FreekiN

i know, BTW i love Miss Pakistan

thanks, Miss Pakistan

The first link isn't at all what the headline describes - they were allegations of orders (not confessions), none of which panned out (though it's clear those making the allegations received money for doing so.) Why should I take the time to continue through the rest of the links?

"Instead of spending $40,000 on a single bomb that will not only kill terrorists, but probably even more civilians why don't they just use the money to make it impossible them to even shoot?"

The Israelis killed at least two terrorists for every civilian killed. Paying $40K - how does that prevent someone from shooting, or keep a rocket from falling into Israel?

And why are you hung up on the "math" mindset? Are you really so naiive to believe that because Israel inflicted greater civilian casualties upon Gazans than Hamas did upon Israelis that means Israel is in the wrong?

"And with a Israeli mindset like this -"

You didn't provide a context, you know. Was it a campaign slogan, orders to soldiers, or what? What import did these words have? So I don't believe these words have the impact or power as you make them out to be.

"
And seeing that Israel has the upper hand in EVERYTHING ... well I think you get the point..."

????

Dropping a bomb on Gaza to kill a bunch of terrorists and end up killing dozens of civilians in the process.
As Hamas' leaders confessed to the U.N. in the infamous Goldstone Report, they actively employed human shields to protect their fighters and their rocket crews intent on bombarding Israel. According to some military analysts, under the circumstances Israel did an amazing job of limiting civilian casualties.

That's the missing context. In fighting an enemy who employs human shields, civilian casualties are almost unavoidable. So who committed the atrocity, those who dropped the bomb intending to kill terrorists or those who put civilians in the way with the intent of making them targets?

Pakistan's current offensive against the Taliban has also killed civilians, but you don't see pictures of that because (1) journalists' movements are restricted by the military, and (2) people here have told me that would offend local tastes. If you did see those pictures, would you suddenly think the Pakistan Army was hell-bent on creating atrocities? (The 1971 PA certainly was. )

And the terrorists killing less people than peanuts do in Israel.Translation: because peanuts accidentally kill a few people in Israel, terrorists should be allowed to get away with deliberately killing people in Israel. Would you accept it if I stabbed your child to death and justified getting away with it by citing your "peanut defense"?

Still, there is one small kernel of truth in what you said. The terror casualties were small. Israel put up with it for a long time. But the cost wasn't just in lives, but in the fact that increasingly large numbers of people had to hide and scamper from the rockets every single day to avoid injury. Do you think any other nation on Earth would have shown the patience Israel did, weighing the costs not only to its own people but to the populace under enemy control before taking action?