Morch

The article paints a different picture than the headline.

@ozimoron No, this is about you misrepresenting what I said, multiple times on this exchange alone, let alone the many past instances. You do this with pretty much everyone you respond to. You expect reasonable answers when you do not post in a reasonable manner. You're bound to be disappointed. I don't care whether you put me on 'ignore', you all pick anyway. It's just a coward's way of not accepting mistakes.

No, this smacks of you wishing for such a sense. There is none. I say again, there was an initial phase in the fighting where the word was simply to move south. As operations advanced most of the 'safe zone' comments and instructions were referring to a specific area near the beach. Looking at the map, it does not seem to be where most (or even many) of these bombs were dropped. Since the map doesn't specify when each bombing took place, it's hard to know.

Yes, I can. You can't even acknowledge your comments were wrong.

Not what the map pic you posted above shows. There were several declarations about 'safe zones', made at different phases and time of the offensive.

@placeholder You keep posting the same link over and over again, not exactly sure what is that you're after.

Doesn't answer my question, though. Kinda doubt Saint kitts and Nevis.....

As expected, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge you were wrong. More so - actually lied. It's not like some old post that had to be dug up, it's right in-front of you, and you still misrepresented it - multiple times. Get help. And here we go again with your nonsense (from the article you linked): Do you actually read what you post? Or just the headlines?

Are you for real? This is what I posted: Any more silly lies you want to try? What I said about the casualty figures is: Not what you claimed. As said, you often seem to respond to what you think posters posted, not what actually was. Then you start a pointless argument about it (like now). At the end of, you hardly ever acknowledge your mistake, let alone apologize.

Do you always reply to posts without reading them? Seems like. Try the last line of the post in question. I did not say anything about your questions being 'moronic' - that's you making up stuff again. As for them 'NOT', and 'Ever' - who do you thing you are?

What is it with you and intentionally misrepresenting what people say? What you claimed above is not what I posted. I said some of the comparisons appearing in the article are moronic. Not expecting you to acknowledge that, apologize or anything. I'm not 'quibbling'. I'm saying. The article starts with the lump figure of 20,000. This what makes some of the comparisons semi-feasible. Cut it down by a third and it's not quite as 'sexy'. And minimize how? I do not deny the deaths.

Top of the article cites 20,000 casualties, lumping civilians and combatants together. Scrolling down a 7000 combatant figure appears. I think some of the case comparisons are moronic. Especially the IS bit.

Yes, and?

I dunno. Have all the countries that signed that deceleration been in a situation where this was a consideration? Do all of them even possess such bombs?

It's the same article you posted earlier. It makes a general claim without specifying which supposed 'safe zones' were hit and when. Jabaliya was not designated a safe zone.

Shocking....

I don't think that there was a mass bombardment of 'safe zones'. Links and maps to attack shown on these topics do not support this. Here's an idea, though - Hamas got all them tunnels, bunkers etc. - how about letting their own people in?

Humans are created by humans every day...

Better take that invisibility cap along.

Says you.

IDF has killed 2,000 Hamas operatives since truce ended on December 1 — spokesman https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-has-killed-2000-hamas-operatives-since-truce-ended-on-december-1-spokesman/ This implies 8000 Hamas men killed in the Gaza Strip since the fighting started, according to IDF reports. Past instances saw a gap between post-war Hamas figures and Israel's but not always a huge difference. Also about 1000 Hamas men killed in directly following the 7/10 attack. Even if these figures are off, I don't think they are off by a wide margin.

IDF calling on residents of central Gaza’s Bureij to evacuate south https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-calling-on-residents-of-central-gazas-bureij-to-evacuate-south/ That's one of the neighborhoods 'skipped' between the initial phase of the fighting in the Strip, and the Southern offensive.

If it's a 'release hostages for a pause' situation, than Hamas (supposedly) got enough to make it last a while. Fully addressing humanitarian issues in the Gaza Strip is not an option anyway, at this point. Not sure what the significance of the latter part is, or what you think it implies.

It depends where you look to. On some levels, there's a lot of tough talk - mostly from right wing politicians. On the military level? Far more realistic, and mentions of a year or more of fighting to get significant, more long lasting results. In as much as the UN resolution goes, Israel already signaled it's up for a 'pause' (or whatever they'll call it) if it's accompanied by hostages released/traded. Hamas is of two voices on this.

And Johnny Depp's Yorkshire Terriers.