In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[Berkut]

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

[derspiess]

I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

Still getting the vibe that you think the objective is to kill civilians.

[Berkut]

I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

Still getting the vibe that you think the objective is to kill civilians.

Nope.

[derspiess]

Well, it would help if you made mention of the actual objective rather than focusing on collateral damage.

[Tamas]

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

We can agree to disagree on the WW2 bombings. I mean, I think what it should be judged upon, and for this we will never have data: would the German (and Japanese) general population would have turned against their "we are über alles" general ruling principle without so brutally destroyed beforehand? I honestly don't know, and I can be just malicious.

[Josephus]

Just talking to a guy in  Israel. For those who think the Gaza rockets are harmless, and I'll concede that their potency is limited, what we forget about, or don't treat as seriously is the psychological effect or even what I call the pain-in-the-ass factor. Depending on where you are in Israel you have between 30-90 seconds to head for shelter when a siren goes off. You can be taking a shit on the 10th floor of an apartment building and have to run down to the shelter. As this person said "Each rocket attack is like an earthquake, and we run to our bomb shelters, safe rooms and stairwells. "

Imagine having an earthquake three times a day. If you're driving to work, you have to pull over, get out and lie on the ground with your hands over your head (standard defensive procedure). If you're watching a movie, the movie stops.

These are just pains in the ass that disrupts ordinary life...and that's why Israel should seek an end to it.

[garbon]

Just talking to a guy in  Israel. For those who think the Gaza rockets are harmless, and I'll concede that their potency is limited, what we forget about, or don't treat as seriously is the psychological effect or even what I call the pain-in-the-ass factor. Depending on where you are in Israel you have between 30-90 seconds to head for shelter when a siren goes off. You can be taking a shit on the 10th floor of an apartment building and have to run down to the shelter. As this person said "Each rocket attack is like an earthquake, and we run to our bomb shelters, safe rooms and stairwells. "

Imagine having an earthquake three times a day. If you're driving to work, you have to pull over, get out and lie on the ground with your hands over your head (standard defensive procedure). If you're watching a movie, the movie stops.

These are just pains in the ass that disrupts ordinary life...and that's why Israel should seek an end to it.

Yeah my co-worker and I guess discussed what her cousin was telling her recently about hiding out. We both decided we couldn't even imagine dealing with that.

[Berkut]

Well, it would help if you made mention of the actual objective rather than focusing on collateral damage.

Why? We all know what the objective is, at least in theory.

I don't have any issue with their objectives, except insofar as I am supicious that it isn't really the objective, since the things they are doing seem pretty obviously not possible to meet that objective.

Although going in on the ground is more convincing, if more concerning. If they are serious about stopping the rockets, they are going to have to go in at some point. Which is going to suck for everyone.

[Berkut]

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Tamas]

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Well. You are using it to describe the number of Israeli civilian casualities vs. Palestinian civil casualities being a bad thing. So I think I am justified to use it to compare the damage in llives and infrastructure caused by CSA on the North, vs. the same caused by the North on the CSA. I am doing that to show you that your conclusion is wrong, of course.

[derspiess]

Although going in on the ground is more convincing, if more concerning. If they are serious about stopping the rockets, they are going to have to go in at some point. Which is going to suck for everyone.

I believe that is already happening, or it least it was announced as such.  The objective is destroying tunnels and other locations where rocket munitions are being stashed.

[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

[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. 

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

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. 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.

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".

[Berkut]

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is.

I would argue that Shermans campaign was a perfectly proportionate response.

Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is much more debatable, and at least one can argue that the proponents of terror bombing simply did not know if it would work. Turns out it didn't, at all.

And hence if WW2 happened again, I would not be in favor of carpet bombing population centers of totalitarian states in an attempt to get the people to overthrow their dictator.

I was not aware the CSA burned up Northern towns on a grand scale and did what could be described as a punitive terror campaign, my apologies. Because that is the only way Sherman's civilian-punishing campaign could had been proportionate.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Well. You are using it to describe the number of Israeli civilian casualities vs. Palestinian civil casualities being a bad thing. So I think I am justified to use it to compare the damage in llives and infrastructure caused by CSA on the North, vs. the same caused by the North on the CSA. I am doing that to show you that your conclusion is wrong, of course.

That is an irrelevant comparison.

My point about palestinian casualties was to point out that killing a lot of Palestinians in order to stop something that was not working (killing Israelis) was not proportionate.

Sherman didn't invade Georgia in an effort to stop Georgians from killing Pennsylvanians, he did it in order to end the war.

Now, if you want to get obtuse, then I suppose I could point out that in fact Georgians WERE killing Pennsylvanians, althought it was on the field of battle - so I guess if you wanted to take your bad analogy even further, we could go there, but that turns around to arguing for me again.

But more to the point, invading Georgia is a perfectly proportional action in the context of the military goal of defeating the south in the middle of a general war.

What that has to do with the IDF bombing the Gaza Strip I am not so sure...

[Berkut]

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.