ISIS strikes, any effect?

If Arabs were killing each other,this was not the business of the IDF.Besides, Israel did only the same as the US after the First Gulf War,when Saddam crushed a revolt of the Kurds with poison gass,and the US did not intervene .

About the Falange: it was their country,not the country of the Palestinians or the Israeli:their president had been murdered and they took revenge on the Palestinians whom they suspected to be the instigators .

The Palestinians were the enemy of Israel: the inhabitants of the camps were as guilty as the terrorists:they had allowed the terrorists to use the camps to attack Israeli civilians ,thus,what happened to them was not the concern of Israel .

 

In this speech,Cameron said that Israel had transformed Gaza in a prison camp .

 

It is? Certainly not from what I've seen, heard, and read.

Not sure where this came from or what the point of it is but the claims could be based on a number of different intel sources of varrying reliabilty. It is also quite proveable whether or not the camps were hit given the right assets.

WWII bombardments didn't acomplish that then why do you expect more of them now? How did you come up with 200,000 by the way and why do you think that would work? Certainly in the abssence of a time frame or any discussion of training level and such it is probematic at best.

No it isn't. For one thing anyone who has studied the matter at all realizes there will still be civilians killed and for that matter blue on blue incidents. Stramen don't make your opinions facts any more than restating them does.

Is "enemy civilians" an oxymoron? In any case there can and will be "innocents" on battlefields particuarly when the opposition selects battlefields for just that reason. "Innocents" is probably a rather loaded term to use in anycase. More illuminating might be neutrals or "non targets". The concept that there will be people on the battlefield that you want to avoid killing or injuring is clear whether you aknowledge it or not.

 

On a battlefield, no one can claim immunity ,there are no neutrals on a battlefield: civilians have no place on a battlefield,besides,the live of an enemy civilian has less value than the live of one's own soldiers.

 

200000 boots = 100000 men with artillery and tanks should be sufficient to eliminate 200000 ISIS terrorists with swords,or one could look at operation Gomorra: how many tons of bombs were needed to kill 40000 Germans ? Double the number and double again and Bob's your uncle .

Other solutions : biological weapons,chemical weapons, a small nucleair weapon .

 

This is getting weird...

Well... more weird.



All complex international conflicts will now be resolved by the surrealist battle generator.
Fight!
http://thesurrealist.co.uk/monster

View attachment 22074

 

Assumes? it is hardly an assumption. In WWII accuracy was within 1,000 ft, Today its 50ft or less. In WWII the average B-17 group could be expected to place 32.4% of there bombs within 1,000ft of the target with 5/10ths cloud coverage http://ww2-weapons.com/Aircrafts/Bombers/information/Bombing-Accuracy.htm, That was why they used so many bombers in such large numbers in WWII, Highly inaccurate with very basic technology, Today we have GPS pinpoint accuracy, The need for massed bomber waves is done and gone, If we going to bring in WWII style bombings we may as well bring back the trebuchet.

There are always innocents on a battlefield, if they are unarmed non combatants then they are innocent, You trying to claim otherwise has already lost you the debate.

Modern air craft can track and target moving enemies in real time, Yes from time to time there will be civilian casualties but not always and far less then in WWII, The A-10 Thunderbolt II in 2,700 combat sorties (recent figures, Ill find out exact time frame) only killed 35 civilians yet saved thousands of troops and killed a great many enemy.

 

Israel did not do the same as the US in the First Gulf War, Trying to claim as much from two entirely different situations just shows your clear bias and lack of knowledge on the matter.

Sabra and Shatila were both located within IDF controlled territory, By International law that makes Israel responsible, Under international law there are clear rules to follow as well as clear rules on what makes up an enemy combatant, While a portion of the camps could conceivably have been terrorists the vast majority would unlikely have been, had they been the camps would have been loaded with weapons and a full blown mini war would have erupted. So non combatants in refugee camps massacred by weapons and aid supplied by Israel makes Israel not only responsible but completely incompetent in that case.

First Gulf war and the gassing of the Kurds. The Gassing took place in a region the US didn't get near nor occupied, Had they occupied it then the US would have by international law assumed the responsibility of policing and protecting the non combatants, A case could be made that the US should have stepped in but that is completely different to the Sabra and Shatila massacres.

As to the Phalanges yes it was there country, And members of the PLO were causing trouble for which attacking PLO combatants was justified. The Murder of there president justifies going in to find the perpetrators, Massacring 1,000-3,500 people is not bringing justice, it is creating a worse crime. As to the reason for it, Thanks for bringing that up as It jogged my memory, It was never the PLO that assassinated him in the first place so may very well be there was no terrorists at all in the camps, So the IDF helped to kill a large number of innocents.

The inhabitants were just as guilty? Yes because unarmed civilians should stand up to a man with a gun and get shot, That would make you happy wouldn't it? Perhaps all the US should be held responsible for the actions of a few criminals, There are good and bad in every group, If your solution is to kill every one in a group because of a few bad apples then the human race would cease to exist.

 

He actually said "Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp", because at that particular time the Israelis were refusing to allow humanitarian aid into the place or sick people out for treatment.
So in that respect, he was right.

 

Israel disagreed,besides,Gaza was not the business of Cameron:Cameron was the PM of Britain,it was not his business to care about the Palestinians.

 

Wrong : it was not the business of Israel to prevent Arabs to kill other Arabs,in this case alestinians who were responsible for attacks on Israel,which resulted in Israeli civilian casualties .
Without the support of Palestinian refugees,the terrorists could not kill Israeli children .
The Palestinian refugees were as responsible/guilty as the German civilians in WWII.

 

Wrong again :there are no innocent civilians and civilians can not claim immunity in wartime .The inhabitants of Dresden,Hamburg,Hiroshima,Coventry,... were not innocent

 

Totally irrelevant : the mission of the A-10 is NOT to kill as less as possible enemy civilians,it is to kill as much as possible enemy soldiers,and this is the determining factor :if killing 35 enemy civilians results in 1000 enemy military losses,and if killing 350 enemy civilians results in 2000 enemy military losses (or the opposite),the second case is the best one .Besides,the live of an enemy civilian has always less value than the live of one's own soldier .

 

I think history shows us airpower alone cannot win ''wars''...they said it did in Serbia/Balkans<>that didn't ''win a war''....also shows us without a very near miss, not much damage will be done
but it sure helps a lot...

 

Wrong, Under the Geneva conventions to which Israel is a party the occupying military power, Which was the IDF is legally responsible for the protection of the civilians there from all forms of violence and degrading treatment, Civilians being defined as non combatants (Not carrying a gun). You say I'm wrong yet have no basis in fact on your side, As I stated earlier under international law the occupying power assumes the duty of protection for the non combatants, Its a simple an actual fact that you choose to ignore. You simply use your own personal belief with no fact to back it up, In fact you have not produced any evidence to back up your point of view, So you can disagree with me but until you can disprove the law requiring the protection of the civilians or that each and every one of those massacred was an armed combatant (Even unarmed combatants have rights under the Geneva convention) then you have nothing to say that I am wrong as when you look at actual facts I am right.

You keep claiming that without the support of the refugees the terrorists would not have been able to carry out the attacks on Israel, Do tell then how the actions of the refugees aided said attacks, Provide actual facts.

 

There are always innocent civilians, Unless a civilian commits an actual crime then they are innocent. Being a citizen of a particular nation or a part of a group does not make you automatically guilty, If that was the case then we may as well hang every person in any country that has committed a crime against another, That person blew up a bus here, Lets go throw a thousand babies off a cliff.. Yea that sounds fair..

Civilians don't have to claim immunity, Until they commit a crime they are innocent, If you think the children of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Coventry were guilty then you have issues

 

The mission of t he A-10 originally as to be a tank buster, For which no other aircraft is better, But the same thing that made it such a great tank buster made it a great CAS aircraft.

While it's mission is not to kill as few civilians as possible one by law actually has to take that into account, No one will accept dropping a MOAB to kill a half dozen ISIL fighters and several hundred civilians..

The reason I bought up the A-10 is because in the conflict that is brewing with ISIL CAS is what is needed. There are no massed armies for which a large bomber group could pummel in a single run, That sort of tactic and you would be using more bomb tonnage per an enemy combatant then WWII. The A-10 can pin point the enemy force, Attack it, Ensure that it done properly to greater efficiency and you don't have unnecessary civilian casualties.

Ask any career military person and they will tell you killing more civilians then is needed is a sure way to lose a war.

 

If the refugees had left the camps to go to the interior of Libanon,there would be no camps on the border with Israel,thus no terrorist attacks : the terrorists used the camps as a sanctuary,the inhabitants of the camps could have prevented this,they did not ,thus,they were co-responsible,and one should not whine about their fate .

About your international law : nobody cares about :maybe you are thinking that soldiers are fighting a war with in their pocket a copy of some international law ?

Besides : no Israeli was judged/condemned for what happened in these camps,thus Israel was not guilty,or maybe you are thinking that Israel was guilty because you are saying so:unless you are a member of an international tribunal,this is not so .

 

Wrong, On the battlefield anyone can claim immunity. Making that claim stick is rather difficult though.

Wrong again. There are neutrals and noncombatants on the battlefield far too often.

That's wrong also. Civilians have almost always been on the battlefield sometimes just because where the fight occured some times supporting one side or the other or both.

That is very situationally dependent they may have more, less, or just different value. Although I note you have narrowed the field a bit with this one. Which raises the question of how you define and recognize an "enemy" civilian.

What Green said. Are you trying to make yourself look rediculous by the way? Where did the number of ISIS terrost come from? What makes you think they are all together in one place?

Wrong to at least some extent on all claims. That's quite a record you are building up.

And your are wrong again. The mission of the A-10 is what the US military on the site determines it to be. I can guarantee that avoiding collateral damage is high on the list now days.

Or not. That also of course presumes you can identify "enemy civilians" which in recent actions has been rather problematic. There have however clearly been cases where both of the assumptions stated in your last two sentences have clearly been wrong.


Even for you that been quite a run. Usually you bat a little above 0 but not today.