• 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!

What is the proper response to Hamas rockets?

Goobieman said:
How meaninglessly unspecific.
:roll:
Click to expand...

How unpredictable, another immature retort.

How unspecific is it. You have terrorists held up in a building, you send in a small tactical unit to infiltrate the building and take out the terrorists while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
 
Ikari said:
I already told you, send in troops to hunt down those involved. Killing hundreds of civilians doesn't do anything. You already admitted that those whom did it are probably gone before the missiles get there. Thus the bombing is only to punish the civilians in the area. But that's not going to solve anything, that feeds back into the problem. It's not going to stop as long as both sides participate in the circle. Israel should also target the propaganda and launch large humanitarian efforts into Palestine which would include the building of schools and hospitals. If you can start to decrease your point #1, you'll make it harder for Hezbollah to hide in civilian sectors.
Click to expand...

He's also stated that any kind of group going into Palestine would also not help anything and make those upset with Israel further upset and give Hamas a propoganda tool. Israel has no arrest rights in Palestine, they have no more justification sending in a small force than they do for bombing. They would be labled invaders and abductors if they went in, or would still be pointed out the murder. They would be told that they are terrorizing the population with their presense causing undo terror upon the civilian population.

You seem to, of course, ignore this because it doesn't make that suggestion of yours seem all that much better.

So now your suggestion is that in response to Hamas sending in rockets, Israel should give Palestine money and infastructure and also send group troops in to abduct and/or kill people (of which will likely be looking like civilians and having civilians around to be used as shields anyways) or destroy civilian locations where attacks are being launched from simply in person instead of afar thus jeapordizing Israeli lives (You know, people who also have parents, families, friends).

Your solution is to just let them keep being aggressive. Damn, I wish you were around back during revolutionary times. You could've scolded the founding fathers, they should've just accepted the mistreatment by the british. Should've just kept telling people that instead of fighting against the British we should really just be sending representitives over there to tell them how really great the colonies are and giving them lots of gifts to make them change the laws to better favor them.
 
I already told you, send in troops to hunt down those involved.
Click to expand...

This is virtually impossible. Hamas...Palestinians...what's the difference? Those not directly involved in hostilities against Israel are providing logistical and moral support to those who are. There is no military solution short of wiping out all of Palestine, which isn't an option. A strong Arab government (Egypt) must assume sovereignty over Palestine and restore order and functional governance. Furthermore, an international coalition must be formed with the purpose of providing security and logistical support for said operations. Security must be established and maintained so that infrastructural necessities can be built or repaired.
 
Ethereal said:
This is virtually impossible. Hamas...Palestinians...what's the difference? Those not directly involved in hostilities against Israel are providing logistical and moral support to those who are. There is no military solution short of wiping out all of Palestine, which isn't an option. A strong Arab government (Egypt) must assume sovereignty over Palestine and restore order and functional governance. Furthermore, an international coalition must be formed with the purpose of providing security and logistical support for said operations. Security must be established and maintained so that infrastructural necessities can be built or repaired.
Click to expand...

It's as possible as hitting the one's who caused attacks with missile attacks on civilian sectors. Basically, the ultimate conclusion that we've reached is that no matter the reaction if Israel, it's all ineffective and would most likely go to feed back on the propaganda which makes this such a difficult mess in the first place. Thus if it's the propaganda that's really hurting, then maybe that's where things should be taken care of. And long term propaganda combat is going to take some time and in the mean time, you'd have to endure attacks without much in the way of retaliation. At least not retaliation which would put at risk a huge portion of the civilian population. Instead you'd have to heavily engage in diplomatic and humanitarian efforts over several years to start to change the minds and hearts of the people. But if that were done, that would go a long way into combating the propaganda which seems to be the bigger thorn.

Otherwise, you're left with nothing but ineffective means of combat and if you're going to go that route; I'd prefer the one with the least number of civilian causalities.
 
Ikari said:
How unpredictable, another immature retort.
Click to expand...
Yeah. :roll:

OK... a 'small tactical force'...
...of helicopter gunships, firing cannon and ATGMs into the compound.
...of A10s, firing cannon and dropping cluster bombs
...of F16s, dropping 500lb LGBs.
...or any number of other 'small tactical forces' I can think of.

Have you figured out hoe miserably inspecific your respose really was?


How unspecific is it. You have terrorists held up in a building, you send in a small tactical unit to infiltrate the building and take out the terrorists while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
Click to expand...
That's nice -- if you have time to get them there.
If you dont?

Amd, how do you explain to the Israeli people the unnecessary deaths of Israeli soldiers?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
How unpredictable, another immature retort.

How unspecific is it. You have terrorists held up in a building, you send in a small tactical unit to infiltrate the building and take out the terrorists while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
Click to expand...

How do you get this force into palestine and to the area quickly with little resistance.

What do you say to the families of the people your governments first and foremost concern is meant to be about (its citizens) when you go back to tell them their family member died in something that could've been accomplished with a single smart missile?

What do you do when these people are possibly captured by Hamas forces?

What do you do when civilian casualities still rack up a bit as the terrorists are hard to discern from civilians and they use civilians as a form of a shield?

What do you do if you need to destroy the infastructure that is being used to launch, but civilians are in it? Blow it with civilians inside? Take the time to try and get/force the civilians out?

How do you handle the propoganda used to say that Israel is invading palestine, or sending in groups to murder people, or claims that they stilled killed "X" number of civilians. Now, with actual men on the ground, they can also start making claims that they cold bloodily murdered civilians knowingly and willingly even if they just ended up getting caught in the crossfire. Would 80 dead by rockets be worse propoganda than 4 dead being claimed to have been wantonly and cold bloodily murdered by Israeli forces?
 
Zyphlin said:
How do you get this force into palestine and to the area quickly with little resistance.
Click to expand...

Helicopters probably. You can do some super fancy things I suppose if you want.

Zyphlin said:
What do you say to the families of the people your governments first and foremost concern is meant to be about (its citizens) when you go back to tell them their family member died in something that could've been accomplished with a single smart missile?
Click to expand...

"We're sorry that the leadership on both sides of this are complete douchebags. Expect a lot more of you to die while the leaders risk nothing".

Zyphlin said:
What do you do when these people are possibly captured by Hamas forces?
Click to expand...

You're in the army.

Zyphlin said:
What do you do when civilian casualities still rack up a bit as the terrorists are hard to discern from civilians and they use civilians as a form of a shield?
Click to expand...

War sucks, it ain't far. Probably should search for a solution rather than continued war.

Zyphlin said:
What do you do if you need to destroy the infastructure that is being used to launch, but civilians are in it? Blow it with civilians inside? Take the time to try and get/force the civilians out?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're talking about. If your talking of an apartment complex, your already on the loosing side. There is no action you can take which won't result in more death and destruction. If your talking manufacturing like a plant that's making tanks or howitzers, that's a different story. Disruption manufacture and production capabilities goes a lot farther than blowing some civilians to hell.

Zyphlin said:
How do you handle the propoganda used to say that Israel is invading palestine, or sending in groups to murder people, or claims that they stilled killed "X" number of civilians. Now, with actual men on the ground, they can also start making claims that they cold bloodily murdered civilians knowingly and willingly even if they just ended up getting caught in the crossfire. Would 80 dead by rockets be worse propoganda than 4 dead being claimed to have been wantonly and cold bloodily murdered by Israeli forces?
Click to expand...

They're already at war. The problem with your last sentence is that it's the reverse. Over 300 people dead this last time, was that good? Was that proper? The Hezbollah attacks which led to this retaliation killed how many Israelis? 2, 3? Something in that ball part? Is a two order of magnitude increase in civilian death justifiable? Is it right? Has it done anything to alleviate the problem, or has it exacerbated it?
 
Zyphlin said:
How do you get this force into palestine and to the area quickly with little resistance.
Click to expand...
You don't.

You hit the battery with some sort of stand-off weapon, like artillery, or with something dropped from an aircraft, like a small guided bomb.

You only risk people when you have no other choice.
 
It's as possible as hitting the one's who caused attacks with missile attacks on civilian sectors. Basically, the ultimate conclusion that we've reached is that no matter the reaction if Israel, it's all ineffective and would most likely go to feed back on the propaganda which makes this such a difficult mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree that a standard military response is mostly ineffectual at combating those directly responsible for the attacks, but that's not really the point of these counter-attacks. These counter-attacks exist as a deterrent. A policy of non-responsiveness would embolden Hamas militants which would intensify their attacks on Israel. Hamas militants are less inclined to launch rockets into Israel when they know it will illicit military retaliation.

Thus if it's the propaganda that's really hurting, then maybe that's where things should be taken care of. And long term propaganda combat is going to take some time and in the mean time, you'd have to endure attacks without much in the way of retaliation. At least not retaliation which would put at risk a huge portion of the civilian population. Instead you'd have to heavily engage in diplomatic and humanitarian efforts over several years to start to change the minds and hearts of the people. But if that were done, that would go a long way into combating the propaganda which seems to be the bigger thorn.
Click to expand...

A propaganda war would be mostly ineffectual against a group of people that are convinced the Jews are pigs and weasels. Religious extremism is a largely a consequence of poverty and weak governance. A strong Arab nation (Egypt) would need to assume sovereignty over Palestine while an international coalition would engage in humanitarian reconstruction and security operations. These policies in conjunction with one another would provide solutions to both problems.
 
Ikari said:
Civilians are people.
Click to expand...
There's that cranium-inserted-in-rectum obtuseness again. :roll:

Either that, or you really -don't- understand that I was speaking from the perspecitve of a force commander, tasked with taking out the mortars that were shelling an Israeli town. HE doesnt risk HIS people unless he has no other choice, because his primary concern is HIS people and the Israeli civilians that he is charged with protecting.
 
Ikari said:
Helicopters probably. You can do some super fancy things I suppose if you want.
Click to expand...

That sould be fun if those get hit with rockets and put into the ground, killing civilians and losing Israeli lives as well as money on something that didn't need to be done in a more dangerous way.

"We're sorry that the leadership on both sides of this are complete douchebags. Expect a lot more of you to die while the leaders risk nothing".
Click to expand...

Thank god you're not a commander in the military.

You're in the army.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you believe a government should view its citizens lives as equal to any other countries people? That they should willingly put their people into harms way, and potentially have the enemy be able to get a captive they can use to ransom, propogandize, and extract information out of to cut down possible civilian casualities?

Maybe I'm crazy, but I want my government looking out for the well being of my country and its people first and foremost, and the country of those attacking me second.

War sucks, it ain't far. Probably should search for a solution rather than continued war.
Click to expand...

You're correct, it isn't fair. Yet you keep trying to say its not "fair" that israel killed more than palestine did.


Depends on what you're talking about. If your talking of an apartment complex, your already on the loosing side. There is no action you can take which won't result in more death and destruction. If your talking manufacturing like a plant that's making tanks or howitzers, that's a different story. Disruption manufacture and production capabilities goes a lot farther than blowing some civilians to hell.
Click to expand...

You're right, if its an apartment you're screwed. So you're saying risk Israeli lives to do something that's likely going to cost palestinian livse anyways.

In regards to manufacturing, to me that would be a complete military target if its purpose is producing tanks and such and as such I *think* we don't disagree that targetting that's fine.

They're already at war. The problem with your last sentence is that it's the reverse. Over 300 people dead this last time, was that good? Was that proper?
Click to expand...

No, its not good 300 people died (though I think I just read the UN number is closer to 60). Its not good, nor proper, either for Israeli's to live assulted by rockets daily simply because they don't kill as many.

No, its not going to solve the long term problem. Guess what, NOT reacting to it likely isn't going to solve the long term problem either. However reacting may help the short term problem, where as NOt acting most definitely won't be helping the short term problem.

Is it good? No, its rarely ever good for people to die. Is it proper? In some ways yes...it is proper for a country to rise to the defense of its people by any means it has. Lets see anywhere close to the amount of condemnation and critisim for Israel come out of you towards Hamas/Palestine for being the ones that are actually CHOOSING to cause Civilians to be wrapped up in this thing in the first place. This discussion wouldn't even be happening if Hamas wasn't purposefully taking advantage of civilian areas.
 
Starting now how about Isreal does nothing and if Hamas sends over a rocket then Isreal can send one randomly back in same manner...etc.?
 
Ikari said:
Israel could conduct more precise military attacks which target Hamas and not civilians. Instead of carpet bombing, send in troops to apprehend criminals.
Click to expand...
Troops are not for arresting criminals. They are for causing vast destruction, death, suffering and most importantly, enormous contrition in one's enemies.

Precise strikes are part of the problem. The general Palestinian population seem to support these savages, (making them savages themselves, of course.) All Palestinians who survive this war need to understand that their model of politics through terror is probably only going to win them land in the form of unmarked, communal graves.
 
Last edited:
Powell Doctrine

if military force is to be used, it should be overwhelming and decisive
 
Oftencold said:
Troops are not for arresting criminals. They are for causing vast destruction, death, suffering and most importantly, enormous contrition in one's enemies.

Precise strikes are part of the problem. The general Palestinian population seem to support these savages, (making them savages themselves, of course.) All Palestinians who survive this war need to understand that their model of politics through terror is probably only going to win them land in the form of unmarked, communal graves.
Click to expand...

You are correct in that military is not designed to be a policing force. This role is becoming increasingly necessary in 21st century warfare however. Clearly overwhelming the enemy in a decisive battle is not successful in bringing peace to this conflict.

Hamas is currently the best option available to Gazans. Unless another option presents itself that would ensure security and prosperity they will always be forced to chose the lesser of two evils. Fortunately the majority of the world upholds the Geneva convention and would never justify the killing of Palestinians all Palestinians due to the actions of a minority.

As for the "proper response" to Hamas rockets: The proper response is one that will realistically lead to the peaceful coexistence of Palestinians and Israelis. This solution will likely not include Hamas as a governing party.
 
Cardinal said:
I've had a few debates with people in (in "real life"), and as I'm an artist and generally keep artists for company, I'm pretty much alone in my position that Israel has the right to eradicate active threats to its people. The discussion always devolves into who threw spitballs at whom first, (e.g. "Hasn't Israel had a tendency to overreact in the past?" as if that has any bearing on what's going on right now) and the fact that Hamas was launching rockets at Israeli population centers during the course of the cease fire is ignored or waved aside.

So, forget who was naughty first. Hamas launches rockets at Israel.

If military retaliation is not the correct response, then what is?
Click to expand...

The correct course of action is a military one that puts Israeli troops in the least amount of harms way. Obviously sending in troops puts Israeli troops in the greatest amount of danger verses just bombing the sites of where the terrorist are. As far as I know no one is holding a gun to the civilians forcing to stay where ever Hamas has it's terrorist stationed.So since they basically agree to stay there then obviously they agree to human shields. As human shields they must suffer the consequences of being humans,this will perhaps discourage future usage of human shields.

I do not buy into the hoopla of the terrorist sympathizers that Israel is using disproportionate response. Why should Israel endanger themselves or any of their personal anymore than they have to in order to wipe out a threat?They do not owe the Palestinians any favors. The Palestinians support Hamas, the Palestinians elected Hamas to various offices and the Palestinians obviously tolerate terrorist launching attacks at Israel from the roof tops of their buildings.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not buy into the hoopla of the terrorist sympathizers that Israel is using disproportionate response. Why should Israel endanger themselves or any of their personal anymore than they have to in order to wipe out a threat?They do not owe the Palestinians any favors. The Palestinians support Hamas, the Palestinians elected Hamas to various offices and the Palestinians obviously tolerate terrorist launching attacks at Israel from the roof tops of their buildings.
Click to expand...
Those who sympathize with the people of Gaza are not terrorist sympathizers. I suggest you learn the distinction as your comment is offensive and unwelcome.

The glaring flaw to your logic is that Israel chose its homeland to be in the heart of the ME. It has created the boundaries between Palestine and itself. It has a responsibility to fix the problems it has creating by displacing and blockading the people of Gaza.
 
shiznit770 said:
Those who sympathize with the people of Gaza are not terrorist sympathizers. I suggest you learn the distinction as your comment is offensive and unwelcome.

The glaring flaw to your logic is that Israel chose its homeland to be in the heart of the ME. It has created the boundaries between Palestine and itself. It has a responsibility to fix the problems it has creating by displacing and blockading the people of Gaza.
Click to expand...
Israel appears to be fixing things right now as a matter of fact.

Personally, if I discounted all other historical claims of the Jews to Israel Antiqua, I'd still have awarded that real estate to them as wereguild for the Arab nations' support of the Nazi Pogroms in World War II. To be fair I'd have given them at least a quarter of Germany too. And maybe a little bit of France.
 
I have the perfect solution....After they've been on a peace break for awhile...next time Isreal can randomly launch a bunch of rockets over there.
If hamas politely asks..please don't do that and Isreal keeps launching a few more over there. If hamas says a little more firmly..don't do that and Isreal keeps launching a few more over there. Hamas sees it's not going to stop and takes affirmative action..Isreal cries to the world Hamas is so mean....what did we do to deserve this!!!!:doh:doh:doh
 
shiznit770 said:
Those who sympathize with the people of Gaza are not terrorist sympathizers.
Click to expand...

When posters whine about disproportionate response and all that other nonsense one has to wonder. Seeing how the Palestinians choose to elect terrorist,choose to tolerate their presence in their neighborhoods while they launch attacks into another country and choose to willingly make themselves human shields they are basically an accessory to terrorism and therefor terrorist sympathizers.

I suggest you learn the distinction as your comment is offensive and unwelcome.
Click to expand...

Oh please,spare me the phony outrage. If you defend terrorist actions then you are a terrorist apologist/sympathizer.When you defend people who willingly aid terrorist by electing them to office,letting them launch mortar attacks from the rooftops of their buildings and let themselves be willing human shields you are a terrorist apologist. If those people had any sense they would move any time they see some terrorist on their rooftop launching attacks and they wouldn't elect terrorist to office.
 
Nature's law is "might makes right". Nature will take its
course. Neither side in the Israel question is interested
in defying Nature's Law.
 
Oftencold said:
Troops are not for arresting criminals. They are for causing vast destruction, death, suffering and most importantly, enormous contrition in one's enemies.

Precise strikes are part of the problem. The general Palestinian population seem to support these savages, (making them savages themselves, of course.) All Palestinians who survive this war need to understand that their model of politics through terror is probably only going to win them land in the form of unmarked, communal graves.
Click to expand...

Many Palestinians have lost friends and family to Israeli attack. They would take the opposition by default. If someone kills your family, you probably aren't going to take too kindly to them. As I said, this is now nothing more than a vicious circle and both sides are feeding into it. The only real solution, the only way to get it to stop, is for both sides to drop it. But that's not got much of a chance of happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom