• circuscritic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s also majority landlocked and has been under a naval and air blockade for nearly 2 decades.

    You can make the case about the selection of which some specific civilian areas Hamas utilizes are intended to maximize the outage if struck, but ultimately there is NOWHERE inside Gaza that isn’t a civilian area, period. It’s just a matter of degrees i.e. retail shops vs schools.

    • Khalic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just looked at the gaza satellite map to be sure. There are kms of fields between the border and most cities. They’re cowards hiding behind their people.

      • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those are literally watched by automated and remote control machine guns, as well as 24/7 surveillance drones.

        So you’re military strategic insight is to sit in an open field, just outside of range of the remote control 50 cal turrets, and wait for the drone to drop a PGM?

        • Khalic@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So because the situation is too risky, better hide behind your people? Of course not! Human shields are never acceptable.

          • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, I’m saying that any military strategy has to operate around it’s own operational and environmental constraints, and the capabilities and obstacles of the opposing force.

            Whatever you’re opinions are on any conflict, you should still understand that rational actors will respond accordingly to their constraints.

            Rational doesn’t mean moral, it means they have a clear mission and objective, and a plan to achieve it.

            You’re suggesting that instead of being combat effective, they should instead suicide themselves by operating in an open field in close proximity, and with no cover, to a vastly superior force. That would be irrational.

            • Khalic@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who gives a fuck if it’s combat effective when it kills your people? If you’re not fighting for the lives of your people? What are you fighting for? In the case of Hamas, the answer is in their charter: kill all jews. They admit it themselves ffs.

              • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m providing an extremely high level and simplified outline of the operational and strategic constraints for militants operating within Gaza, not moral commentary on it.

                If you want my opinions, or moral judgments, feel free to browse my comment history. Jump into any of those conversations if you disagree.

                • Khalic@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sorry, I get your point. It’s getting late here, I got carried away. You are right, it’s a tactically valid choice, but I really hope I’d kill myself before I do something like that, but life can fuck you up real bad so who knows…