• 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!

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

Tucker Case said:
I see no point in trying to discuss this with you anymore. You have continually resorted to little more than ad hom and insults.
Click to expand...

Let's discuss just giving the Palestinians Detroit. :mrgreen:
 
Tucker Case said:
But the mortars are very, very likely to be inneffective. Whereas the smart bomb is going to be quite effective.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're aking this comparison
Do you suggest that the Israelis allow sporadic mortar fire into their towns w/o response?

If the target in question also happens to be a school, I think that ground forces are the answer.
Click to expand...
If you happen to have someoen in the area that gan get there before the mortars leave, sure. But, 99.99% of the time, that's not the case. The vast majority of the time, only artillery can react fast enough.

Note also that a ground team doesnt ensure that there will be no, or even fewer, civilian casualties, expecially given that the terrorists will be more than happy to hide behind said civilians when facing the ground team.
 
Goobieman said:
Not sure why you're aking this comparison
Do you suggest that the Israelis allow sporadic mortar fire into their towns w/o response?
Click to expand...

No. I mentioned that they should respond with ground forces, even though it increases the risk on their soldiers.


If you happen to have someoen in the area that gan get there before the mortars leave, sure. But, 99.99% of the time, that's not the case. The vast majority of the time, only artillery can react fast enough.
Click to expand...

I think the threat level is actually low enough that allowing a few mortars to go while the response is being done is worth the low level of risk it entails.

Note also that a ground team doesnt ensure that there will be no, or even fewer, civilian casualties, expecially given that the terrorists will be more than happy to hide behind said civilians when facing the ground team.
Click to expand...

It doesn't ensure it, no, but it is more likely that if there are people on the ground commiting the response that the 40/3 ratio would be lower than it would be by simply blowing up the entire target.
 
Tucker Case said:
No. I mentioned that they should respond with ground forces, even though it increases the risk on their soldiers.
Click to expand...
And, as noted, most of the time, this isnt possible.

I think the threat level is actually low enough that allowing a few mortars to go while the response is being done is worth the low level of risk it entails.
Click to expand...
So... you DO suggest that the Israelis allow sporadic mortar fire into their towns w/o response, at least if the only effective response is artilery.

Do you suppose this will result in more or fewer mortar attacks?

It doesn't ensure it, no, but it is more likely that if there are people on the ground commiting the response that the 40/3 ratio would be lower than it would be by simply blowing up the entire target
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is supportable. A firefight within a functioning school with one side willing to hide behind the kids creates the very real possibility of -massive- casualties
 
Goobieman said:
And, as noted, most of the time, this isnt possible.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Most of the time. In this specific case I think the effort was probably worth a go.


So... you DO suggest that the Israelis allow sporadic mortar fire into their towns w/o response, at least if the only effective response is artilery.
Click to expand...

Only in this particular case. Not in general. I think it is prefferable to taking out a school, though.

Do you suppose this will result in more or fewer mortar attacks?
Click to expand...

No.


I'm not sure this is supportable. A firefight within a functioning school with one side willing to hide behind the kids creates the very real possibility of -massive- casualties
Click to expand...

I think it is would have been worth taking the chance, in this case. Let's say that there was a ground offensive, and then the civilian casualties were incurred, I wouldn't denounce Israel for that. I would accept that as having made a serious effort to try and minimize the casualties in this case with the school.

In general, I support the decision to have made an invasion instead of simply sending bombs over. Obviously, during this invasion, civilian casualties will occur. I think the use of ground troops is better than a simple arial assault because it does help minimize civilian casualties.

I'm talking about this specific instance, where a school was destroyed.

Granted, the primary cause of this was Hamas. They are 110% undefendable for being within striking distance of a school while carrying out military operations. It is disgusting, cowardly, and inexcusable. The are the primary reason for the civilian casualties in this action, but Israel still bears some level of responsibility for choosing to respond to a minimal threat with maximum force.

That's why I still feel that Israel should have tried to use ground troops in this case, even though they were under direct attack. This is based on the risk assement equation on the likelihood of civilian casualties on either side.

I know it is an emotional argument because I am bothered by civilian casualties. Simply because I am saying in this particular case, more effort should have been made to prevent the destruction of the school, does not mean I am saying Hamas was correct to use this tactic or target Israeli civilians.
 
Tucker Case said:
I know it is an emotional argument because I am bothered by civilian casualties. Simply because I am saying in this particular case, more effort should have been made to prevent the destruction of the school, does not mean I am saying Hamas was correct to use this tactic or target Israeli civilians.
Click to expand...
Sems to me that Israel does what it can when it can to minimize civilian casualties. Ultimately, the IDF is there to defend the people of Israel.

If you were an Israeli, with your town under constant, if sporadic, mortar attack, would you react happily to the news that the IDFhas chosen to not stop the attacks because it is worried about Palestinian civilians?
 
Goobieman said:
Sems to me that Israel does what it can when it can to minimize civilian casualties. Ultimately, the IDF is there to defend the people of Israel.

If you were an Israeli, with your town under constant, if sporadic, mortar attack, would you react happily to the news that the IDFhas chosen to not stop the attacks because it is worried about Palestinian civilians?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should choose to not stop the attacks. I'm saying they should try to stop them in a different manner.

If it were me, and I were an Israeli, I would applaud my government for trying to use a ground attacks instead of bombing a school.

If they said some fire got through because they chose this route instead of just dropping a bomb on a school, I would applaud them in that decision as well because I'm not of the midset that "my" civilians are of more importance than "theirs".

If they decided to stop trying to stop the attacks at all in general, I would be pissed, though.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm not saying they should choose to not stop the attacks. I'm saying they should try to stop them in a different manner.

If it were me, and I were an Israeli, I would applaud my government for trying to use a ground attacks instead of bombing a school.
Click to expand...
But, that's not what I asked you.

See, if you insist that the Israelis react to these attacks only with ground troops, there will be little, if any, response to said attacks, as groudn troops simply cannot react fast enough.
 
Don't get me wrong, I do think Israel does a lot to minimize civilian casualties.

It's just in this particular instance I think they could have done more than what they did.

In no way does that mean I'm attempting to absolve Hamas of their wrongdoing in this case. They are the "most" wrong of any group for beign anywhere near a school while engaging in military activities.
 
MrVicchio said:
Barack Obama administration 'prepared to talk to Hamas' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Yeah, look at that, Obama wanting to reverse the decision to isolate Hamas. Just freaking brilliant. I'm sure the Israelis just feel all kinds of safe with this genius coming to the WH. He starts this crap up and the first notion they have Iran is gonna get a Bomb out they'll attack, cause were I them, I sure as **** wouldn't put my trust in Obama.
Click to expand...

After decades of Hamas attacking Israel with suicide bombs and rockets, and Israel responding with arrests/assassinations/bombs/occupations, Hamas still exists and still poses a threat.

What is there left to do but talk?
 
Tucker Case said:
They haven't "what"? Killed civilians? I think that the evidence suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

They haven't intentionally targeted civilians, nor have they taken actions designed to make civilian casualties higher. In fact, on both counts, it is the opposite. It is HAMAS who turned a school into a military target; it is they who commit the war crime.

If your definition of improper conduct in war is to kill any civilian at any time, you don't have a "higher" standard; you have a preposterously impossible one.


I never did that though.
Click to expand...

It is the implication of what you say.
 
Harshaw said:
They haven't intentionally targeted civilians, nor have they taken actions designed to make civilian casualties higher. In fact, on both counts, it is the opposite. It is HAMAS who turned a school into a military target; it is they who commit the war crime.
Click to expand...

I've said the bolded part already in at least two or three posts. I think in turn, bombing the school to oblivion, instead of using ground troops, in response to a minimal threat (there is very little threat form Hamas' mortar attacks in general, as displayed by the extremely small casualty numbers relative to the number of mortars fired) is an exacerbation of that heinous act by Hamas.

If your definition of improper conduct in war is to kill any civilian at any time, you don't have a "higher" standard; you have a preposterously impossible one.
Click to expand...

My definition of improper conduct is killing civilians when an alternative to bombing a school is available. To me, using a weapon knowing it is highly likely to kill civilians because it will destroy a school instead of choosing a less appealing ground method in that specific case considerign the minimal threat posed by the mortars is improper. This standard is a quite possible standard to achieve.


It is the implication of what you say.
Click to expand...

That is your misinterpretation of what I say, but it is because you are generalizing whta I have said to include all situations, instead of simply applying it to the specific discussed situation.

I stand by my belief that bombing a school instead of using ground forces to neutralize the threat is improper. There is never sufficient justification for bombing a school, no matter how heinous the opponent is in their cowardly attempts to use that school to protect themselves.

I'm not saying a response wasn't warranted, I'm saying the specific response used was improper.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
There is never sufficient justification for bombing a school, no matter how heinous the opponent is in their cowardly attempts to use that school to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

Really? Then if a country puts a long-range missile silo in a school deep inside its territory, and uses it to attack us hundreds of miles away, and we're able to bomb it, we're required to mount an invasion over hundreds of miles and taking weeks (at least) to do, instead of just bombing the silo and ending the threat right away?

Again, a preposterous, suicidal standard, but one our enemies would love us to have.
 
Harshaw said:
Really? Then if a country puts a long-range missile silo in a school deep inside its territory, and uses it to attack us hundreds of miles away, and we're able to bomb it, we're required to mount an invasion over hundreds of miles and taking weeks (at least) to do, instead of just bombing the silo and ending the threat right away?

Again, a preposterous, suicidal standard, but one our enemies would love us to have.
Click to expand...

Was there a missle silo at this school? Or are you creating a strawman argument?
 
Tucker Case said:
Was there a missle silo at this school? Or are you creating a strawman argument?
Click to expand...

No. I'm taking you at the face value of your own words.

There is never sufficient justification for bombing a school, no matter how heinous the opponent is in their cowardly attempts to use that school to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
Has there ever been a missle silo in a school to your knowledge?
Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical. And absolutely not a far-fetched one. According to your stated principle -- that it's never justified -- in that situation, we'd have to mount a ground invasion. (Never mind how many more civilians that may kill along the way, right?)
 
Tucker Case said:
Has there ever been a missle silo in a school to your knowledge?
Click to expand...

Doesn't there have to me a missile silo school somewhere? How else would they learn. :2razz:
 
Harshaw said:
It's a hypothetical. And absolutely not a far-fetched one. According to your stated principle -- that it's never justified -- in that situation, we'd have to mount a ground invasion.
Click to expand...

I'm just asking you to give evidence of your hypothetical having any probabilitywhatsoever, instead of your opinion of it's liklihood. I ask this so that it is not a far-fetched straw-man argument.

See, although you give your opinion that it is not far-fetched to convert a school into a missile silo, I find that to be quite far-fetched. I want MORE than just your opinion, otherwise, it is definitively a straw-man argument.

My stated principle in it being never justified is based in reality, not hypotheticals. If you can give me a real-world example of a legitimately dangerous threat (i.e. not mortars with very, VERY low rate of efficacy) coming from a school, I may change my stance, until then, continue to battle your straw-man.

(Never mind how many more civilians that may kill along the way, right?)
Click to expand...

More civilians than a 40/3 ratio? You got any evidence to suggest that a ground assault on this target would kill more people than dropping a bomb on the target?

Any evidence at all for this would be appreciated.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm just asking you to give evidence of your hypothetical having any probabilitywhatsoever, instead of your opinion of it's liklihood. I ask this so that it is not a far-fetched straw-man argument.

See, although you give your opinion that it is not far-fetched to convert a school into a missile silo, I find that to be quite far-fetched. I want MORE than just your opinion, otherwise, it is definitively a straw-man argument.

My stated principle in it being never justified is based in reality, not hypotheticals. If you can give me a real-world example of a legitimately dangerous threat (i.e. not mortars with very, VERY low rate of efficacy) coming from a school, I may change my stance, until then, continue to battle your straw-man.
Click to expand...

Dude.

A "strawman" is making up something you didn't say and attributing it to you.

YOU said:

There is never sufficient justification for bombing a school, no matter how heinous the opponent is in their cowardly attempts to use that school to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

I constructed a hypothetical to test what YOU said. I never attributed that hypothetical to you as an argument. Therefore, it is not a strawman.

You seem to be clinging to the word "silo." Fine. How about "launcher"?

If you believe what you said, in your own words as quoted above, then you believe that if an enemy had a missile launcher in a school hundreds of miles inside its territory and attacked us with it, bombing that launcher would never be justified. We'd have to assault it by ground.

Now, what's implausible about that? Is it because we have no enemies with long-range missiles? Is it because we have no enemies who have schools? Is it because we have no enemies with interiors hundreds of miles from their borders? Is it because we have no enemies who might put missile launchers in a school if they knew we'd never bomb it?

Or is it because the hypothetical illustrates how ridiculous an absolute your statement is?

Or . . . is it because it's a "principle" which applies only to the circumstances and players at hand in the present situation?


More civilians than a 40/3 ratio? You got any evidence to suggest that a ground assault on this target would kill more people than dropping a bomb on the target?
Click to expand...

An invasion meant to take out a target hundreds of miles inland? The ratio may be considerably higher.
 
IOW Obama is saying-

Terrorism works.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude.

A "strawman" is making up something you didn't say and attributing it to you.
Click to expand...

Or overstating an argument by inventing an easier position to defeat. If it isn;t a strawman, give me one credible case of anything even remotely close to the situation happeneing. Hell, the situation we're DISCUSSING was because they were NEAR the school, not IN it.

You seem to be clinging to the word "silo." Fine. How about "launcher"?
Click to expand...

I'm taking your words at face value. Now you say launcher. Big deal? It's a school. There is still no legitimate reason to blow it up if the threat does not even come close to outweighing the response.



If you believe what you said, in your own words as quoted above, then you believe that if an enemy had a missile launcher in a school hundreds of miles inside its territory and attacked us with it, bombing that launcher would never be justified. We'd have to assault it by ground.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Now, what's implausible about that? Is it because we have no enemies with long-range missiles? Is it because we have no enemies who have schools? Is it because we have no enemies with interiors hundreds of miles from their borders? Is it because we have no enemies who might put missile launchers in a school if they knew we'd never bomb it?
Click to expand...

If it is so probable, could you give me one, just ONE single solitary example of a legitimate threat being housed in a school. Just one.

Or is it because the hypothetical illustrates how ridiculous an absolute your statement is?
Click to expand...

Its not ridiculouys. your hypothetical is until you prove that there has ever been a legit threat form a school.

Or . . . is it because it's a "principle" which applies only to the circumstances and players at hand in the present situation?
Click to expand...

When did I say it only applies in this situation with the current players at hand?

An invasion meant to take out a target hundreds of miles inland? The ratio may be considerably higher.
Click to expand...

Yeah. They don't use helicopter drops or nuthin' like that for these types of operations. the ONLY solution is to blow up the school. What was I thinking! The ONLY way to get from point A to point B is by land while killing every single solitary civilian along the way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom