Israeli atrocities in Gaza

[Neil]

I can see we are shifting to the ad hom portion of the debate.

Of course we are.  You're talking to Fate.

[grumbler]

Well, wasn't he on active duty during Tailhook?

Not in Naval Aviation, alas. 

[Fate]

Hamas would have to WORK to do such a thing because they do not engage in it. They do work to find good launch sites against Israeli military targets.

Hamas has publicly stated that they try to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties and that they are uninterested in hitting Israeli military targets because not enough innocents die when military targets are hit.

Excellent news. When will the Qassam brigades be notified to stop wasting rockets and mortars on military targets?

[grumbler]

Hamas would have to WORK to do such a thing because they do not engage in it. They do work to find good launch sites against Israeli military targets.

Hamas has publicly stated that they try to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties and that they are uninterested in hitting Israeli military targets because not enough innocents die when military targets are hit.

Excellent news. When will the Qassam brigades be notified to stop wasting rockets and mortars on military targets?

Dec 1st 2001

[The Brain]

Well, wasn't he on active duty during Tailhook?

Not in Naval Aviation, alas. 

I had to google Tailhook.

[frunk]

So, what you are saying is that you chose the example of LA poorly?  Okay, I agree, and I accept your withdrawal of LA as a comparison.

The point of the comparison was to compare the supposed low density numbers of a section of the Gaza Strip.  When the density numbers for a section of land that is supposedly sparsely populated are equal to a major city of the world I don't think that qualifies as lightly populated.  LA was selected on the basis of it's density being roughly equal.  I expect a lightly populated area to have a density less than that of a city.  The point was that the map failed to prove anything with regards to there being sparsely populated areas.  It's displaying strips of land, which is not how people settle areas.  Despite the map having greater/lesser concentrated areas it doesn't show where in each area they actually are.  They concentrate in clumps not uniform strips, leaving other areas relatively sparse.  To no one's surprise (least of all mine) Fate was proven completely wrong, but this map didn't tell anybody anything with regards to the actual argument.  That's all I was saying.

[Fate]

To no one's surprise (least of all mine) Fate was proven completely wrong, but this map didn't tell anybody anything with regards to the actual argument.  That's all I was saying.

Berkut's argument was that Gaza was "mostly a desert." It's no surprise he's completely wrong. 

[Neil]

Well, wasn't he on active duty during Tailhook?

Not in Naval Aviation, alas. 

Aviators ruin everything.  They ruined the Navy by taking all the raping for themselves, and they ruined the Army by splitting it with the Air Force.  I recommend that aviation be banned.

[The Minsky Moment]

Berkut's argument was that Gaza was "mostly a desert." It's no surprise he's completely wrong. 

Not really, it is only a slight exaggeration.  Technically, I guess it qualifies as a dry Mediterranean climate, but it borders on two of the largest desert systems of the planet: the Sahara-Sinai, and the Arabian-Negev.  It wouldn't be too far off to describe it as a marginal desert climate.  Agriculture is only possible with extensive irrigation.

Deserts receive less than 250mm of annual preciptition; Gaza gets 200-400.  It's on the borderline.

[grumbler]

Berkut's argument was that Gaza was "mostly a desert." It's no surprise he's completely wrong. 

Not really, it is only a slight exaggeration.  Technically, I guess it qualifies as a dry Mediterranean climate, but it borders on two of the largest desert systems of the planet: the Sahara-Sinai, and the Arabian-Negev.  It wouldn't be too far off to describe it as a marginal desert climate.  Agriculture is only possible with extensive irrigation.

Deserts receive less than 250mm of annual preciptition; Gaza gets 200-400.  It's on the borderline.

Some portions of Gaza receive over the "legal limit" for deserts (even though such characterizations are not really defined like that) and some don't.  Whether it is "mostly" those that do or don't is unknown, but no one who claims that it is "mostly" below the limit would be "completely" wrong every year.

The definition of desert as an area that loses more water in evaporation than it gets in precipitation is even tougher to apply here:  the presence of so many people means that the area must import water, but makes the precipitation/evaporation balance hard to judge.  Nevertheless, only one with a contempt for logic would argue that lack of evidence proves the contention "completely wrong."

[Berkut]

So, what you are saying is that you chose the example of LA poorly?  Okay, I agree, and I accept your withdrawal of LA as a comparison.

The point of the comparison was to compare the supposed low density numbers of a section of the Gaza Strip.  When the density numbers for a section of land that is supposedly sparsely populated are equal to a major city of the world I don't think that qualifies as lightly populated. 

But the example you chose was NOT "a major city in the world" since Los Angeles proper is over 1200 square miles - hence includes vast portions that are not urban at all.

Which is the point. The overall density in Gaza is high, but like LA, that does not mean it is uniformly congested. There are parts that are, and large parts that are mostly empty.

To no one's surprise (least of all mine) Fate was proven completely wrong, but this map didn't tell anybody anything with regards to the actual argument.  That's all I was saying.

Berkut's argument was that Gaza was "mostly a desert." It's no surprise he's completely wrong. 

What ugly dishonesty. My argument was that your claim that there was nowhere for Hamas to fire rockets from that are not in population centers was wrong, and on that I was shown completely correct.

[grumbler]

The point of the comparison was to compare the supposed low density numbers of a section of the Gaza Strip.  When the density numbers for a section of land that is supposedly sparsely populated are equal to a major city of the world I don't think that qualifies as lightly populated.  LA was selected on the basis of it's density being roughly equal.  I expect a lightly populated area to have a density less than that of a city.  The point was that the map failed to prove anything with regards to there being sparsely populated areas.  It's displaying strips of land, which is not how people settle areas.  Despite the map having greater/lesser concentrated areas it doesn't show where in each area they actually are.  They concentrate in clumps not uniform strips, leaving other areas relatively sparse.  To no one's surprise (least of all mine) Fate was proven completely wrong, but this map didn't tell anybody anything with regards to the actual argument.  That's all I was saying.

You made the comparison to LA, and when I pointed out that LA had plenty of places from which to launch such "safe" rocket attacks (I used to live there, and know) you told me LA was a bad comparison! 

Whatever.   When you figure out what it was you really meant, let me know.  Because even your explanation above says that my comparison was as apt as yours.

[frunk]

But the example you chose was NOT "a major city in the world" since Los Angeles proper is over 1200 square miles - hence includes vast portions that are not urban at all.

1200 km, not miles.  Big difference.  Most of the cities with the largest populations in the world range in size from 400-2000 km^2, which puts LA pretty squarely in the middle.  There are outliers on both ends, from down to 127 all the way up to 9900.

Which is the point. The overall density in Gaza is high, but like LA, that does not mean it is uniformly congested. There are parts that are, and large parts that are mostly empty.

I agree.

[Berkut]

But the example you chose was NOT "a major city in the world" since Los Angeles proper is over 1200 square miles - hence includes vast portions that are not urban at all.

1200 km, not miles.  Big difference.  Most of the cities with the largest populations in the world range in size from 400-2000 km^2, which puts LA pretty squarely in the middle.  There are outliers on both ends, from down to 127 all the way up to 9900.

Which is the point. The overall density in Gaza is high, but like LA, that does not mean it is uniformly congested. There are parts that are, and large parts that are mostly empty.

I agree.

Then why are you arguing about it?

LA has a similar density to Gaza, and yet LA has huge areas where there are very few people at all.

So, to the extent that it is similar to Gaza (in a very gross sense - I suspect Gaza has a vastly great amount of population clumping than LA), it is a great example. To the extent that it supports the idea that Gaza is so densely populated that you cannot find anywhere to launch rockets that are not close to lots of civilians, it is a poor example.

[Queequeg]

Deserts receive less than 250mm of annual preciptition; Gaza gets 200-400.  It's on the borderline.

Is this hugely different from most of Israel?  I'd imagine it is a pretty arid place, though efficient Israeli irrigation has no doubt changed the place alot from what it was 200 years ago.