I will need to see concrete evidence that these people were, in fact, members of the terrorist resistance before I believe claims that they were. However, we are currently assuming that all claims of terrorists being present are true for every strike. I would like you to know that I selected these strikes at random.
This claim states that there were 19 terrorists and 93 total killed at the Al-Tabi’in mosque and school on 08/10/24. Survivors state that most of the casualties were women and children. That means there was a 79.6% civilian casualty rate.
This claim states that there were 9 confirmed Hamas casualties of 40 killed at a school in the Nuseirat refugee camp on 06/06/24. The casualties were described as children and elderly, and this strike was verified by the source as using US munitions. That means there was a 77.5% civilian casualty rate.
This source claims that there have been (as of 07/06/24) 343 IDF soldiers killed and 38,000 confirmed Palestinian deaths with Israel claiming 1/3 of deaths are combatants. 66% civilian casualty rate since October 7th.
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
I read earlier this year that Israel considered 100 civilian deaths for one Hamas fighter a fair trade. I can’t find the exact article, but it was about their use of AI in deciding targets. According to this article a “10% failure rate” is totally acceptable. So, anywhere between 9-1 and 100-1 is within parameters. Children are a points multiplier.
I couldn’t find the article i was looking for, and it’s basically a rhetorical nswer to a rhetorical question. So, please take my cheek with a grain of salt.
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
just to humor you, statistically you could run a theoretical simulation of whether or not getting rid of hamas entirely now, saves more potential human lives, than simply letting them exist. It’s very possible (since this is the middle east) that it would statistically make more sense to completely get rid of them now. Such that they cannot exist in a similar capacity in the future.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet…
There’s no where anyone can be that doesn’t have a shit ton of civilians around, and due to the treatment of people who live in Gaza by Israel… A lot of people in Gaza are children.
That’s the whole reason the international community has been saying for almost a year you can’t just flatten everything.
But they keep doing it. Because Israel sees civilian deaths in Gaza as a feature, not a bug.
The question they asked is in presumption for this to be true.
Your non-answer speaks volumes.
What is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
If you don’t know, the rational answer is 0 for the same reason why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.
The question is kind of bullshit though. It’s meant to either get the other side to have an emotional response and say none or to be what you want perceived as a piece of shit and give a number. Let’s try it on another question.
How many child deaths are permissible before we ban bicycles? Cars? Jump rope? Pools? If it’s not 0, how dare you sir or ma’am. We’re talking about children here!
There is a reason certain buildings are off-limits unless it starts being used by the opposing force’s fighters. How would you fight a war against someone if they could just strike from an ambulance and then drive off, scott-free?
Also just want to throw out there that this type of thing is exactly what those who would use human shields want you to do. “Back off or we will put more civilians in front of us.” Then they will publicize the aftermath to help their propaganda war.
If you don’t know, the rational answer is 0 for the same reason why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.
the rational answer for “how many deaths in war are ok” is also zero, but that’s literally never happened.
War incurs casualty, and it also incurs civilian casualty, it’s simply impossible to have a 0% rate.
why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.
this is also stupid, how do you think they catch pedophiles? Most of the time it’s through CSAM. Physical or digital, and if it’s physical, they’re producing it, and if it’s digital, it’s being sourced somewhere. Those sources are a real easy get in exchange for a potentially lighter sentence.
I am also anti war so yes. I also dont judge life based on age but emotional sentiment does spread the ideal of stop killing eachother please.
The practice you described while i know this true in the US it may not be legal or moral elsewhere
I believe Europe has specifically forbidden “entrapment”
Entrapment: Law enforcement must avoid entrapment, which involves inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. This is generally illegal in Europe and could lead to cases being thrown out in court.
but emotional sentiment does spread the ideal of stop killing eachother please.
entrapment is also illegal here in the US? It’s legal to “bait” someone here though. you can sell drugs, and then get someone to buy them from you without influencing them, then arrest them, that’s perfectly legal.
like im pretty sure it’s a legally protected thing in the constitution?
Governements can interpret laws however they want but i am pretty sure that some of that baiting is considered entrapment.
Feeling tempted to buy drugs is not a crime, acting on it is. If the undercover cop wasn’t selling they may not have gotten tempted at that exact point of weakness.
Realistically it probably depends more on your lawyer and the jury then the letter of law though. Thats seems
The same anywhere.
Feeling tempted to buy drugs is not a crime, acting on it is. If the undercover cop wasn’t selling they may not have gotten tempted at that exact point of weakness.
yeah, and they’re arresting the people who buy the drugs, not the people who maybe want to buy drugs. Thats the only way you can stick a charge.
I was not still not convinced that did not count, so i did some research. In the example your given, not having the predisposition to buy drugs appears a valid defence.
"In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the “subjective” and “objective” tests.
The “subjective” test looks at the defendant’s state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no “predisposition” to commit the crime.
The “objective” test looks instead at the government’s conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime."
In Germany its a lot more strict
“In German law, it is normally forbidden to induce or persuade someone to commit a crime or to attempt to do so. However, the German Federal Court of Justice has held that entrapment by undercover police agents is not a reason to stay the case per se.”
And then there’s the UK which is vague as fuck?.
“The main authority on entrapment in England and Wales, held to be equally applicable in Scotland, is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely (2001). A stay is granted if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.”
And then there is the european convention on humans rights which appears more option then law.
"Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been interpreted as forbidding prosecution of acts induced by undercover officers. In the case of Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, the European Court of Human Rights found that the prosecution of a man for drugs offences after being asked by undercover police to procure heroin was a breach of the defendant’s rights under Article 6 as the investigating officers’s actions “went beyond those of undercover agents because they instigated the offence and there is nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed.”
The wiki says they are accused of it but lists many reports which found no evidence of this. In the current conflict there are apparently a couple of cases with hostages.
The big problem with most of these claims is that it’s “proximate” shielding being alleged, which is not when you are literally shielding someone (as in the recent cases with Israel using Palestinians, and assumedly those with Hamas using the hostages), but when you are just sat at home, in school, whatever, going about your usual business totally unaware. But you are a “shield” because the enemy decides they want to attack something near you.
This quote really sums up the rhetorical strategy:
“Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv are not classified as shields when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center. By sharp contrast, Palestinian civilians are cast as human shields when Israel bombs Hamas command centers and military infrastructures in Gaza. In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields.”
It is a trick so that Israel can avoid responsibility for it’s actions. I’m not saying you are supporting Israel or denying their crimes (I know you explicitly didn’t), but this rhetoric is WAY more common than genuine instances of human shielding, which thus far has primarily been done by Israel, not Hamas.
Likewise, this isn’t excusing Hamas. Fuck them. But aside from the case with the hostages (didn’t check the reference but I trust it), there is very little evidence that Hamas does this. Most of the time it is an outright deception.
Edit: this is from the report cited by wikipedia:
A witness said that as Israeli forces advanced, the fighters phoned the Israeli police using one of the hostages as an interpreter, identified themselves as from the Qassam Brigades, and told the police that they would shoot those they held if the Israeli forces fired on them. During the standoff, the attackers forced about half the hostages into the yard of the home between Israeli forces and the fighters, according to two witnesses the New York Times interviewed. A man the attackers said was their commander took off his clothing and took Yasmin Porat, one of the hostages, outside to shield him as he surrendered to the Israelis. After the fighters fired again at the Israeli forces, an Israeli tank opened fire on the home. The fighters were killed, as well as 12 hostages who were killed in the crossfire.
So clearly it does happen. But cases are rare and on both sides of the conflict
Ballistics can be predicted and modeled, I’m sure they can do the math for targeting. There’s a lot of room for errors, but don’t assume they’re just just blind firing.
Hamas has also been accused of using human shields strategically by the UN Secretary General,[16] the European Union,[17] the United States,[18][19] along with Israel.[20] Launching rockets and positioning military infrastructure in civilian areas has been observed in various conflicts, including the 2008, 2014, and 2023 Israel–Hamas wars although is not considered as human shielding according to human rights organizations.[7] These actions have been criticized by various international bodies, including Amnesty International, which has documented instances where Palestinian militias stored munitions in and launched rockets from or nearby civilian structures.
Your own excerpt says they were accused, and that it has not been recognized as Human Shielding.
Where as I’m certain I’ve seen videos of the Israeli military walking naked Palestinians through mine fields, shelled buildings, and into tunnels. I will not look it up again, I just simply wanted to point out that you’re terrible at reading.
Your own excerpt says they were accused, and that it has not been recognized as Human Shielding.
that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening at all? The ICJ hasn’t even finished proceedings and people are calling it a genocide even though we quite literally don’t know yet. It’s pretty common for the militaristic tactics in the middle east to be very flexible let’s say. So it wouldnt surprise to me learn that they’re at least doing things tangential to human shields, like residing in buildings full of civilians, consenting or not, in hopes of not being fucking bombed, or at the very least, for the press it gains them.
It’s not impossible this is literally just a psyop to deter israel from bombing them (which isn’t working) and then doing the same thing but globally across social media. If there are hamas millitants or whatever they want to call them residing in these places, at some point it would be beneficial for hamas if they stopped residing in places with civilians, because it obviously doesn’t seem to be doing much at this point.
Though obviously if israel is just, randomly bombing civilians in the hopes of hitting terrorists, it doesn’t really help. But we have no idea, and we do know that it doesn’t make any sense militarily, so we can assume they’re probably not doing that.
But even if hamas did, that doesn’t mean it is the case here. Just like how it wasn’t the case when they said there is a military base under a hospital, only to find a single tunnel used to smuggle in medicine after they completely bombed it down, including its residents.
The human shield lie is dead. The majority of structures in Gaza have been bombed and rendered uninhabitable. Israel is just destroying everything indiscriminately and killing anything that moves outside the designated camps.
Was Hamas using over half of all structures in Gaza as operating bases? Get real.
It’s already known that Hamas uses tunnels, why would they even be in the buildings at this point? This is just a campaign of total destruction.
Well firstly, the point of the bombing campaign is to make Gaza uninhabitable. The tunnels are irrelevant to that.
But more importantly, the tunnels are too deep to bomb and they don’t know where the tunnels even are. At best they can bomb tunnel entrances, the tunnels themselves require deep penetration to attack directly.
But more importantly, the tunnels are too deep to bomb and they don’t know where the tunnels even are. At best they can bomb tunnel entrances, the tunnels themselves require deep penetration to attack directly.
there we go. Also im pretty sure israel has some knowledge on the tunnel layouts and design, i believe they even captured early war plans from the initial october 7th attack. But i dont know fuck shit about that, intelligence teams are fucking crazy.
Odd that I still see new videos of bombings all the time, from 10 different angles and crowds watching the buildings get hit… I wonder how they knew about the upcoming hit.
Regarding the IDF’s attack policy in Gaza, the source clarifies that the “roof knocking” policy, whereby the IDF has previously used text messages, phone calls, or an initial strike on the roof to warn residents of a building that it is about to be struck, is not the system currently applying. In certain circumstances, it will be used, the source says, but today Israel is already evacuating masses of the [Gaza] populace from central terrorist areas and attacking there.
Odd that you’re just ignoring the literally stated policy of Israel. Stop with your genocide denial. They’ve already told us what they are doing.
The entire strip is being bombed! They just force Palestinians to play musical chairs in fucking tents as they’re driven from one impromptu camp to the next. Anyone outside the camps is sniped.
That’s not true, but let’s assume it is. What’s the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
3-1
It most certainly is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas
Doesn’t excuse the Israeli administration, but Hamas 100% uses human shields, schools included.
I will need to see concrete evidence that these people were, in fact, members of the terrorist resistance before I believe claims that they were. However, we are currently assuming that all claims of terrorists being present are true for every strike. I would like you to know that I selected these strikes at random.
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
I read earlier this year that Israel considered 100 civilian deaths for one Hamas fighter a fair trade. I can’t find the exact article, but it was about their use of AI in deciding targets. According to this article a “10% failure rate” is totally acceptable. So, anywhere between 9-1 and 100-1 is within parameters. Children are a points multiplier.
10% failure rate implies they fail to hit a millitant 1-10 times no?
I would assume success isn’t bombing random people.
I couldn’t find the article i was looking for, and it’s basically a rhetorical nswer to a rhetorical question. So, please take my cheek with a grain of salt.
fair enough
just to humor you, statistically you could run a theoretical simulation of whether or not getting rid of hamas entirely now, saves more potential human lives, than simply letting them exist. It’s very possible (since this is the middle east) that it would statistically make more sense to completely get rid of them now. Such that they cannot exist in a similar capacity in the future.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet…
There’s no where anyone can be that doesn’t have a shit ton of civilians around, and due to the treatment of people who live in Gaza by Israel… A lot of people in Gaza are children.
That’s the whole reason the international community has been saying for almost a year you can’t just flatten everything.
But they keep doing it. Because Israel sees civilian deaths in Gaza as a feature, not a bug.
The question they asked is in presumption for this to be true.
Your non-answer speaks volumes.
What is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
If you don’t know, the rational answer is 0 for the same reason why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.
The question is kind of bullshit though. It’s meant to either get the other side to have an emotional response and say none or to be what you want perceived as a piece of shit and give a number. Let’s try it on another question.
How many child deaths are permissible before we ban bicycles? Cars? Jump rope? Pools? If it’s not 0, how dare you sir or ma’am. We’re talking about children here!
There is a reason certain buildings are off-limits unless it starts being used by the opposing force’s fighters. How would you fight a war against someone if they could just strike from an ambulance and then drive off, scott-free?
Also just want to throw out there that this type of thing is exactly what those who would use human shields want you to do. “Back off or we will put more civilians in front of us.” Then they will publicize the aftermath to help their propaganda war.
the rational answer for “how many deaths in war are ok” is also zero, but that’s literally never happened.
War incurs casualty, and it also incurs civilian casualty, it’s simply impossible to have a 0% rate.
this is also stupid, how do you think they catch pedophiles? Most of the time it’s through CSAM. Physical or digital, and if it’s physical, they’re producing it, and if it’s digital, it’s being sourced somewhere. Those sources are a real easy get in exchange for a potentially lighter sentence.
I am also anti war so yes. I also dont judge life based on age but emotional sentiment does spread the ideal of stop killing eachother please.
The practice you described while i know this true in the US it may not be legal or moral elsewhere
I believe Europe has specifically forbidden “entrapment”
Entrapment: Law enforcement must avoid entrapment, which involves inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. This is generally illegal in Europe and could lead to cases being thrown out in court.
entrapment is also illegal here in the US? It’s legal to “bait” someone here though. you can sell drugs, and then get someone to buy them from you without influencing them, then arrest them, that’s perfectly legal.
like im pretty sure it’s a legally protected thing in the constitution?
Governements can interpret laws however they want but i am pretty sure that some of that baiting is considered entrapment.
Feeling tempted to buy drugs is not a crime, acting on it is. If the undercover cop wasn’t selling they may not have gotten tempted at that exact point of weakness.
Realistically it probably depends more on your lawyer and the jury then the letter of law though. Thats seems The same anywhere.
yeah, and they’re arresting the people who buy the drugs, not the people who maybe want to buy drugs. Thats the only way you can stick a charge.
I was not still not convinced that did not count, so i did some research. In the example your given, not having the predisposition to buy drugs appears a valid defence.
"In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the “subjective” and “objective” tests.
The “subjective” test looks at the defendant’s state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no “predisposition” to commit the crime.
The “objective” test looks instead at the government’s conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime."
In Germany its a lot more strict
“In German law, it is normally forbidden to induce or persuade someone to commit a crime or to attempt to do so. However, the German Federal Court of Justice has held that entrapment by undercover police agents is not a reason to stay the case per se.”
And then there’s the UK which is vague as fuck?.
“The main authority on entrapment in England and Wales, held to be equally applicable in Scotland, is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely (2001). A stay is granted if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.”
And then there is the european convention on humans rights which appears more option then law.
"Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been interpreted as forbidding prosecution of acts induced by undercover officers. In the case of Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, the European Court of Human Rights found that the prosecution of a man for drugs offences after being asked by undercover police to procure heroin was a breach of the defendant’s rights under Article 6 as the investigating officers’s actions “went beyond those of undercover agents because they instigated the offence and there is nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed.”
Acceptable child to terrorist death ratio is legitimately 2:1 and accept 3:1 only if we get to eat the children afterwards.
Do you have the coupon?
The wiki says they are accused of it but lists many reports which found no evidence of this. In the current conflict there are apparently a couple of cases with hostages.
The big problem with most of these claims is that it’s “proximate” shielding being alleged, which is not when you are literally shielding someone (as in the recent cases with Israel using Palestinians, and assumedly those with Hamas using the hostages), but when you are just sat at home, in school, whatever, going about your usual business totally unaware. But you are a “shield” because the enemy decides they want to attack something near you.
This quote really sums up the rhetorical strategy:
It is a trick so that Israel can avoid responsibility for it’s actions. I’m not saying you are supporting Israel or denying their crimes (I know you explicitly didn’t), but this rhetoric is WAY more common than genuine instances of human shielding, which thus far has primarily been done by Israel, not Hamas.
Likewise, this isn’t excusing Hamas. Fuck them. But aside from the case with the hostages (didn’t check the reference but I trust it), there is very little evidence that Hamas does this. Most of the time it is an outright deception.
Edit: this is from the report cited by wikipedia:
So clearly it does happen. But cases are rare and on both sides of the conflict
Mate, they lob unguided rockets in roughly the right direction. They are not targeting jak shit.
Ballistics can be predicted and modeled, I’m sure they can do the math for targeting. There’s a lot of room for errors, but don’t assume they’re just just blind firing.
Cool wikipedia article. But you should check out current reality sometime.
From you first link:
Your own excerpt says they were accused, and that it has not been recognized as Human Shielding.
Where as I’m certain I’ve seen videos of the Israeli military walking naked Palestinians through mine fields, shelled buildings, and into tunnels. I will not look it up again, I just simply wanted to point out that you’re terrible at reading.
that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening at all? The ICJ hasn’t even finished proceedings and people are calling it a genocide even though we quite literally don’t know yet. It’s pretty common for the militaristic tactics in the middle east to be very flexible let’s say. So it wouldnt surprise to me learn that they’re at least doing things tangential to human shields, like residing in buildings full of civilians, consenting or not, in hopes of not being fucking bombed, or at the very least, for the press it gains them.
It’s not impossible this is literally just a psyop to deter israel from bombing them (which isn’t working) and then doing the same thing but globally across social media. If there are hamas millitants or whatever they want to call them residing in these places, at some point it would be beneficial for hamas if they stopped residing in places with civilians, because it obviously doesn’t seem to be doing much at this point.
Though obviously if israel is just, randomly bombing civilians in the hopes of hitting terrorists, it doesn’t really help. But we have no idea, and we do know that it doesn’t make any sense militarily, so we can assume they’re probably not doing that.
Israel also uses human shields.
But even if hamas did, that doesn’t mean it is the case here. Just like how it wasn’t the case when they said there is a military base under a hospital, only to find a single tunnel used to smuggle in medicine after they completely bombed it down, including its residents.
The human shield lie is dead. The majority of structures in Gaza have been bombed and rendered uninhabitable. Israel is just destroying everything indiscriminately and killing anything that moves outside the designated camps.
Was Hamas using over half of all structures in Gaza as operating bases? Get real.
It’s already known that Hamas uses tunnels, why would they even be in the buildings at this point? This is just a campaign of total destruction.
Don’t spread genocide denial.
you realize operating bases are probably in the tunnels right. They certainly aren’t above ground.
This also ignores stationing for the militants, and potential hideouts, for things like… Bombs.
They aren’t bombing the tunnels, they’re just blowing up hospitals and apartments and schools. The tunnels are unaffected.
any ideas as to why they aren’t bombing the tunnels?
Well firstly, the point of the bombing campaign is to make Gaza uninhabitable. The tunnels are irrelevant to that.
But more importantly, the tunnels are too deep to bomb and they don’t know where the tunnels even are. At best they can bomb tunnel entrances, the tunnels themselves require deep penetration to attack directly.
there we go. Also im pretty sure israel has some knowledge on the tunnel layouts and design, i believe they even captured early war plans from the initial october 7th attack. But i dont know fuck shit about that, intelligence teams are fucking crazy.
Don’t forget they’re constantly torturing Palestinians in the prisons to get them to reveal the locations of tunnels.
Why would they still roof knock if they indiscriminately bomb everything?
They stopped roof knocking as standard policy back in October. Try to keep up.
Odd that I still see new videos of bombings all the time, from 10 different angles and crowds watching the buildings get hit… I wonder how they knew about the upcoming hit.
Odd that you’re just ignoring the literally stated policy of Israel. Stop with your genocide denial. They’ve already told us what they are doing.
They seem to have been wrong about roof knocking specifically (new term for me) but still informing people and evacuating civilians? Or attempting to?
The entire strip is being bombed! They just force Palestinians to play musical chairs in fucking tents as they’re driven from one impromptu camp to the next. Anyone outside the camps is sniped.
It’s all lies. Israel is just doing genocide.