BBC admits its reporting of Gaza ‘civilian’ deaths was inaccurate

[Gunny]

Because anyone believed numbers reported to BBC by Hamas are accurate? I don't believe even the revised numbers. Looks a LOT like some of Robert McNamara's math

BBC admits its reporting of Gaza ‘civilian’ deaths was inaccurate (msn.com)

[revelarts]

Because anyone believed numbers reported to BBC by Hamas are accurate? I don't believe even the revised numbers. Looks a LOT like some of Robert McNamara's math

BBC admits its reporting of Gaza ‘civilian’ deaths was inaccurate (msn.com)

speaking objectively.
Should we blindly believe that the reports from Hamas or Israel are accurate?

And in general, objectively, could we say at this point that Israel has killed far more civilians than Hamas? And destroyed far more lives, homes, & facilities than Hamas has ever done to Israel?
BTW if we're going to pretend that there are no civilians in Gaza, isn't it honest to say there are no civilians in Israel either? Aren't they like Switzerland, everyone has military service?



To me it looks more & more like 10/6 is just an excuse to wipe them out of the area, if not wipe them out.
Much like the U.S. colonist did to the various Native American tribes.
You know "the savages".
Many Americans didn't care about the details of how it got done, as long as it got done.
Every Native American attack or massacre on Settlers was an unjustified outrage
and every American Settlers attack or massacre of native Americans was a justified response.
The "threat" was handled and the land procured, from sea to sea... and a chunk of Mexico.. and Hawaii.

Hard for me to NOT see it for what it is. wrapping flags around it doesn't cut it for me ... on any side.

[Gunny]

speaking objectively.
Should we blindly believe that the reports from Hamas or Israel are accurate?

And in general, objectively, could we say at this point that Israel has killed far more civilians than Hamas? And destroyed far more lives, homes, & facilities than Hamas has ever done to Israel?
BTW if we're going to pretend that there are no civilians in Gaza, isn't it honest to say there are no civilians in Israel either? Aren't they like Switzerland, everyone has military service?



To me it looks more & more like 10/6 is just an excuse to wipe them out of the area, if not wipe them out.
Much like the U.S. colonist did to the various Native American tribes.
You know "the savages".
Many Americans didn't care about the details of how it got done, as long as it got done.
Every Native American attack or massacre on Settlers was an unjustified outrage
and every American Settlers attack or massacre of native Americans was a justified response.
The "threat" was handled and the land procured, from sea to sea... and a chunk of Mexico.. and Hawaii.

Hard for me to NOT see it for what it is. wrapping flags around it doesn't cut it for me ... on any side.

Israel is targeting Hamas to wipe it out as an organization. Civilians get killed in wars. Especially if the terrorist organization hides behind the skirts of civilians.

IF Hamas was so concerned about noncombatant casualties, it should have considered the repercussions of a terrorist attack against noncombatants. Then too, they could act like men and get out from behind the skirts of their women and children and step their asses out into the open on the field of battle and man the f- up and civilian casualties would be greatly minimized. But these cowards can't do that.

Further, lest we forget, I have far less sympathy for noncombatants who elect an known, international terrorist organization to represent them as their government to the World. Is anybody giving us any sympathy for the dolts we've put in office?

Making excuses for completely worthless vermin disguised as humanoids is bad form.

[fj1200]

Israel is targeting Hamas to wipe it out as an organization. Civilians get killed in wars. Especially if the terrorist organization hides behind the skirts of civilians.

IF Hamas was so concerned about noncombatant casualties, it should have considered the repercussions of a terrorist attack against noncombatants. Then too, they could act like men and get out from behind the skirts of their women and children and step their asses out into the open on the field of battle and man the f- up and civilian casualties would be greatly minimized. But these cowards can't do that.

Further, lest we forget, I have far less sympathy for noncombatants who elect an known, international terrorist organization to represent them as their government to the World. Is anybody giving us any sympathy for the dolts we've put in office?

Making excuses for completely worthless vermin disguised as humanoids is bad form.

I've heard that based on intelligence uncovered since then that hamas did not expect the response that they got. But then hamas doesn't really care about civilians.

[Gunny]

I've heard that based on intelligence uncovered since then that hamas did not expect the response that they got. But then hamas doesn't really care about civilians.

Wondering what kind of "intelligence" came to THAT conclusion. Last I checked, Israel returns fire in spades and always has.

Hamas' civilians are brainwashed and/or stupid, useful idiots. When the West started bargaining for hostages, it put these animals in business.

[fj1200]

Wondering what kind of "intelligence" came to THAT conclusion. Last I checked, Israel returns fire in spades and always has.

Hamas' civilians are brainwashed and/or stupid, useful idiots. When the West started bargaining for hostages, it put these animals in business.

When was the last time that the IDF rolled through any area like they are this time? They occupy the West Bank but they mostly let them go about their business. They haven't tried to destroy hamas or any opposition like this in probably 20 years.

[Gunny]

When was the last time that the IDF rolled through any area like they are this time? They occupy the West Bank but they mostly let them go about their business. They haven't tried to destroy hamas or any opposition like this in probably 20 years.

Guess that depends on your definition of "recent". I keep forgetting most of these tools aren't old enough to remember and dismiss history as inconvenient.

1982-83. They drove the PLO/PLA/Hamas/whatever acronym suits you all the way to Beirut in the north and Egypt in the south.

Due to the nature of their attack, they should have expected worse than they're getting.

[fj1200]

Guess that depends on your definition of "recent". I keep forgetting most of these tools aren't old enough to remember and dismiss history as inconvenient.

1982-83. They drove the PLO/PLA/Hamas/whatever acronym suits you all the way to Beirut in the north and Egypt in the south.

Due to the nature of their attack, they should have expected worse than they're getting.

Definitely post-80s and probably post-00s. I was here...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/אנ...thr_?entry=ttu

2 years ago listening to an Arab through a translator tell the story of how he had to make a decision to stay in Israel or go back to his native Lebanon and probably be killed if he went back to his family. And now the best he can do is look across the Blue Line to where his family still lives.