|
Anaxagoras -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (12/2/2010 8:31:51 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hertz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:
ORIGINAL: hertz
Say it all you want, Anaxagoras - the numbers tell a very different story.
Here we go again - I guess I'll have to repeat myself. The numbers say one thing that 700 Hamas militants were killed. As stated repeatedly above Hamad said those killed at the police stations were also Hamas rather than civilians of security services which he categorised differently. A number of combatants from other terrorist groups were also killed which are probably amongst the 100+ death that could not be identified as either civilian or combatant. That means that amongst the death toll significantly more than half of all combatants were combatants.
No. I've already explained why, at least twice now, so I am not going to explain it again.
Hertz you are pretty much repeating your old tactic of simply saying I didn't get the point. In your previous posts you did two things to dismiss the civilian to combatant ratio. You tried to misrepresent some of the Hamas operatives as merely ordinary police when in fact Hamad did not describe them as such and there is ample evidence such as a selection of ten named individuals as cited in the link on post 119. Secondly, you tried to include injuries in the ratios which is a nonsense. You acted as if all those injured were civilians and there is no qualification if they are serious or minor injuries. Furthermore injuries have no direct connection with targeting which was your principal claim previously and you stated that such figures were not accurate in post 91. Then you tried to misrepresent the position of people like me and NJ20 by trying to say we were suggesting that no civilians were ever targeted, to which my reply was that individual soldiers may have targeted civilians but the civilian to combatant figures which are the lowest in the world by a very considerable margin demonstrate that the IDF as a matter of policy minimise civilian death tolls and even place it above the importance of military success by giving prior warning.
quote:
quote:
Such a low civilian death rate, as tragic as it is could only be possible in densely populated areas with an army that takes immense care. Citing injuries as Hertz has done is an absurdity since many instances of injury do not occur as a result of targetting. He also pretends all that are injured are automatically civilian.
Again, no. I have already explained this, and I am not going to explain it again.
A repeat of your "you miss the point" strategy redux when all else fails.
|
|
|
|
