Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Hamas admits 600-700 of its men were killed in Cast Lead

  1. #16
    Member JordanN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Brampton, Canada
    Age
    20
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korath View Post
    Is it possible to reduce the ratio?
    Only if you can convince terrorists to stop using schools and hospitals as qassam launch pads and stop using children as human shields in a firefight.

    Until there are bullets and tank shells invented that can distinguish between civillian, non-combatant but terrorist affiliated and terrorist, there is no other way of reducing the ratio.

  2. #17
    Senior Member BlackWarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The land of UAVs and homus
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JordanN View Post
    Only if you can convince terrorists to stop using schools and hospitals as qassam launch pads and stop using children as human shields in a firefight.

    Until there are bullets and tank shells invented that can distinguish between civillian, non-combatant but terrorist affiliated and terrorist, there is no other way of reducing the ratio.
    Funny you would mention it, each year the Israeli MOD have a competition for student where they need to submit innovative ideas that can be implemented in the near future the winner will receive a grant and could try make his idea work, one of the ideas several years ago was a bullet with a mini camera that could distinguish between adults and children and in the case if children's disintegrate midair.
    It wasn't doable due to high cost of manufacturing it and the fact that the smallest caliber for the first production was 0.5.

    Edit: for those of you who are intrested, the guy who though about it wanted to use 3D printing to manufacture the bullets but we are 10 years before this would begin to be practical.

    Warder

  3. #18
    Senior Member GB_FXST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    7,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korath View Post
    Ok, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I just referred to IDF as an example. Let's assume the data to be true (for the purpose of the discussion) for a hypothetical army X. If an army "X" achieves the 50/50 ratio, is it something to be worried about? Is it an inherent characteristics of asymmetrical warfare (army X has to use its superior firepower to protect first are foremost its boots on the ground, hence the civilian casualties)? Is it possible to reduce the ratio? Are there any examples of a different performance? (Is it known what the ratio was for US and coalition forces during counter-insurgency campaigns in Irak? How does it look like in Afghanistan?)

    GB-EXT - it could be significant explanation for a territory like Gaza. It seems to be less valid for Lebanon. Therefore I think it's just a partial explanation.
    I think you are proposing a historical review of asymetrical urban warfare where a significant percentage of the local civillian population does not evacuate.

  4. #19
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korath View Post
    Ok, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I just referred to IDF as an example. Let's assume the data to be true (for the purpose of the discussion) for a hypothetical army X. If an army "X" achieves the 50/50 ratio, is it something to be worried about? Is it an inherent characteristics of asymmetrical warfare (army X has to use its superior firepower to protect first are foremost its boots on the ground, hence the civilian casualties)? Is it possible to reduce the ratio? Are there any examples of a different performance? (Is it known what the ratio was for US and coalition forces during counter-insurgency campaigns in Irak? How does it look like in Afghanistan?)

    GB-EXT - it could be significant explanation for a territory like Gaza. It seems to be less valid for Lebanon. Therefore I think it's just a partial explanation.

    50/50 is too high.

    80/20 would look like a feasible figure to me. If one side doesn't ACTIVELY use civilians as shields. With that it would be like 65/35 in my eyes. But I'm no military operations planer type by job discription :P

  5. #20
    Being a Twit Bamba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Has a list of all the civilians who were confirmed on terrorist websites to be fighters.

    http://tinyurl.com/29x2nwh

    There are a lot...

    For some reason Militaryphotos doesn't like this site, no idea why.

  6. #21
    Tel Aviv Stud tanks_alot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    6,966

    Default

    On the first day of the war, Israel attacked the police command and killed 250 martyrs, from Hamas and other factions."
    Ok, that's about the first day. now what about the losses of other factions in the rest of the three weeks? were the Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Al Qaeda types etc', all just sitting underground and playing Yahtzee until the IDF pulled out of Gaza?

  7. #22
    Diagnosis: chronic mpnetoholism (F99.9)
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK / Hinckley
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,158

    Default

    We still don't know how many of those civilian deaths were caused by... Hamas itself. There were reports they used this situation to execute purges among some Al-Fatah supporters and their families.

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korath View Post
    [I don't want to start a flame war. For the purpose of the discussion it doesn't matter if it's IDF or any other army. Also note that the numbers are estimated. I just think that consistent 50/50 combatant/civilian ratio seems awfully high.]
    This question is impossible to answer without a comprehensive statistics for a sugnificant period of time. Lets take WW2 as a starting point, compute the rate of civilian casualties adjusted for population density at the time of the fighting. Then lets further adjust it for such conditions as the quality of buildings, intensity of the fight, availability of escape routes to civilian population etc. That's the only way to make an estimate - "awfully high" is an emotional response, not a scientific conclusion.

    Considering that allies are not really releasing stats from various "battles of Faludja" I' d wager that they are achieving similar results.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Korathv2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palmach View Post
    This question is impossible to answer without a comprehensive statistics for a sugnificant period of time. Lets take WW2 as a starting point, compute the rate of civilian casualties adjusted for population density at the time of the fighting. Then lets further adjust it for such conditions as the quality of buildings, intensity of the fight, availability of escape routes to civilian population etc. That's the only way to make an estimate - "awfully high" is an emotional response, not a scientific conclusion.

    Considering that allies are not really releasing stats from various "battles of Faludja" I' d wager that they are achieving similar results.
    Very good point. I just wonder if any reasonable statistics / literature is available.

    You are right that "awfully high" is an emotional response. I have no comparative data so the "gut feeling" started the the inquiry. Without reliable, comparative data it is impossible to say if 50/50 is high or not; or if 80/20 is even feasible? Consequently I guess that the arguments about moral/immoral campaign (from the point of view of protection of civilian population) should be considered as propaganda and only individual incidents and not the whole campaign can be assessed from this perspective.

  10. #25
    Senior Member TALOS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    "If we don't have a plan ... theres no way the enemy can second guess us" Anon
    Age
    47
    Posts
    2,090

    Default

    any civilian death is "too high" but, as has been pointed out repeatedly, civilians die in war and especially if they are used as shields. Anyway, it would seem by the Israeli numbers (which I personally would accept over the Pals numbers) that its not 50/50 ratio.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Paul85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    ummmmmmmmmm ....... where the hell am I !!!!!!
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    sorry to all the "palestinians" supporters or human rights supporters out there but those guys saw it coming & they totally deserve it!!!
    it is not allowed for anyone to blame the IDF for anything because those militants were using their own ppl as a sheild!!! in addition, according to our experience with the "palestinians"...most of them are are not innocent!

    sorry again but that is me. you may call me whatever you want...yet again, that is me!!!

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korath View Post
    Ok, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I just referred to IDF as an example. Let's assume the data to be true (for the purpose of the discussion) for a hypothetical army X. If an army "X" achieves the 50/50 ratio, is it something to be worried about? Is it an inherent characteristics of asymmetrical warfare (army X has to use its superior firepower to protect first are foremost its boots on the ground, hence the civilian casualties)? Is it possible to reduce the ratio? Are there any examples of a different performance? (Is it known what the ratio was for US and coalition forces during counter-insurgency campaigns in Irak? How does it look like in Afghanistan?)

    GB-EXT - it could be significant explanation for a territory like Gaza. It seems to be less valid for Lebanon. Therefore I think it's just a partial explanation.

    Well,I cannot speak for Afghanistan nor Iraq.As for IDF,it is a sort of complicated matter,just because there is no clear cut in modus operandi.

    I'd say local command,which is at the field has a lot of say and control,probably much more then other armies counterparts.Also,traditionaly IDF hasn't and still isn't paying much attention to psychological training of its combatants,so local response to a threat may vary greatly from unit to unit,from commander to commander,from soldier to soldier.

    While not harming the combatants is more of a guideline,part of an IDF moral code,and "order of a day" ,and something commanders talk with their coldiers in some "sensitivity workshops" ,modus operandi in urban Palestinian territories may clash with that,sometimes unintentionaly .Having been developed sometime during second Intifada,its main focus is keeping soldiers safe (and sometimes,this safety even comes before civilian lives,whom soldiers actually supposed to protect,and not the other way around).

    Amongst others,it keeps troops progression throughout urban territory (usually troops are most vulnerable during advance,because it is harder to advance and observate the territory you advance in,it is harder to find conceal if there is firefight and so on) in most safely manner-as slow as possible (sometimes,on the expense of the folks who sit back home and getting rockets on their heads), safely as in concealed (for example,getting from home to home by making holes in walls,instead of just walking on the street),or as in keeping your advancement territory under your full control,or,for example,making sure there are no good spots to fire upon you.

    The last one for example,envolves a good waiste of a perfect ammo.Shaping your lane of advance by fire means,shooting like a madman at every point which could be a good ambush place on you.It supposed to have also psychological impact on the "enemy","hey look,I can see your folks here and I am killing them right now".
    The thing is,after long years of Intifada,every single Palestinian kid knows that 80 percent of the IDF folks shooting with evil faces are just shooting at walls and trash cans.Not one Palestinian is buying it by today.So,not only it waistes a perfectly good ammo,it also creates a deadly ammo density in a tightly urbanic area.Perfectly good recepy for some richoshet madness.And thought the troops are ordered to fire this supressive wall of fire into places which will not richoshet,like trash cans and all that,well,you just couldn't know if it will richoshet and kill some little girl across the town.And shyte,the more serious operation is,the more permissive is this wall of fire,it ain't only 5.56,it's 120mm HEAT flying around the place!Badly bad habbit on my opinion which should have stoped long time ago.


    That is one example how modus operandi can enflict civilian casualites,and it might happen absolutely random,by most innocent pacifist soldier who follows orders.

    Also,then there is a little factor of an urbanized warfare,where it is just not clear cut at all,and your personal judgement place a LOT.It is not a computer game where you know who bad guys are,,there are different degrees of "bad guys",it is all your personal judgement which is resolved by pressing the smallest of buttons.Is that guy fits the ROE?Is this a gun I see on him throughout thermal sights,or is it just a broomstick?Is he walks home with a bag,but then,why at night,but then,he looks rather small,but then...And so on.
    And as I've said,the MO is rather overprotective of soldiers,so sometimes it is also overpermissive as well,which might have a good ending for soldiers but very poor ending for some poor block.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •