, is not a bad one. The fact that trucks keeping rolling on oblivious to the problem is the danger.

[garbon]

her'es a quick video of a siren that went as a woman was driving to work on the highway. She captures the specks in the sky which is the Iron Dome blowing up rockets. Her complaint, rightly, is that while protocol dictates that cars stop and people get out and go to ground, lots of cars don't stop...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152221321985172&set=o.1488508684720081&type=2&theater

Death by siren?  I wonder if the Israelis will rethink their protocol as it seem the reaction to the alert may be more dangerous than the cause of the alert.

It's people who are not following the rules that are the problem. The protocol itself, duck and cover when rockets are going off, is not a bad one. The fact that trucks keeping rolling on oblivious to the problem is the danger.

Any policy that fails to take into consideration reality seems like a bad one.