Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Paxi said:
I'm not saying it's exactly like for like, but vertically or horizontally, urban warfare would involve the same tactical principals, albeit at a slower pace.

Though, we should note, that Israel has mandatory conscription and I'm pretty sure they're well versed in how to incur into Palestine. Last bit needs to be taking with a bit of salt but I mean I'd be gobsmacked if that wasn't part of the curriculum.
Click to expand...
Yes, the basic parameters of urban warfare are similar, but there’s exponentially more to accomplish in an environment that is more vertical than horizontal when trying to clear or pacify the area.

It’s one thing dealing with a row of two story houses in Derry that might have a row of two story houses across from it, it’s another to deal with multi story buildings on both sides. It’s simply more time consuming & taxing, for one.

That’s one of the reasons why the IDF employs this as a doctrine...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
 
Paxi said:
Are we not all under Geneva conventions just? I've never heard about specific cultural conventions, at least not in modern history.
Click to expand...
Nor had I. That’s why I was curious if a religion had potentially more or less restrictions.
 
Foxbatt said:
Basically it is actually more. No killing of women and children or non combatants. No harming or torture etc. But does any really follow it? I do not think so. It is like Jesus and turning the other cheek. Christian countries do not follow and neither do Muslim countries.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks!
 
Foxbatt said:
Countries have to obey the Geneva Convention. Groups classified as terrorist normally do not follow it. That said a lot of countries also do not follow it. Bombing wedding parties etc. Or blasting buildings etc.
Click to expand...

I know they do mate. I was wondering whether there was some other accord that I’ve not heard of.
 
Paxi said:
Yeah deadly to Israelis, mate. Wouldn’t be as deadly to children and women that just been bombed into fecking oblivion. If there’s such an existential threat then go in, and surgically remove it. Rather than carpet bomb innocent feckers.
Click to expand...

Ground incursions come with artillery, air, and naval support. The air strikes would accelerate, not stop.
 
Paxi said:
Yeah deadly to Israelis, mate. Wouldn’t be as deadly to children and women that just been bombed into fecking oblivion. If there’s such an existential threat then go in, and surgically remove it. Rather than carpet bomb innocent feckers.
Click to expand...
That’s basically what Israel is doing.

This isn’t carpet bombing by any measure. It’s not Linebacker II, for example.

Israel’s bombing campaign is extremely limited v. what they could potentially do with larger ordnance & less targeting.
 
calodo2003 said:
That’s basically what Israel is doing.

This isn’t carpet bombing by any measure. It’s not Linebacker II, for example.

Israel’s bombing campaign is extremely limited v. what they could potentially do with larger ordnance & less targeting.
Click to expand...

Didn’t comment on that as he didn’t seem interested in such details. Military intelligence call the building owners ahead of time to tell them to evacuate before a strike.
 
calodo2003 said:
Yes, the basic parameters of urban warfare are similar, but there’s exponentially more to accomplish in an environment that is more vertical than horizontal when trying to clear or pacify the area.

It’s one thing dealing with a row of two story houses in Derry that might have a row of two story houses across from it, it’s another to deal with multi story buildings on both sides. It’s simply more time consuming & taxing, for one.

That’s one of the reasons why the IDF employs this as a doctrine...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I’m not denying that but nevertheless, it would still be the appropriate thing to do, to avoid collateral damage. It’s not just about getting rid of Hamas, is it? It’s about winning hearts and minds — and I know it may be a fulls errand to do it with boots on the ground, but it’s certainly not by levelling buildings. And using so called door knows.. fecking sickening. Shooting (innocent) fish in a barrel.
 
Paxi said:
Absolutely, I’m not denying that but nevertheless, it would still be the appropriate thing to do, to avoid collateral damage. It’s not just about getting rid of Hamas, is it? It’s about winning hearts and minds — and I know it may be a fulls errand to do it with boots on the ground, but it’s certainly not by levelling buildings. And using so called door knows.. fecking sickening. Shooting (innocent) fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of a ground incursion is to level more buildings and destroy infrastructure. it’s not about hearts and minds; Palestinians will always see them as the enemy.
 
calodo2003 said:
That’s basically what Israel is doing.

This isn’t carpet bombing by any measure. It’s not Linebacker II, for example.

Israel’s bombing campaign is extremely limited v. what they could potentially do with larger ordnance & less targeting.
Click to expand...
Well whenever a population has nowhere to move and has hundreds of missiles volleyed into them — subsequently killing hundreds — id call it carpet bombing all but in name. I mean surely?
 
Paxi said:
Absolutely, I’m not denying that but nevertheless, it would still be the appropriate thing to do, to avoid collateral damage. It’s not just about getting rid of Hamas, is it? It’s about winning hearts and minds — and I know it may be a fulls errand to do it with boots on the ground, but it’s certainly not by levelling buildings. And using so called door knows.. fecking sickening. Shooting (innocent) fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...
You would see far more widespread damage if ground forces went in. The location would be prepped through artillery barrages & a wider bombing scope because it wouldn’t be defined who is the enemy. Every male adult could be considered the enemy to the IDF. The horror on the ground would exponentially increase, at more locations it would be complete.

As perverse as this sounds, what’s occurring currently is the vastly better choice of the two scenarios (not that this should be occurring at all).
 
owlo said:
The whole idea of a ground incursion is to level more buildings and destroy infrastructure. it’s not about hearts and minds; Palestinians will always see them as the enemy.
Click to expand...


So the alternative is air strikes? Surface to surface missiles etc. Enveloping a population. How long before these people have no drinking water and no food? Seems like Stalingrad or something.
 
Paxi said:
Well whenever a population has nowhere to move and has hundreds of missiles volleyed into them — subsequently killing hundreds — id call it carpet bombing all but in name. I mean surely?
Click to expand...
This is far from carpet bombing.

Dresden was carpet bombing. Many raids in Vietnam were carpet bombing.

This is predominately guided munitions with specified targets.
 
owlo said:
Didn’t comment on that as he didn’t seem interested in such details. Military intelligence call the building owners ahead of time to tell them to evacuate before a strike.
Click to expand...
I had never heard of this tactic before three days ago.
 
calodo2003 said:
This is far from carpet bombing.

Dresden was carpet bombing. Many raids in Vietnam were carpet bombing.

This is predominately guided munitions with specified targets.
Click to expand...

With very few places to move. A surgical strike is just as deadly if you can’t move away from it.

In any case, if I’m wrong and it’s not a carpet bombing, (probably not to be fair) it’s still absolutely horrendous and it’s making sick to my stomach.
 
calodo2003 said:
You would see far more widespread damage if ground forces went in. The location would be prepped through artillery barrages & a wider bombing scope because it wouldn’t be defined who is the enemy. Every male adult could be considered the enemy to the IDF. The horror on the ground would exponentially increase, at more locations it would be complete.

As perverse as this sounds, what’s occurring currently is the vastly better choice of the two scenarios (not that this should be occurring at all).
Click to expand...
Would we?
Like in any other invasion/incursion.
 
Paxi said:
So the alternative is air strikes? Surface to surface missiles etc. Enveloping a population. How long before these people have no drinking water and no food? Seems like Stalingrad or something.
Click to expand...

The alternative to a ground offensive with extra air strikes and artillery attacks is less air strikes yes.

calodo2003 said:
I had never heard of this tactic before three days ago.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/...nd-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html

from 2014. Seems they try to give a bit more time these days.
 
Paxi said:
With very few places to move. A surgical strike is just as deadly if you can’t move away from it.

In any case, if I’m wrong and it’s not a carpet bombing, (probably not to be fair) it’s still absolutely horrendous and it’s making sick to my stomach.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly unique due to the specific locale.

And it is absolutely horrendous.
 
owlo said:
The alternative to a ground offensive with extra air strikes and artillery attacks is less air strikes yes.



https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/...nd-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html

from 2014. Seems they try to give a bit more time these days.
Click to expand...

Are you Israeli mate? Cause that would be understandable why you wouldn’t want that smoke. No one wants their cousins and friends get sent in to get pumped for absolutely feck all.

Everything just seems beneficial to state of Israel.
 
Paxi said:
Would we?
Like in any other invasion/incursion.
Click to expand...
It would be a bit different for a couple of reasons.

Most cities invaded would be somewhat or mostly devoid of civilians, this would not be the case here. Plus no one would be in a uniform or distinguishing clothing. There would be more collateral death for this reason.

Artillery barrages are far less discriminate than aerial bombardment. There is some targeting, but the rate of fire would be limiting & more suppressive.

Then who knows what the rules of engagement would be? Or the end game?

Let’s hope to hell there isn’t a whiff of a ground force sent into Gaza.
 
Paxi said:
Are you Israeli mate? Cause that would be understandable why you wouldn’t want that smoke. No one wants their cousins and friends get sent in to get pumped for absolutely feck all.

Everything just seems beneficial to state of Israel.
Click to expand...

Im Scottish living in Manchester mate. I’m just explaining to you clearly why a ground incursion is a terrible idea, and why it would mean more and not less air strikes and other strikes.

edit: here take a look at the last time. https://www.businessinsider.com/wha...ffensive-in-gaza-looked-like-2021-5?r=US&IR=T
 
calodo2003 said:
It would be a bit different for a couple of reasons.

Most cities invaded would be somewhat or mostly devoid of civilians, this would not be the case here. Plus no one would be in a uniform or distinguishing clothing. There would be more collateral death for this reason.

Artillery barrages are far less discriminate than aerial bombardment. There is some targeting, but the rate of fire would be limiting & more suppressive.

Then who knows what the rules of engagement would be? Or the end game?

Let’s hope to hell there isn’t a whiff of a ground force sent into Gaza.
Click to expand...

Mate, if you have boots on the ground, then you wouldn’t just bomb stuff. Troops on the ground only do that, whoever they’re in the absolute shit. Danger close stuff. I don’t expect Israel to fire air to surface missiles. Like I can’t believe I’m having to say this but why in the hell didn't just NATO bomb every compound in Afghan? Or likewise in Iraq. Boots on the ground win wars and battles — it is known.
 
owlo said:
Im Scottish living in Manchester mate. I’m just explaining to you clearly why a ground incursion is a terrible idea, and why it would mean more and not less air strikes and other strikes.
Click to expand...
Aye, of course it’s a terrible idea. That’s why you don’t do it. But you send boots on the ground after you strategically bombed places. You just don’t bomb and bomb.
 
Paxi said:
Mate, if you have boots on the ground, then you wouldn’t just bomb stuff. Troops on the ground only do that, whoever they’re in the absolute shit. Danger close stuff. I don’t expect Israel to fire air to surface missiles. Like I can’t believe I’m having to say this but why in the hell didn't just NATO bomb every compound in Afghan? Or likewise in Iraq. Boots on the ground win wars and battles — it is known.
Click to expand...

They did and still do. Air strikes are a constant there.
 
owlo said:
They did and still do. Air strikes are a constant there.
Click to expand...

Really? Like they just sent in some fight jets and bombed the shit out of them? It's the first time im hearing it. Have you a source where British and Americans are bombing these spots with no boots on the ground before or after?
 
Paxi said:
So the alternative is air strikes? Surface to surface missiles etc. Enveloping a population. How long before these people have no drinking water and no food? Seems like Stalingrad or something.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely barbaric and I think they were already at a point where they were living in deplorable conditions. They've pretty much decided to hit them when they are already down because they pose such a "threat" to Israel. Hard hit areas may already be without food and water.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
It's absolutely barbaric and I think they were already at a point where they were living in deplorable conditions. They've pretty much decided to hit them when they are already down because they pose such a "threat" to Israel. Hard hit areas may already be without food and water.
Click to expand...

Seriously, like witnessing some barbaric WW2 siege on the eastern front. Barbaric as you say.
 
Paxi said:
I know they do mate. I was wondering whether there was some other accord that I’ve not heard of.
Click to expand...

Yes Islam does have a code of conduct in fighting but no one seems to follow it for a very long time.
 
And realistically how many intelligence officers are they killing or neutralizing in these attacks like the tv station building, where they give them a 20 min heads up? Wouldn't hypothetical hamas officers just pack their tech and leave like everyone else?

No one has convinced me so far that this isn't more than an exercises of collective punishment against the population of gaza. In other words, a war crime.
 
Foxbatt said:
Yes Islam does have a code of conduct in fighting but no one seems to follow it for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see it actually. Would be interesting if nothing else.
 
maniak said:
And realistically how many intelligence officers are they killing or neutralizing in these attacks like the tv station building, where they give them a 20 min heads up? Wouldn't hypothetical hamas officers just pack their tech and leave like everyone else?

No one has convinced me so far that this isn't more than an exercises of collective punishment against the population of gaza. In other words, a war crime.
Click to expand...

I believe the point is to take out infrastructure to prevent Hamas from using their buidlings, offices, tunnels, factories etc. I doubt the Israelis think Hamas officers stay in their offices after roof knocks. There is a punitive element to what is being done.
 
Raoul said:
I believe the point is to take out infrastructure to prevent Hamas from using their buidlings, offices, tunnels, factories etc. I doubt the Israelis think Hamas officers stay in their offices after roof knocks. There is a punitive element to what is being done.
Click to expand...

That doesn't add up with claims of killing hammas leaders.
 
Paxi said:
Mate, if you have boots on the ground, then you wouldn’t just bomb stuff. Troops on the ground only do that, whoever they’re in the absolute shit. Danger close stuff. I don’t expect Israel to fire air to surface missiles. Like I can’t believe I’m having to say this but why in the hell didn't just NATO bomb every compound in Afghan? Or likewise in Iraq. Boots on the ground win wars and battles — it is known.
Click to expand...
No sane commander would send troops into an urban area of any size without prepping the area first through artillery strikes. That would be from towed systems which offer very little accuracy, thus the artillery campaign would be longer & more indiscriminate. No one is saying that the campaign would continue once troops are in the city.

Describe for me an urban area like Gaza in Afghanistan or Iraq (outside certain parts of Baghdad). The environments were about as different from Gaza as could possibly be.

This wouldn’t be a video game. The practicalities of urban combat are much, much different.
 
Paxi said:
Aye, of course it’s a terrible idea. That’s why you don’t do it. But you send boots on the ground after you strategically bombed places. You just don’t bomb and bomb.
Click to expand...
There was never a moment in either campaign where aerial strikes stopped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.