Languish.org

It's one thing when the usual European anti-Semites claim atrocities.  It's concerning when Israeli soldiers themselves now lay the accusations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090321/wl_time/08599188685600

I don't know what to think about this.

It's pretty simple I'd think. If it's true the perpetrators and those who gave the orders should be punished.

The Jerusalem Post says the leader of the group which revealed this is an anti-occupation activitst

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237461630293&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

that and a lack of specifics in the accusations along with the lack of an official complaint leaves me slightly sceptical.

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2009, 10:18:33 PM
It's one thing when the usual European anti-Semites claim atrocities.  It's concerning when Israeli soldiers themselves now lay the accusations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090321/wl_time/08599188685600 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090321/wl_time/08599188685600)

I don't know what to think about this.

Well, I can't say I am surprise of seing this in the media.
What did you think war is? An sport?

Soldiers go to war, and want to come back home in one piece.
If some civilian walks anywhere near soldiers in the middle of an operation, he or she will be considered a threat and dealt with accordingly.
Scalation of force goes from hang signal, yelling to stop, showing your weapon, visual laser to the face, warning shot, non-lethal shot, and finally the lethal shot.
Now, the more hostile the situation, the more shortcuts the troops will take. In a middle of a firefight a civilian shows his head and he will be seen as an enemy spotter, at best. If the troops are in a tactical stop on the way to their OBJ, any civilian aproaching will be suspected of suicide bomber.
War ain't pretty, and soldiers want to come back home. If mistakes are made, better to make them on the enemy than to fail to react to the threat and become responsible for the loss of your buddies.

Now, on the case at hand.
I'll say the sniper reports are hearsay. Regular grunts are not in the loop. They don't have comms in the same net snipers operate. If a perceived threat aproaches the troops, snipers are used to minimized civilian cassualties. I know this have been published to sound as if the IDF had a free-for-all in Gaza, but if this were true, all the grunts would have opened on those 2 women, instead of calling on the snipers to take the shot.
More likely, they had an intelligence report on suicide bombers, saying the enemy was using women to get close to the troops. I have had millions of those. Intelligence reports are enough to justify engaging the enemy. It counts as PID (positive identification). Every army in the world do this.

About the building clearing thing.
Well, what can I say. Enter and clear a building is the most dangerous activity you can do in the military. This ain't escort a convoy, or patroll a random route. You are going into harms way, there is a reason while you are clearing that damn building, and even though 90% of the time the enemy will have likely moved out by the time you get there, in the oportunity when you do make contact, is close and personal, and the enemy is in a defensive position, and will have vertical superiority on you. Hand grenades are a bitch when the enemy is in the top floor, especially because you don't know in which building they are. The moment you start clearing a town, you give away the element of surprise. The enemy will see you coming, and wait for you in a position advantageous to them. So I can see how in the heat of battle the rules of engagement might get a bit relaxed. Especially if you had taken friendly cassualties. You don't want to get ambushed twice in the same mission, and your mission still require quite a few more buildings to be cleared.

The rules of engagements are made with all the good intentions in this world, and they work 99% of the time.

Total deaths in the conflict on the Gazan side were in the 1200-1300 range - this is everyone, combatant and civilian.  Given the intense nature of the fighting, and the highly urbanized setting, that number is not consistent with there being thousands of trigger-happy IDF soldiers blowing everyone's heads off for fun and committing mass war crimes.  The numbers just don't add up.

That said, there will be investigation, I expect it will be thorough and professional - and if individuals violated the rules of war, they should be punished appropriately to their offense.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2009, 12:24:28 AM
I expect it will be thorough and professional - and if individuals violated the rules of war, they should be punished appropriately to their offense.

Sure.
I'll tell you a little story.
Back in Bagdad at the heigh of Teh Surge, I was given an intellingence report saying that the enemy was using women and children as spotters. Soon after, I was ordered to shoot anyone that would peek at my stryker more than twice from behind a covered position, like a corner, a roof, or a window. Basicly, if anyone were to peek at me twice, putting the head up and back down twice, on the third time I was authorized to open fire.
On another ocasion, there was a constant low intensity firefight going on in one of our COPs (Combat Outpost), and we were told AQI was motorcycles to reinforce their cells in the area. Soonafter we got as PID to shoot any male riding a motorcycle, whether armed or not. The thing is, AQI was moving their fighters unarmed, to pass through the Iraqi army checkpoints as civilians, to their weapons caches to get their weapons.

Terrorists are a very smart lot, you know, and their MOs make war that more nasty.

Your famous "Rules of War" work a hell of a lot better when fighting an enemy that plays by the same rules.

QuoteIsrael will push forward with its offensive in the Gaza Strip until it "completely destroys" Hamas, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, said Monday.

If the enemy mixes himself with civilians, hides in civilian buildings, etc. you can only completely destroy the enemy by destroying everything.

If the enemy are entangling their personnel and civilians, then wouldn't it make more sense to go after the supply lines? Once you've cut their materiel, then they've only got as much teeth as the civilians they're blending with...

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 22, 2009, 08:45:03 AM

QuoteIsrael will push forward with its offensive in the Gaza Strip until it "completely destroys" Hamas, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, said Monday.

If the enemy mixes himself with civilians, hides in civilian buildings, etc. you can only completely destroy the enemy by destroying everything.

Hamas is an organization, though.  Organizations can be completely destroyed without anything physical being touched.  Google "Communist Party USA," which was once more numerous than Hamas.

Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 01:11:23 PM

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 22, 2009, 08:45:03 AM

QuoteIsrael will push forward with its offensive in the Gaza Strip until it "completely destroys" Hamas, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, said Monday.

If the enemy mixes himself with civilians, hides in civilian buildings, etc. you can only completely destroy the enemy by destroying everything.

Hamas is an organization, though.  Organizations can be completely destroyed without anything physical being touched.  Google "Communist Party USA," which was once more numerous than Hamas.

The communist party USA has still a website (http://www.cpusa.org/), so you cannot call that "completely destroyed". Do you really think Hamas can be destroyed, without anything physical being touched?

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 22, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
The communist party USA has still a website (http://www.cpusa.org/), so you cannot call that "completely destroyed". Do you really think Hamas can be destroyed, without anything physical being touched?

Do you realy think that Gabriela Shalev meant that the Gaza offensive would continue until Hamas no longer had a web site?

The CPUSA is gone. It runs no one for offices, has no employees, turned over all its records and archives to some college library for historical research, and, insofar as I know, doesn't even hold meetings anymore.  There is a "club" that calls itself CPUSA, but it isn't a political party.

So, do I thnk that an organization can be destroyed without "destroying everything?" Yes, I do.  I never said Hamas could be destroyed without touching *anything.*   That would be a position as extreme as yours, and I am no extremist.

There are positions on this issue between "destroying everything" and "touching nothing" and I occupy one of them.  Yours is the Fallacy of the False Choice.

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 22, 2009, 08:45:03 AM

QuoteIsrael will push forward with its offensive in the Gaza Strip until it "completely destroys" Hamas, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, said Monday.

If the enemy mixes himself with civilians, hides in civilian buildings, etc. you can only completely destroy the enemy by destroying everything.

This is tried.  They get attacked for it all the time.

Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 03:10:30 PM

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 22, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
The communist party USA has still a website (http://www.cpusa.org/), so you cannot call that "completely destroyed". Do you really think Hamas can be destroyed, without anything physical being touched?

Do you realy think that Gabriela Shalev meant that the Gaza offensive would continue until Hamas no longer had a web site?

The CPUSA is gone. It runs no one for offices, has no employees, turned over all its records and archives to some college library for historical research, and, insofar as I know, doesn't even hold meetings anymore.  There is a "club" that calls itself CPUSA, but it isn't a political party.

So, do I thnk that an organization can be destroyed without "destroying everything?" Yes, I do.  I never said Hamas could be destroyed without touching *anything.*   That would be a position as extreme as yours, and I am no extremist.

There are positions on this issue between "destroying everything" and "touching nothing" and I occupy one of them.  Yours is the Fallacy of the False Choice.

I don't understand this. I copied your own words "without anything physical being touched". And why am I suddenly an extremist?

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 22, 2009, 03:56:29 PM
I don't understand this. I copied your own words "without anything physical being touched". And why am I suddenly an extremist?

I never said that you were "suddenly" an extremist.  I said that the position that Hamas could not be destroyed without "destroying everything" was extreme.  And cherrypicking a phrase of mine, applying it to a situation that i never said was applicable, and then repeating it back to me as though my choice was to agree with the new, extreme position or acept your extreme position is a classic case of the Fallacy of the False Choice, which is a favorite of extremists.

I need not pick between them, and choose not to do so.  This is the moderate choice.

Every time the IDF attacks Hamas, they will destroy civilian lives and properties. And hence it will increase the popularity of Hamas at the population. That is what we have seen the last decades in the Middle-East, but also in other regions of the world.

Another solution to destroy Hamas could be "doing nothing". Let the economic blockade do its job, so the people at Gaza get tired from their Hamas-masters. That seemed to have worked with organisations like the IRA and ETA. People got tired from the swollen rethoric from those organisations and the economical problems of their resistance. They just want peace and prosperity.

However the problem of that tactics is, that Israel has to endure the stream of rockets, fired from Gaza. It is clear that they don't want that.

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 23, 2009, 06:03:28 AM
Every time the IDF attacks Hamas, they will destroy civilian lives and properties. And hence it will increase the popularity of Hamas at the population. That is what we have seen the last decades in the Middle-East, but also in other regions of the world.

Another solution to destroy Hamas could be "doing nothing". Let the economic blockade do its job, so the people at Gaza get tired from their Hamas-masters. That seemed to have worked with organisations like the IRA and ETA. People got tired from the swollen rethoric from those organisations and the economical problems of their resistance. They just want peace and prosperity.

However the problem of that tactics is, that Israel has to endure the stream of rockets, fired from Gaza. It is clear that they don't want that.

You are forgetting one thing. Palestinians are not nice european educated people. They ain't irish or vasque. You might argue all you want about how uncivilized the irish and vasque are according to european standards. They are still european educated.

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 10:26:39 AM
You are forgetting one thing. Palestinians are not nice european educated people. They ain't irish or vasque. You might argue all you want about how uncivilized the irish and vasque are according to european standards. They are still european educated.

But how would that influence the behaviour of the Palestinians? Would they start to hate Hamas, in the scenario where the IDF attacks again and again, to destroy Hamas? Or would they still want war, even when Israel is doing nothing?

Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2009, 10:18:33 PM
It's one thing when the usual European anti-Semites claim atrocities.  It's concerning when Israeli soldiers themselves now lay the accusations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090321/wl_time/08599188685600

I don't know what to think about this.

That's raciss, you know. Sterotyping and all that crap  :D

Actually, I have to say this: if someone had written such a sweeping, broad and offensive generalization regarding the US of America [brings hand to heart] and his patriotic, courageous and fair citizens, the Loony Brigade(TM) would have already suffered one or two seizures...

I wasn't making a statement about all Europeans, and I don't see how my post can be interpreted as such.  I was referring to the usual suspects that are Europeans, and whose criticism of Israel has no credibility.

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 23, 2009, 06:03:28 AM
Another solution to destroy Hamas could be "doing nothing". Let the economic blockade do its job, so the people at Gaza get tired from their Hamas-masters. That seemed to have worked with organisations like the IRA and ETA. People got tired from the swollen rethoric from those organisations and the economical problems of their resistance. They just want peace and prosperity.

However the problem of that tactics is, that Israel has to endure the stream of rockets, fired from Gaza. It is clear that they don't want that.

Well I am sure the government wishes they could just ignore the rocket attacks.  There is very little to do about them but for some reason the Israeli civilians are not very happy about them and want the government to take action.

The situation just sucks ass all around.  If the Palestinians are not suffering from fatigue at this point they never will.

I personally think both sides are just resigned to endless conflict at this point and nobody really thinks a resolution is possible.

As for the atrocities, well there just reaches a point where tragedy becomes farce.  It would take one hell of a fucked up situation in the that conflict to really tug at my heart strings at this point.

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 23, 2009, 10:39:00 AM

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 10:26:39 AM
You are forgetting one thing. Palestinians are not nice european educated people. They ain't irish or vasque. You might argue all you want about how uncivilized the irish and vasque are according to european standards. They are still european educated.

But how would that influence the behaviour of the Palestinians? Would they start to hate Hamas, in the scenario where the IDF attacks again and again, to destroy Hamas? Or would they still want war, even when Israel is doing nothing?

What I'm saying is that you are assuming a rationality from the part of the palestinians that they obviously don't have.
They will never blame Hamas for bringing all this war upon them.
Whatever seem logical to you, they see it in a diferent way.

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Well I am sure the government wishes they could just ignore the rocket attacks.  There is very little to do about them but for some reason the Israeli civilians are not very happy about them and want the government to take action.

The situation just sucks ass all around.  If the Palestinians are not suffering from fatigue at this point they never will.

As I have pointed out a couple of times, it would be better for everyone if israel simply sucked up the modest damage caused by the rocket fire.  The Israeli political setup, however, is designed such that it almost always produces weak governments, and weak governments are unable to shrug off even small criticisms, even if doing so would be in the nation's interests.

Very frustrating.

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 02:06:51 PM
As for the atrocities, well there just reaches a point where tragedy becomes farce.  It would take one hell of a fucked up situation in the that conflict to really tug at my heart strings at this point.

You have a heart???

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:11:19 PM
What I'm saying is that you are assuming a rationality from the part of the palestinians that they obviously don't have.
They will never blame Hamas for bringing all this war upon them.
Whatever seem logical to you, they see it in a diferent way.

I daresay you are not a very trustworthy source when it comes to an unbiased view of Palestinians.  In fact, you talk of Palestinians pretty much exactly like the anti-Semites talks of Jews.

Yeah, there are problems, but that does not mean that no Palestinians will ever recognize the futility of violence.  Like the Israeli zealots, the (more numerous) Palestinian zealots will, in fact, gag on blood if sufficient blood is spilled over sufficient time.

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 02:11:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Well I am sure the government wishes they could just ignore the rocket attacks.  There is very little to do about them but for some reason the Israeli civilians are not very happy about them and want the government to take action.

The situation just sucks ass all around.  If the Palestinians are not suffering from fatigue at this point they never will.

As I have pointed out a couple of times, it would be better for everyone if israel simply sucked up the modest damage caused by the rocket fire.  The Israeli political setup, however, is designed such that it almost always produces weak governments, and weak governments are unable to shrug off even small criticisms, even if doing so would be in the nation's interests.

Very frustrating.

People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.
What you are asking is unthinkable.
Would you recomend the same if the dying were american civilians?

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:13:43 PM


You have a heart???

I have the heart of a small boy...and I keep it in a jar on my desk

-Stephen King

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 02:15:50 PM

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:11:19 PM
What I'm saying is that you are assuming a rationality from the part of the palestinians that they obviously don't have.
They will never blame Hamas for bringing all this war upon them.
Whatever seem logical to you, they see it in a diferent way.

I daresay you are not a very trustworthy source when it comes to an unbiased view of Palestinians.  In fact, you talk of Palestinians pretty much exactly like the anti-Semites talks of Jews.

Yeah, there are problems, but that does not mean that no Palestinians will ever recognize the futility of violence.  Like the Israeli zealots, the (more numerous) Palestinian zealots will, in fact, gag on blood if sufficient blood is spilled over sufficient time.

No they wont.
Israeli culture is essentially western culture, with the same value on life and the same taboo on killing civilians.
Palestinians don't have any of this.

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 02:11:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Well I am sure the government wishes they could just ignore the rocket attacks.  There is very little to do about them but for some reason the Israeli civilians are not very happy about them and want the government to take action.

The situation just sucks ass all around.  If the Palestinians are not suffering from fatigue at this point they never will.

As I have pointed out a couple of times, it would be better for everyone if israel simply sucked up the modest damage caused by the rocket fire.  The Israeli political setup, however, is designed such that it almost always produces weak governments, and weak governments are unable to shrug off even small criticisms, even if doing so would be in the nation's interests.

Very frustrating.

I can well imagine the reaction of the US public (or Canadian for that matter) to being told by its government to just suck up the modest damage terrorist attacks on civilians cause. I doubt any government on this side of the Atlantic would be able to in effect do nothing in response to (say) rockets landing in Texas fired by Mexican state actors. 

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 02:20:32 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 02:11:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Well I am sure the government wishes they could just ignore the rocket attacks.  There is very little to do about them but for some reason the Israeli civilians are not very happy about them and want the government to take action.

The situation just sucks ass all around.  If the Palestinians are not suffering from fatigue at this point they never will.

As I have pointed out a couple of times, it would be better for everyone if israel simply sucked up the modest damage caused by the rocket fire.  The Israeli political setup, however, is designed such that it almost always produces weak governments, and weak governments are unable to shrug off even small criticisms, even if doing so would be in the nation's interests.

Very frustrating.

I can well imagine the reaction of the US public (or Canadian for that matter) to being told by its government to just suck up the modest damage terrorist attacks on civilians cause. I doubt any government on this side of the Atlantic would be able to in effect do nothing in response to (say) rockets landing in Texas fired by Mexican state actors. 

I'm sure the Israeli's won't mind taking one for the western team :D

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 02:20:32 PM
I can well imagine the reaction of the US public (or Canadian for that matter) to being told by its government to just suck up the modest damage terrorist attacks on civilians cause. I doubt any government on this side of the Atlantic would be able to in effect do nothing in response to (say) rockets landing in Texas fired by Mexican state actors.

Correct. So the IDF has to attack Hamas. Hamas is hiding between civilians. IDF destroys civilian lives and properties. Palestinians hate Israel more and support Hamas more. That is in my opinion the reason why Hamas fires those rockets. Just to provoke a reaction and get more support.

Which means that Valmy is right with his remark about endless conflict.

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 02:20:32 PM
I can well imagine the reaction of the US public (or Canadian for that matter) to being told by its government to just suck up the modest damage terrorist attacks on civilians cause. I doubt any government on this side of the Atlantic would be able to in effect do nothing in response to (say) rockets landing in Texas fired by Mexican state actors. 

I doubt any government under any normal circumstances would be able or willing to tolerate it.

But Israel is not just any government and these are anything but normal circumstances.  As usual I try to think of some historical parallel but there really is none.

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:13:43 PM
You have a heart???

Yes but I tend to ignore it when it comes to Middle Eastern and African matters.  There are not enough eyes to cry the sufficient amount to tears that some regions deserve.

I think everyone here agrees that the Romans were right to treat the rebellious Jews harshly. In the name of consistency we must allow the Jews to do the same to their inferiors.

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.
What you are asking is unthinkable.
Would you recomend the same if the dying were american civilians?

Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Yet, the US government is strong enough to resist calls for the invasion of Mexico and the killing of the drug cartels (at huge cost in civilian casualties) because the cost of acting is greater than the cost of not acting.

So, what I am asking is only unthinkable if one's thinking is not very robust.  It is unquestionably difficult (even though only about 2 israelis a year die from rocket attacks) and military action would be tough for a strong government to resist.  My point is that israel does not (and cannot have, under curent political realities) a strong government, and so we see the Israeli government forced to act contrary to Israeli national interests for purely domestic political considerations.  Very frustrating, as I said.

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 02:20:32 PM
I can well imagine the reaction of the US public (or Canadian for that matter) to being told by its government to just suck up the modest damage terrorist attacks on civilians cause. I doubt any government on this side of the Atlantic would be able to in effect do nothing in response to (say) rockets landing in Texas fired by Mexican state actors.

That is, in fact, happening (not rocket attacks, but attacks across the border on civilians) right now.  Read the news.

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:19:23 PM
No they wont.
Israeli culture is essentially western culture, with the same value on life and the same taboo on killing civilians.
Palestinians don't have any of this.

Repeating your argument doesn't make it more credible.  "Never" is a nonsense word in contexts like this.

Quote from: HVC on March 23, 2009, 02:29:12 PM
I'm sure the Israeli's won't mind taking one for the western team :D

No one is asking them to.  The "Western team" would not suffer if the last israeli alive died locked in a death embrace with the last palestinian.  Only the Israelis would suffer the hit.

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 03:04:11 PM
That is, in fact, happening (not rocket attacks, but attacks across the border on civilians) right now.  Read the news.

It is different in the sense the Mexican army is fighting and dying against the same people every day.  If there was a Palestinian military fighting to destroy Hamas Israel would tolerate the rockets better.

My God man the Mexico drug analogy is dare I say it Martyesque.

Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 03:08:07 PM
It is different in the sense the Mexican army is fighting and dying against the same people every day.  If there was a Palestinian military fighting to destroy Hamas Israel would tolerate the rockets better.

True, there are differences, but the arguemnt that "no government could possibly tolerate cross-border attacks without unleashing the military" is clearly not true.

I am not suggesting that the Israelis simply cave and wait out the 100,000 years or so until the Gaza residents evolve into glowing balls of light.  I am simply suggesting that a government that was structured in a way that was less succeptabe to tiny-party pressures would be able to act with a more long-ranged view on how to disillusion the Gaza residents with Hamas.

And I am not blaming the Israeli government.  It must operate under the structure of its constitution, frustraing as that is for them and for me.  And, in any case, the blame for the violence is one Hamas, no matter what the Israeli party structure.

I am just pointing out a reality:  the Israeli government cannot act in the long-term best interests of its country because the way the parties are structured prevents any strong enough government from being formed.

Is it working though?

Does Hamas get more support? I thought they only had a 30%ish approval rating.

Quote from: Berkut on March 23, 2009, 03:16:47 PM
Is it working though?

Does Hamas get more support? I thought they only had a 30%ish approval rating.

The latest polls I can find are from early March http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52841Q20090309 (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52841Q20090309)

QuoteRAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Hamas's popularity among Palestinians has risen sharply since a three-week Israeli war in January devastated the Islamist-ruled Gaza Strip, an opinion poll released Monday showed.

If an election were held today, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh would beat Mahmoud Abbas, the Western-backed Palestinian president and leader of Fatah who advocates a peace deal with Israel.

The face-to-face poll of 1,270 people by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research was conducted on March 5-7 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as the factions tried to reach agreement on a unity government with Egyptian mediation.

Hamas, which Western powers shun as a terrorist organization, won a Palestinian parliamentary election in 2006 and seized control of the Gaza Strip the next year after fighting with Fatah.

Israel responded by tightening its blockade of the coastal enclave, increasing hardships for its 1.5 million residents.

The January war, which Israel launched with the stated aim of stopping cross-border rocket fire by militants, killed some 1,300 Palestinians, destroyed 5,000 homes and left much of Gaza's governmental and economic infrastructure in ruins.

"Despite the visible increase in the popularity of Hamas and Haniyeh," the pollsters reported, the overwhelming majority, 71 percent, believes Palestinians are worse off than they were before the war.

The survey said Haniyeh would garner 47 percent support, beating Abbas with 45 percent, if a presidential election was held today. Three months ago, Abbas received 48 percent and Haniyeh 38 percent.

But if the competition were between Haniyeh and Marwan Barghouthi, the popular Fatah leader currently imprisoned by Israel, Barghouthi would win by 61 percent to 34 percent, the survey showed.

Fatah, however, remains the most popular faction with 40 percent of overall support, compared to 42 percent last December, it said. The popularity of Hamas in the same period increased from 28 percent to 33 percent in the latest poll.

The most important priority for Palestinians today, in the eyes of 46 percent of the sample, should be the unification of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Nearly two-thirds believe a Hamas victory in presidential and legislative elections would lead to the tightening of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, whereas nearly as many believe a Fatah victory would mean the end of the blockade.

Respondents in Gaza in particular believe a Hamas victory would perpetuate the blockade and the rift in Palestinian ranks.

(Reporting by Ali Sawafta; Writing by Douglas Hamilton in Jerusalem; Editing by Ralph Boulton)

Quote from: Berkut on March 23, 2009, 03:16:47 PM
Is it working though?

Does Hamas get more support? I thought they only had a 30%ish approval rating.

Your guess is as good as mine.  I have no idea if the Palestinians simply tolerate Hamas, hate Hamas, or support Hamas.  Frankly, I am not sure if anybody really has the pulse of Palestinian public opinion but I know I sure don't.  I think that if given the chance most Pals would flee Gaza and the West Bank for Europe, America, or somewhere else in the Arab world but simply are not allowed to leave but I could be wrong about that to.

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.

Incorrect.  A government's first priority is to protect its citizenry.

If allowing some settlers to die at the hands of the Palestinians would increase the survivability of the whole Israeli people, then that is what Israel's government should do.

The Israeli government "should"? Neil, are you Ryo?

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 03:01:37 PM
Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Real Americans, or assorted spics and addicts?

Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2009, 03:42:17 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 03:01:37 PM
Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Real Americans, or assorted spics and addicts?

Lets leave katmai and Fireblade out of this, m'kay?

Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2009, 03:30:20 PM
The Israeli government "should"? Neil, are you Ryo?

No, but I am the supreme moral arbiter, as well as the determinant of the natural law.

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 03:01:37 PM
Mexican drug lords are kidnapping American citizens and taking them back to Mexico for slavery.  You know that, right?

Yet, the US government is strong enough to resist calls for the invasion of Mexico and the killing of the drug cartels (at huge cost in civilian casualties) because the cost of acting is greater than the cost of not acting.

So, what I am asking is only unthinkable if one's thinking is not very robust.  It is unquestionably difficult (even though only about 2 israelis a year die from rocket attacks) and military action would be tough for a strong government to resist.  My point is that israel does not (and cannot have, under curent political realities) a strong government, and so we see the Israeli government forced to act contrary to Israeli national interests for purely domestic political considerations.  Very frustrating, as I said.

As analogies go, this one sucks.  :D

QuoteThat is, in fact, happening (not rocket attacks, but attacks across the border on civilians) right now.  Read the news.

No, it isn't.  :D When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 04:03:47 PM
As analogies go, this one sucks.  :D

Ah, the old "let's dismiss this because we cannot respond to it" ploy.  As ploys go, that one sucks.  :D

QuoteNo, it isn't.  :D When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Yes, it is.  Cross-border violence is cross-border violence.  US policy is best served by not responding militarily (as would Istaeli policy).  The difference is that the US government is strong enough to refrain, but the Istaeli government is not.

I would note that for all your  :D -equipped nitpicks, you have carefully avoided responding to my actual argument.  Your silence, of course, speaks volumes.

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 23, 2009, 06:03:28 AM
Every time the IDF attacks Hamas, they will destroy civilian lives and properties. And hence it will increase the popularity of Hamas at the population. That is what we have seen the last decades in the Middle-East, but also in other regions of the world.

Another solution to destroy Hamas could be "doing nothing". Let the economic blockade do its job, so the people at Gaza get tired from their Hamas-masters. That seemed to have worked with organisations like the IRA and ETA. People got tired from the swollen rethoric from those organisations and the economical problems of their resistance. They just want peace and prosperity.

However the problem of that tactics is, that Israel has to endure the stream of rockets, fired from Gaza. It is clear that they don't want that.

It took at lot more than that to shrink ETA. The alliance with France deprived them of a secure base of operations. Leadership has been wiped out countless times in the last quarter century.
Israel can't operate as freely as Spain and France do. They must settle for lobbing a missile at a car or a safehouse, instead of capturing terrorists alive, and obtaining valuable documents and hard drives.

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 05:56:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 04:03:47 PM
As analogies go, this one sucks.  :D

Ah, the old "let's dismiss this because we cannot respond to it" ploy.  As ploys go, that one sucks.  :D

QuoteNo, it isn't.  :D When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Yes, it is.  Cross-border violence is cross-border violence.  US policy is best served by not responding militarily (as would Istaeli policy).  The difference is that the US government is strong enough to refrain, but the Istaeli government is not.

I would note that for all your  :D -equipped nitpicks, you have carefully avoided responding to my actual argument.  Your silence, of course, speaks volumes.

I'll bet that if clear, credible evidence were to emerge that the Mexican government is backing the activities of the drug lords, there would be strong pressure on our government to respond militarily.  And a military responce would be the right thing to do if diplomatic efforts to get the Mexican government to change its policy didn't produce results rather quickly.

Quote from: Iormlund on March 23, 2009, 06:03:45 PMIt took at lot more than that to shrink ETA. The alliance with France deprived them of a secure base of operations. Leadership has been wiped out countless times in the last quarter century.
Israel can't operate as freely as Spain and France do. They must settle for lobbing a missile at a car or a safehouse, instead of capturing terrorists alive, and obtaining valuable documents and hard drives.

True. But the main reason was that people in Spain got (after Franco) peace and prosperity. So the ETA little by little lost the support of the people they thought to represent. They got less money from the population, so they had to blackmail people to get enough money. They got less hiding places. Their organisation got smaller and smaller, because not many young people supported their idea's. People informed the police better about the ETA. Political parties supporting the ETA lost more and more votes, etc.

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 04:03:47 PM
No, it isn't.  :D When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Drug cartels are the legitimate government of Northern Mexico. They collect taxes and have a monopoly of force.

Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2009, 03:28:04 PM

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.

Incorrect.  A government's first priority is to protect its citizenry.

If allowing some settlers to die at the hands of the Palestinians would increase the survivability of the whole Israeli people, then that is what Israel's government should do.

Besides, does the government even have an obligation to protect its citizens, even if they get themselves into a mess by doing something horribly silly? Apparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - people who should not be there in the first place, if you ask me. While some Israeli governments are complicit in these, as they allowed (or even encouraged) such an irresponsible behaviour, I do not see how they may have even a moral obligation to defend these people.

Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2009, 05:50:21 AM
Apparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - people who should not be there in the first place, if you ask me.

The Israelis didn't ask you, nor should they have.  Europe has no guidance to offer the Israelis, since anything they say is said with the underlying clause that really, everything would be a lot better if all those Jews just died.

Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2009, 05:50:21 AM

Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2009, 03:28:04 PM

Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
People are dying in this rocket attacks. You know that, right?
A govertment first priority is to protect its citizen.

Incorrect.  A government's first priority is to protect its citizenry.

If allowing some settlers to die at the hands of the Palestinians would increase the survivability of the whole Israeli people, then that is what Israel's government should do.

Besides, does the government even have an obligation to protect its citizens, even if they get themselves into a mess by doing something horribly silly? Apparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - people who should not be there in the first place, if you ask me. While some Israeli governments are complicit in these, as they allowed (or even encouraged) such an irresponsible behaviour, I do not see how they may have even a moral obligation to defend these people.

Actually, what is causing the outrage in Israel is random attacks via rockets on "Israel proper" (that is, non-settlements) from Gaza. The "settlements" are all in another part of the country, the West Bank.

There used to be settlements in Gaza, but Israel pulled them all out (by force), in order to enable the peace process. What they got was Hamas, firing rockets at them.

This has somewhat dampened Israeli enthusiasm for further pull-packs to "enable" the peace process. 

Quote from: Jos Theelen on March 24, 2009, 04:34:23 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on March 23, 2009, 06:03:45 PMIt took at lot more than that to shrink ETA. The alliance with France deprived them of a secure base of operations. Leadership has been wiped out countless times in the last quarter century.
Israel can't operate as freely as Spain and France do. They must settle for lobbing a missile at a car or a safehouse, instead of capturing terrorists alive, and obtaining valuable documents and hard drives.

True. But the main reason was that people in Spain got (after Franco) peace and prosperity. So the ETA little by little lost the support of the people they thought to represent. They got less money from the population, so they had to blackmail people to get enough money. They got less hiding places. Their organisation got smaller and smaller, because not many young people supported their idea's. People informed the police better about the ETA. Political parties supporting the ETA lost more and more votes, etc.

While the shift from dictatorship brought a number of changes in that vein, ETA's number of victims was highest under democracy, during the 80s.
The political wing of ETA has been banned for a while, so there's no way of telling how much support if any they've lost that way. But inferring from some data, ETA's core of supporters (around 100k) is as loyal as ever.
However, the organization has great trouble obtaining funds, training and operating "abroad", both because of international cooperation (in no small amount after 9-11 opened some eyes), infiltration by Spanish police and espionage agencies and the loss of their vets, who have long been imprisoned and thus cannot share their knowledge with the young recruits, leading to mediocre performance.

Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 05:56:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2009, 04:03:47 PM
As analogies go, this one sucks.  :D

Ah, the old "let's dismiss this because we cannot respond to it" ploy.  As ploys go, that one sucks.  :D

QuoteNo, it isn't.  :D When was the last time the Mexican government deliberately attacked US civilians?

Yes, it is.  Cross-border violence is cross-border violence.  US policy is best served by not responding militarily (as would Istaeli policy).  The difference is that the US government is strong enough to refrain, but the Istaeli government is not.

I would note that for all your  :D -equipped nitpicks, you have carefully avoided responding to my actual argument.  Your silence, of course, speaks volumes.

Your "actual argument" was based on a crapola analogy. Lawlessness does not equal state-sponsered terrorism, and saying it does doesn't make it so.

I don't disagree with the notion that responding with military force isn't always the best policy; I do disagree with your expressed theory that somehow the setup of the Israeli government makes it uniquely vulnerable to this - my point is that the US public wouldn't tolerate terrorist attacks for a minute without a violent government response, no matter what party was in charge with what majority. "The US government is strong enough to refrain"? You *must* be shitting me.  The minute a state so much as threatened an attack on a US city, the Marines would be sent - they were sent for a lot less than that in Iraq.

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2009, 08:01:12 AM
This has somewhat dampened Israeli enthusiasm for further pull-packs to "enable" the peace process. 

Yeah and that is what is so especially frustrating about the whole thing.  I especially love the outrage over the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza when nobody else is willing to, or in Egypt's case downright refuses to, come in and take control of Gaza's borders.  Force Israel to control Gaza's borders then hammer them over what they choose to do.  What a wonderous mess.

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2009, 08:11:22 AM
Your "actual argument" was based on a crapola analogy.

Actually, if you will calm down and read what I actually wrote, you will see that it was not.  My actual argument was based on an analysis of the Israeli political structure.  How long has it been since an Israeli party had a majority government?

QuoteLawlessness does not equal state-sponsered terrorism, and saying it does doesn't make it so. 

Since I used neither term, i have no idea to whom this blast is aimed.

QuoteI don't disagree with the notion that responding with military force isn't always the best policy; I do disagree with your expressed theory that somehow the setup of the Israeli government makes it uniquely vulnerable to this

I suppose part of the problem is that you are not reading what I am writing.  It is not my "expressed theory" that the Israeli government is "uniquely" vulnerable.

Quote- my point is that the US public wouldn't tolerate terrorist attacks for a minute without a violent government response, no matter what party was in charge with what majority. "The US government is strong enough to refrain"? You *must* be shitting me.  The minute a state so much as threatened an attack on a US city, the Marines would be sent - they were sent for a lot less than that in Iraq.

So your analogy to Israel's invasion of Gaza is the US invasion of Iraq?  :lol:  Man, never accuse anyone of bad analogies again, because you have no cred left!

You seem to be making a big deal about the "state" nature of Hamas in this case, but of course Israel has crossed borders to assault non-state actors (see Lebanon, several times) so this dog just won't hunt.  You also seem to feel that the US response towards Mexican incursions is less violent because the incursions are all by Mexican civilians.  This is untrue, as http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-border-patrol-report-mexican-government-incursions (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-border-patrol-report-mexican-government-incursions) Judicial watch notes.  In 2006, for instance (that's the first return i got from google), 17 of the 29 incidents reported were by armed Mexican government personnel.

Now, while I know you absolutely disagree with my argument, I will restate it for those who have been confused by your persistence in mis-stating it and creating bogus analogies:  Those who argue that peace in the middle east would be best served by having the Israelis exercise unilateral restraint in the face of violence (because Israel's national interests would be better served by tolerating a few tens of millions in damage and a death or two per year than by spending billions and suffering tens of casualties in an invasion) fail to understand that Israel's government is a minority government, no matter which party is in power, and thus is much less able than a strong government to withstand domestic pressures for action.

Sorry if you think this makes Israel look bad. I deal in truth, no matter where my sympathies lie.

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 09:46:35 AM
Actually, if you will calm down and read what I actually wrote, you will see that it was not.  My actual argument was based on an analysis of the Israeli political structure.  How long has it been since an Israeli party had a majority government?

True but irrelevant. I'm not disagreeing that the Israeli system differs from that of the US, only in the significance of that difference.

QuoteSince I used neither term, i have no idea to whom this blast is aimed.

True you used neither term. So?

QuoteI suppose part of the problem is that you are not reading what I am writing.  It is not my "expressed theory" that the Israeli government is "uniquely" vulnerable.

Sigh.

QuoteSo your analogy to Israel's invasion of Gaza is the US invasion of Iraq?  :lol:  Man, never accuse anyone of bad analogies again, because you have no cred left!

It wasn't an analogy - "a lot less than ...".

QuoteYou seem to be making a big deal about the "state" nature of Hamas in this case, but of course Israel has crossed borders to assault non-state actors (see Lebanon, several times) so this dog just won't hunt.  You also seem to feel that the US response towards Mexican incursions is less violent because the incursions are all by Mexican civilians.  This is untrue, as http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-border-patrol-report-mexican-government-incursions (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-border-patrol-report-mexican-government-incursions) Judicial watch notes.  In 2006, for instance (that's the first return i got from google), 17 of the 29 incidents reported were by armed Mexican government personnel.

Are you claiming that Mexico is engaged in state-sponsored terrorism against the US?

QuoteNow, while I know you absolutely disagree with my argument, I will restate it for those who have been confused by your persistence in mis-stating it and creating bogus analogies:  Those who argue that peace in the middle east would be best served by having the Israelis exercise unilateral restraint in the face of violence (because Israel's national interests would be better served by tolerating a few tens of millions in damage and a death or two per year than by spending billions and suffering tens of casualties in an invasion) fail to understand that Israel's government is a minority government, no matter which party is in power, and thus is much less able than a strong government to withstand domestic pressures for action.

Sorry if you think this makes Israel look bad. I deal in truth, no matter where my sympathies lie.

I am simply disagreeing with your conclusions that a "strong" government, by which you mean apparently the government of the US, would respond with restraint to state-sponsored terrorism against US citizens on US soil. I believe it would not do so, and I challenge you to find an example (a *real* one).

Whether this reflects well or badly on either the US or Israel is irrellevant. I simply believe it to be true.

No amount of you usual semantic quibbling, claiming your opponent is angry, grandstanding for some imaginary audience, brow-beating, claiming your opponent is partial and you are impartial,etc. is gonna distract me. Though it does make me nostalgic for the old Languish.   

Though you gotta admit, analogizing Mexican cross-border incursions for Hamas attacks - tisk tisk. That's one for the books.  :D

 

Quote from: martyApparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - .

All of Israel is occupied territory for the hamastards.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 24, 2009, 10:44:40 AM

Quote from: martyApparently, the majority of the Hamas targets are settlers in the occupied territories - .

All of Israel is occupied territory for the hamastards.

They would be correct.

The issue of "attrocities" in this conflict is not nearly as complex as it is made out to be.

The law is very simple. If you use civilians to shield yourself from military action, then the responsibility for their deaths is on you. End of story.

I wonder how many Israeli soldiers or civilians have died as a result of Israeli reluctance to use overwhelming force in an effort to reduce Palestinian civilians casualties?

Without judging whether that is good or bad, lets posit that the number is certainly greater than zero. I think we can all agree on that, right?

I wonder how many Palestinian civilians or fighters have been killed as a result of Hamas reluctance to cause excessive Israeli civilian casualties?

I think we can safely conclude that the number in this case is in fact zero, since the very goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israel civilians.

Odd then that the attention given to the issue is almost entirely one sided.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 10:52:16 AM
... the very goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israel civilians.

The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 10:55:16 AM
The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

:lol:  Their aim is shit.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2009, 10:57:50 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 10:55:16 AM
The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

:lol:  Their aim is shit.

I'm sure Hamas would be willing to use Tomahawks instead of sixty year old Katyusha technology if there were a seller. Were the Russians more accurate with their rocket fire in WW2?

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:00:21 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2009, 10:57:50 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 10:55:16 AM
The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

:lol:  Their aim is shit.

I'm sure Hamas would be willing to use Tomahawks instead of sixty year old Katyusha technology if there were a seller. Were the Russians more accurate with their rocket fire in WW2?

In that they shot it, for the most part, at actual military units rather than towns, yes they were.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 10:55:16 AM
The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

If they have so little ill will why do they hide among a civilian population while carrying out their attacks?  It seems like their actions are calculated to get Palestinian Civilians killed.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:02:19 AM
In that they shot it, for the most part, at actual military units rather than towns, yes they were.

Hamas is shooting at actual military units rather than towns.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:05:14 AM
Hamas is shooting at actual military units rather than towns.

That's an interesting claim and it would definitely change my perception of the rocket attacks if true.  What is your source?

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:05:14 AM
Hamas is shooting at actual military units rather than towns.

How can you possibly know that?  You hang out in Gaza and strategerize with Hamas higher-ups?  Because it sure seems like they were shooting rockets in the general direction of Sderot.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2009, 11:06:54 AM
That's an interesting claim and it would definitely change my perception of the rocket attacks if true.  What is your source?

Fate has insider info it seems.  What Hamas actually plans to do is a mystery to me but he has it all figured out.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:05:14 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:02:19 AM
In that they shot it, for the most part, at actual military units rather than towns, yes they were.

Hamas is shooting at actual military units rather than towns.

Evidence for this claim?

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 11:03:35 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 10:55:16 AM
The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

If they have so little ill will why do they hide among a civilian population while carrying out their attacks?

Gaza is one of the most densely settled areas in the world. Hamas has no choice but to fight the Israeli occupying force with civilians nearby.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:10:23 AM

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 11:03:35 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 10:55:16 AM
The goal of Hamas military activity is to kill Israeli military personnel who are unjustly occupying Palestinian territory. Hamas has no ill will towards the civilian population.

If they have so little ill will why do they hide among a civilian population while carrying out their attacks?

Gaza is one of the most densely settled areas in the world. Hamas has no choice but to fight the Israeli occupying force with civilians nearby.

That is simply untrue. It is not so densely settled that there are not plenty of areas that are not near civilians.

Hell, it is mostly just desert. Certainly the urban areas are incredibly crowded. But it is not just one giant city.

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 11:08:11 AM
Fate has insider info it seems.  What Hamas actually plans to do is a mystery to me but he has it all figured out.

I guess we'll never know for sure. :(

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Hell, it is mostly just desert.

:yeahright:

No, Gaza is not mostly desert. Where do you get these crazy ideas? Perhaps you shouldn't rely so heavily on Newsmax for your information on the Middle East.

Fate, when you get your explosive belt, make sure you give it a test run or two in an isolated area, before you do anything else.

Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2009, 11:30:58 AM
Fate, when you get your explosive belt, make sure you give it a test run or two in an isolated area, before you do anything else.

That would be unnecessary. Israel has already doomed itself to future Arab domination by refusing to implement a two state solution and electing a far right nut job.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:30:48 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Hell, it is mostly just desert.

:yeahright:

No, Gaza is not mostly desert. Where do you get these crazy ideas? Perhaps you shouldn't rely so heavily on Newsmax for your information on the Middle East.

Fate fails again.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdomino.un.org%2Funispal.nsf%2F361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959%2F95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df%2FBody%2F0.104%2521OpenElement%26amp%3BFieldElemFormat%3Djpg&hash=9317adb6e47db84cd30f0ab6c9a71fae175dd8d1)

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
True but irrelevant. I'm not disagreeing that the Israeli system differs from that of the US, only in the significance of that difference.

You say it is irrelevant, I say it is not.  I demonstrate where I think it is relevant, and you simply disagree with no supporting arguments.  Okay, but don't expect to convince anyone by simply saying "no."

QuoteTrue you used neither term. So?

I have no idea what this response is supposed to mean.  There are literally millions of terms in the English language which I have not used.  You cannot expect me to comment on them all!  :lol:

QuoteSigh.

:lol:  Don't like it when your strawmen burst into flames, eh?

QuoteIt wasn't an analogy - "a lot less than ...".

Well, then I have used no analogies in this thread, either.

QuoteAre you claiming that Mexico is engaged in state-sponsored terrorism against the US?

No.  Are you claiming that Hamas and Hezbollah are states?  They are no more states than the Mexican Army is.

QuoteI am simply disagreeing with your conclusions that a "strong" government, by which you mean apparently the government of the US, would respond with restraint to state-sponsored terrorism against US citizens on US soil. I believe it would not do so, and I challenge you to find an example (a *real* one).

Since that isn't my conclusion, I really don't care if you disagree with it.

QuoteNo amount of you usual semantic quibbling, claiming your opponent is angry, grandstanding for some imaginary audience, brow-beating, claiming your opponent is partial and you are impartial,etc. is gonna distract me. Though it does make me nostalgic for the old Languish.   

Ah, you once again try to drag the argument down to the "usual grumbler tactics" argument, when your intellectual arguments fail.  Well, as you know, I don't play those games.  Accuse me of whatever antics you wish, but I won't dignify the slurs with either a defense or a counter-attack.

QuoteThough you gotta admit, analogizing Mexican cross-border incursions for Hamas attacks - tisk tisk. That's one for the books.  :D

Not as classic as your analogizing the US invasion of Iraq with the Israeli invasion of Gaza!  :lol:  That one alone puts your picture in the dictionary to replace Marti's.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
That would be unnecessary. Israel has already doomed itself to future Arab domination by refusing to implement a two state solution and electing a far right nut job.

Yeah it is entirely Israel's fault a two state solution has not come about yet.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:36:54 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:30:48 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Hell, it is mostly just desert.

:yeahright:

No, Gaza is not mostly desert. Where do you get these crazy ideas? Perhaps you shouldn't rely so heavily on Newsmax for your information on the Middle East.

Fate fails again.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdomino.un.org%2Funispal.nsf%2F361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959%2F95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df%2FBody%2F0.104%2521OpenElement%26amp%3BFieldElemFormat%3Djpg&hash=9317adb6e47db84cd30f0ab6c9a71fae175dd8d1)

No, you may not have my point. Gaza is densely populated and not "mostly desert."

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 11:47:45 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
That would be unnecessary. Israel has already doomed itself to future Arab domination by refusing to implement a two state solution and electing a far right nut job.

Yeah it is entirely Israel's fault a two state solution has not come about yet.

Indeed. Palestinians cannot be expected to negotiate with an Israeli government that contains dangerous racists such as Lieberman who want to remove Arabs from Israel.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
That would be unnecessary. Israel has already doomed itself to future Arab domination by refusing to implement a two state solution and electing a far right nut job.

You know, the credibility of this statement is every bit as high as the credibility of your assertion that Hamas rocket attacks are not aimed at Israeli civilians.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:47:58 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:36:54 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:30:48 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Hell, it is mostly just desert.

:yeahright:

No, Gaza is not mostly desert. Where do you get these crazy ideas? Perhaps you shouldn't rely so heavily on Newsmax for your information on the Middle East.

Fate fails again.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdomino.un.org%2Funispal.nsf%2F361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959%2F95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df%2FBody%2F0.104%2521OpenElement%26amp%3BFieldElemFormat%3Djpg&hash=9317adb6e47db84cd30f0ab6c9a71fae175dd8d1)

No, you may not have my point. Gaza is densely populated and not "mostly desert."

No, your point that there is nowhere in Gaza for Hamas to shoot rockets from that isn't near civilians is rather obviously false.

Like all human occupied areas, Gaza is not uniformly densely populated, and has plenty of empty areas that someone could, if they desired, launch some rockets from so as to protect their own civilians while trying to kill enemy civilians.

You fail. Again.

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 11:52:58 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
That would be unnecessary. Israel has already doomed itself to future Arab domination by refusing to implement a two state solution and electing a far right nut job.

You know, the credibility of this statement is every bit as high as the credibility of your assertion that Hamas rocket attacks are not aimed at Israeli civilians.

Indeed, which is as credible as his claim that Hamas cannot find anywhere to launch rockets from that is not near civilians.

His credibility is extremely consistent.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:50:08 AM
Indeed. Palestinians cannot be expected to negotiate with an Israeli government that contains dangerous racists such as Lieberman who want to remove Arabs from Israel.

Palestine has been unable to negotiate with anybody, left or right or racist or not.  That is not entirely their fault but it is not entirely Israel's either.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:54:40 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:47:58 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:36:54 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:30:48 AM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Hell, it is mostly just desert.

:yeahright:

No, Gaza is not mostly desert. Where do you get these crazy ideas? Perhaps you shouldn't rely so heavily on Newsmax for your information on the Middle East.

Fate fails again.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdomino.un.org%2Funispal.nsf%2F361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959%2F95caaf8cb4436686852575360063f3df%2FBody%2F0.104%2521OpenElement%26amp%3BFieldElemFormat%3Djpg&hash=9317adb6e47db84cd30f0ab6c9a71fae175dd8d1)

No, you may not have my point. Gaza is densely populated and not "mostly desert."

No, your point that there is nowhere in Gaza for Hamas to shoot rockets from that isn't near civilians is rather obviously false.

Like all human occupied areas, Gaza is not uniformly densely populated, and has plenty of empty areas that someone could, if they desired, launch some rockets from so as to protect their own civilians while trying to kill enemy civilians.

You fail. Again.

Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 11:52:58 AM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
That would be unnecessary. Israel has already doomed itself to future Arab domination by refusing to implement a two state solution and electing a far right nut job.

You know, the credibility of this statement is every bit as high as the credibility of your assertion that Hamas rocket attacks are not aimed at Israeli civilians.

Given that both statements are completely factual, of course the credibility is consistently high. Stick to analogizing the situation in Israel to a Mexican narco-state. You're way out of your league here.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:04:27 PM
Given that both statements are completely factual, of course the credibility is consistently high. Stick to analogizing the situation in Israel to a Mexican narco-state. You're way out of your league here.

I thought you were running and hiding on this one, but if not, please let the rest of us know how you aquired the information that Hamas aims it rockets only at military targets. 

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:54:40 AM

No, your point that there is nowhere in Gaza for Hamas to shoot rockets from that isn't near civilians is rather obviously false.

Like all human occupied areas, Gaza is not uniformly densely populated, and has plenty of empty areas that someone could, if they desired, launch some rockets from so as to protect their own civilians while trying to kill enemy civilians.

You fail. Again.

I have no doubt that Hamas intentionally fires from densely occupied areas, but even the least dense parts of Gaza have a density roughly equal to Los Angeles (2900/km^2).

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:00:54 PM
Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

They are the government in those areas, is the area really so dense that if they wanted to make an area off limits to civilians they couldn't do so?

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 11:10:23 AM

Gaza is one of the most densely settled areas in the world. Hamas has no choice but to fight the Israeli occupying force with civilians nearby.

Here's an idea.  They could not fight.  In fact Israel is only in Gaza because Hamas is there.  I suspect that the cause of Palestine would be far better served by more peaceful efforts.  Sometimes your cause is furthered by violence and sometimes by non-violence.  I'm willing to bet if the Palestinians engaged in peaceful protests rather then bombing campaigns they would get far more sympathy from the Israelis and would likely get rather generous concessions.  In fact it sounds silly, and won't happen but I think it would be very effective.  I may be off but I'm going to bet that most Israelis really aren't sadists and want the Palestinians to suffer.  They'd rather have a friendly neighbor who they can work with and help become affluent then a poverty stricken enemy who besieges them.


I might be way off here.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2009, 12:12:10 PM
Here's an idea.  They could not fight.  In fact Israel is only in Gaza because Hamas is there.  I suspect that the cause of Palestine would be far better served by more peaceful efforts.  Sometimes your cause is furthered by violence and sometimes by non-violence.  I'm willing to bet if the Palestinians engaged in peaceful protests rather then bombing campaigns they would get far more sympathy from the Israelis and would likely get rather generous concessions.  In fact it sounds silly, and won't happen but I think it would be very effective.  I may be off but I'm going to bet that most Israelis really aren't sadists and want the Palestinians to suffer.  They'd rather have a friendly neighbor who they can work with and help become affluent then a poverty stricken enemy who besieges them.


I might be way off here.

Well you see that is a plan that would actually work and thus the Palestinians are contractually obligated not to do it.  Only counter-productive strategies are demanded in this situation.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 12:10:21 PM
I have no doubt that Hamas intentionally fires from densely occupied areas, but even the least dense parts of Gaza have a density roughly equal to Los Angeles (2900/km^2).

And there are many places in LA where you could fire rockets without risking civilian lives in the retaliatory strikes.

Pay no attention to grumbler. The man thinks that if you want to have sex with a woman you want to rape her. True story.

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 11:47:05 AM

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2009, 10:01:46 AM
True but irrelevant. I'm not disagreeing that the Israeli system differs from that of the US, only in the significance of that difference.

You say it is irrelevant, I say it is not.  I demonstrate where I think it is relevant, and you simply disagree with no supporting arguments.  Okay, but don't expect to convince anyone by simply saying "no."

QuoteTrue you used neither term. So?

I have no idea what this response is supposed to mean.  There are literally millions of terms in the English language which I have not used.  You cannot expect me to comment on them all!  :lol:

QuoteSigh.

:lol:  Don't like it when your strawmen burst into flames, eh?

QuoteIt wasn't an analogy - "a lot less than ...".

Well, then I have used no analogies in this thread, either.

QuoteAre you claiming that Mexico is engaged in state-sponsored terrorism against the US?

No.  Are you claiming that Hamas and Hezbollah are states?  They are no more states than the Mexican Army is.

QuoteI am simply disagreeing with your conclusions that a "strong" government, by which you mean apparently the government of the US, would respond with restraint to state-sponsored terrorism against US citizens on US soil. I believe it would not do so, and I challenge you to find an example (a *real* one).

Since that isn't my conclusion, I really don't care if you disagree with it.

QuoteNo amount of you usual semantic quibbling, claiming your opponent is angry, grandstanding for some imaginary audience, brow-beating, claiming your opponent is partial and you are impartial,etc. is gonna distract me. Though it does make me nostalgic for the old Languish.   

Ah, you once again try to drag the argument down to the "usual grumbler tactics" argument, when your intellectual arguments fail.  Well, as you know, I don't play those games.  Accuse me of whatever antics you wish, but I won't dignify the slurs with either a defense or a counter-attack.

QuoteThough you gotta admit, analogizing Mexican cross-border incursions for Hamas attacks - tisk tisk. That's one for the books.  :D

Not as classic as your analogizing the US invasion of Iraq with the Israeli invasion of Gaza!  :lol:  That one alone puts your picture in the dictionary to replace Marti's.

You can be fun to argue with, when you haven't gone into attack-bot mode.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:04:27 PM
Given that both statements are completely factual, of course the credibility is consistently high.

Bob, is that you?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbigpicture.typepad.com%2Fcomments%2Fimages%2F2007%2F07%2F26%2Fbagdad_bob_large.gif&hash=d01887a5d4f3ee8c638a499e19e6f160dfa7a616)

Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2009, 12:26:42 PM
You can be fun to argue with, when you haven't gone into attack-bot mode.

Sorry.  That "no amount of you usual semantic quibbling, claiming your opponent is angry, grandstanding for some imaginary audience, brow-beating, claiming your opponent is partial and you are impartial,etc. is gonna distract me" line was a bit over-the-top-attack-dog of me, wasn't it?

Debate suspended by mutual agreement.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2009, 12:07:41 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:04:27 PM
Given that both statements are completely factual, of course the credibility is consistently high. Stick to analogizing the situation in Israel to a Mexican narco-state. You're way out of your league here.

I thought you were running and hiding on this one, but if not, please let the rest of us know how you aquired the information that Hamas aims it rockets only at military targets.

The MSM certainly won't report it, but Hamas regularly makes statements on the targets of their mortar and missile strikes.

http://www.alqassam.ps/english/?action=statements

Example:

Quote
E.Q.B. fired five mortars at special forces east of Khanyounis

Al-Qassam Brigades is declaring its responsibility for the following operations as a response to Zionist aggression on the Palestinian civilians:



Day: Sunday   Date: March 22nd, 2009.



Ø     Time: 09:50 Ø Al Qassam Brigades announced that it fired five mortars at Zionist special forces east of Khanyounis city south of Gaza.



These operations are part of the repelling operations against the occupation assaults on Gaza Strip and West Bank, and as a response for the ongoing aggression against Palestinian people.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 12:10:21 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 11:54:40 AM

No, your point that there is nowhere in Gaza for Hamas to shoot rockets from that isn't near civilians is rather obviously false.

Like all human occupied areas, Gaza is not uniformly densely populated, and has plenty of empty areas that someone could, if they desired, launch some rockets from so as to protect their own civilians while trying to kill enemy civilians.

You fail. Again.

I have no doubt that Hamas intentionally fires from densely occupied areas, but even the least dense parts of Gaza have a density roughly equal to Los Angeles (2900/km^2).

Have you ever been to Los Angeles?

Do you really think you could not find somewhere to launch a rocket from in LA that isn't near a school or other place where there are a bunch of civilians within just a few dozen meters?

Of course there is. The idea that all of Gaza looks like downtown Manhattan is completely false.

A *really* densely populated area (like a major city in the urban zone) is an order of magnitude or more in density. For example, the built up area of urban Hong Kong has over 100,000/mile^2.

The built up portions of LA are all well over 10k/mile^2. I bet your example of density is for Los Angeles county as a whole - and there are going to be parts of that where you probably cannot even see another person.

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 12:19:22 PM
And there are many places in LA where you could fire rockets without risking civilian lives in the retaliatory strikes.

Except LA is >10 times the area of the least dense area of Gaza, meaning it's easier to have greater/lesser concentrations of population.  The swaths of population density on the given map don't give the detail necessary to tell if it is concentrated on the coast, inland or spread more uniformly.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:00:54 PM

Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

So high that there is nowhere to go and fire a rocket without endangering anyone?

Fail. Again.

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

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:30:46 PM
I bet your example of density is for Los Angeles county as a whole - and there are going to be parts of that where you probably cannot even see another person.

No one that will be missed, at least.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:30:46 PM
The built up portions of LA are all well over 10k/mile^2. I bet your example of density is for Los Angeles county as a whole - and there are going to be parts of that where you probably cannot even see another person.

It's for the city proper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population

Take a look at the Gaza strip using google earth guys; there are clearly built-up areas but also relatively empty areas with fields and olive groves.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 12:33:20 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:30:46 PM
The built up portions of LA are all well over 10k/mile^2. I bet your example of density is for Los Angeles county as a whole - and there are going to be parts of that where you probably cannot even see another person.

It's for the city proper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population

Exactly. And the city proper of LA is over 1200 square miles - it is huge.

The urban portions are going to be over 10l/mile^2. THAT is the densely populated parts where you could argue that you cannot go anywhere and butcher enemy civlians without endagering civilians.

The non-urban areas are going to be an order of magnitude less dense.

I would bet that the distribution is even more exterme in Gaza, and in fact more than 50% ofthe population of Gaza lives in the "urban" parts of the territory.

So, like I said - the urban parts are incredibly dense, the other parts, not so dense. Plenty of space to go shoot rockets without endangering too many of your own civlians. If you wanted to. Which they don't.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:31:54 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:00:54 PM

Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

So high that there is nowhere to go and fire a rocket without endangering anyone?

Yes, Israeli responds with disproportionate force. There is no where in Gaza to fire a rocket without endangering any Palestinians.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 24, 2009, 12:37:11 PM
Take a look at the Gaza strip using google earth guys; there are clearly built-up areas but also relatively empty areas with fields and olive groves.

you cannot expect them to risk the olive groves!

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:37:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:31:54 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:00:54 PM

Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

So high that there is nowhere to go and fire a rocket without endangering anyone?

Yes, Israeli responds with disproportionate force. There is no where in Gaza to fire a rocket without endangering any Palestinians.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=gaza&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.27475,56.953125&ie=UTF8&ll=31.44071,34.435208&spn=0.012248,0.013905&t=h&z=16

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:37:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:31:54 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:00:54 PM

Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

So high that there is nowhere to go and fire a rocket without endangering anyone?

Yes, Israeli responds with disproportionate force. There is no where in Gaza to fire a rocket without endangering any Palestinians.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=gaza&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.27475,56.953125&ie=UTF8&ll=31.44071,34.435208&spn=0.012248,0.013905&t=h&z=16

That region is within the Israeli security buffer. Google maps don't reflect real lines of control. You fail, again.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:37:31 PM
There is no where in Gaza to fire a rocket without endangering any Palestinians.

You are wrong.  No doubt to everyone's great surprise

People, google maps is your friend.

Try looking in the south between Rafah and Han Yunes.  There is a huge area where there is just dirt.  No settlement.

There are similar low settlement areas to be found between Washsh and Nuseirat, and between Kuba and Bureij on the Palestinian side of the Armistice line.  There is also a relatively empty area to the far northeast on the Palestinian side of the Armistice Line.

Here endeth the lesson.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 24, 2009, 12:37:11 PM
Take a look at the Gaza strip using google earth guys; there are clearly built-up areas but also relatively empty areas with fields and olive groves.

Actually, if you look at google maps, the built up areas are msotly along the coast- away from Israel. The better places to launch short ranged rocket attacks seems to be from what looks like most farmland.

This is some epic fail in posting - it actually looks like Hamas probably has to WORK to find good launch site that are close to civilians!

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:42:36 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:37:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:31:54 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:00:54 PM

Stick to playing WoW, son. You aren't ready to step out into the real world. A population density of 2,738/km^2 is considered high.  :mellow:

So high that there is nowhere to go and fire a rocket without endangering anyone?

Yes, Israeli responds with disproportionate force. There is no where in Gaza to fire a rocket without endangering any Palestinians.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=gaza&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.27475,56.953125&ie=UTF8&ll=31.44071,34.435208&spn=0.012248,0.013905&t=h&z=16

That region is within the Israeli security buffer. Google maps don't reflect real lines of control. You fail, again.

Ah, so I guess then you cannot find any regions not in the buffer zone that are not built up, right?

And of course you looked, right? Because you would never just pull shit like that right out of your ass? Right?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 12:43:07 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:37:31 PM
There is no where in Gaza to fire a rocket without endangering any Palestinians.

You are wrong.  No doubt to everyone's great surprise

People, google maps is your friend.

Try looking in the south between Rafah and Han Yunes.  There is a huge area where there is just dirt.  No settlement.

There are similar low settlement areas to be found between Washsh and Nuseirat, and between Kuba and Bureij on the Palestinian side of the Armistice line.  There is also a relatively empty area to the far northeast on the Palestinian side of the Armistice Line.

Here endeth the lesson.

You do need a lesson. Rockets are fired from those areas all of the time. Israel responds by bombing civilian infrastructure in urbanized areas with F-16s. Clearly there is no where to fire a rocket at military targets in Israel without endangering Palestinian civilians.

Considering Fate's obvious insider and intimate knowledge of Hamas I have to say you must be mistaken Berkut.

All I need to know about Hamas is when the US promised them everything in exchange for nothing, merely the symbolic gesture of saying Israel had the right to exist, they could not even do that.  I do not really see what good people who will not even negotiate on those terms can do and I have no reason to believe they are honest brokers trying to do the right thing by the Palestinian people.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:44:31 PM

This is some epic fail in posting - it actually looks like Hamas probably has to WORK to find good launch site that are close to civilians!

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.

I really think this is a non-issue. It is very satisfying to be able to say that about a Israel/Palestine argument  :cool:

There are clearly areas where Hamas could launch it's rockets from that are more or less free of civilians. Of course that would be pointless as the Israeli airforce would blast them into non-existence 10 minutes later, the civilian shield and poignant civilian casualties are an essential part of their MO.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
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.

This post makes no sense, Berkut was talking about the launch sites not the targets.  Besides, you have no evidence at all that supports the assertion that Hamas only fires at military targets. 

Porkbutt doesn't strike me as a very valuable organization.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:30:07 PM
The MSM certainly won't report it, but Hamas regularly makes statements on the targets of their mortar and missile strikes.

http://www.alqassam.ps/english/?action=statements

Example:

Quote
E.Q.B. fired five mortars at special forces east of Khanyounis

Al-Qassam Brigades is declaring its responsibility for the following operations as a response to Zionist aggression on the Palestinian civilians:



Day: Sunday   Date: March 22nd, 2009.



Ø     Time: 09:50 Ø Al Qassam Brigades announced that it fired five mortars at Zionist special forces east of Khanyounis city south of Gaza.



These operations are part of the repelling operations against the occupation assaults on Gaza Strip and West Bank, and as a response for the ongoing aggression against Palestinian people.

Here's another good example. :lol:   
 

QuoteMilitary communiqué



Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades - the military wing of Hamas



Al Qassam Brigades fired eight rockets at Sderot settlement


After recent events that have occurred on the territory of the Gaza Strip, after the Zionist treacherous aggression on our people, we are clarifying some facts to reach clear message to all parties, and the Zionist enemy to read between the lines ...



Al Qassam Brigades executed the following mission:



Day: Friday.

Time: Between 8:50 to 09:10.

Operation: Shelling Sderot settlement by eight Qassam rockets.

Result: Number of settlers were wounded.



We are warning the Zionist entity to continue its aggression against the Palestinian people, our response will be doubled. The calm will not prevent us to respond at the Zionist crimes in Gaza strip and West Bank.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 24, 2009, 12:48:31 PM
I really think this is a non-issue. It is very satisfying to be able to say that about a Israel/Palestine argument  :cool:

There are clearly areas where Hamas could launch it's rockets from that are more or less free of civilians. Of course that would be pointless as the Israeli airforce would blast them into non-existence 10 minutes later, the civilian shield and poignant civilian casualties are an essential part of their MO.

Indeed. I don't even think targeting Israelis civilians is nearly as important as getting their own targeted in return.

There are areas of light settlement both near the coast, and near the armistice line, north and south.  There are several viable options for sites nowhere near any buffer zone.  The buffer zones are less less than 300 meters in depth.

I would say Fate failed but that would require that he actually make an effort to succeed.

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 12:47:01 PM
Considering Fate's obvious insider and intimate knowledge of Hamas I have to say you must be mistaken Berkut.

I've provided plenty of evidence of Hamas' intention of targeting military targets. Although, the FBI probably puts you on a watch list for clicking on that link.  :lol:

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:51:17 PM

Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 12:47:01 PM
Considering Fate's obvious insider and intimate knowledge of Hamas I have to say you must be mistaken Berkut.

I've provided plenty of evidence of Hamas' intention of targeting military targets. Although, the FBI probably puts you on a watch list for clicking on that link.  :lol:

More epic fail.

Your claim was not that they targeted military targets, it was that they did not target civilians, which would mean they ONLY target military targets.

Of course this is trivial to disprove by simply providing a single example of a non-military target, as has been done.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2009, 12:49:55 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:30:07 PM
The MSM certainly won't report it, but Hamas regularly makes statements on the targets of their mortar and missile strikes.

http://www.alqassam.ps/english/?action=statements

Example:

Quote
E.Q.B. fired five mortars at special forces east of Khanyounis

Al-Qassam Brigades is declaring its responsibility for the following operations as a response to Zionist aggression on the Palestinian civilians:



Day: Sunday   Date: March 22nd, 2009.



Ø     Time: 09:50 Ø Al Qassam Brigades announced that it fired five mortars at Zionist special forces east of Khanyounis city south of Gaza.



These operations are part of the repelling operations against the occupation assaults on Gaza Strip and West Bank, and as a response for the ongoing aggression against Palestinian people.

Here's another good example. :lol:   
 

QuoteMilitary communiqué



Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades - the military wing of Hamas



Al Qassam Brigades fired eight rockets at Sderot settlement


After recent events that have occurred on the territory of the Gaza Strip, after the Zionist treacherous aggression on our people, we are clarifying some facts to reach clear message to all parties, and the Zionist enemy to read between the lines ...



Al Qassam Brigades executed the following mission:



Day: Friday.

Time: Between 8:50 to 09:10.

Operation: Shelling Sderot settlement by eight Qassam rockets.

Result: Number of settlers were wounded.



We are warning the Zionist entity to continue its aggression against the Palestinian people, our response will be doubled. The calm will not prevent us to respond at the Zionist crimes in Gaza strip and West Bank.

Sure that's an example, but it's hardly representative. The vast majority of the targets are specifically against the Israeli military.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 12:31:11 PM
Except LA is >10 times the area of the least dense area of Gaza, meaning it's easier to have greater/lesser concentrations of population.  The swaths of population density on the given map don't give the detail necessary to tell if it is concentrated on the coast, inland or spread more uniformly.

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.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:53:50 PM
Sure that's an example, but it's hardly representative. The vast majority of the targets are specifically against the Israeli military.

Fuck one sheep. :(

Quote from: The Brain on March 24, 2009, 12:20:12 PM
Pay no attention to grumbler. The man thinks that if you want to have sex with a woman you want to rape her. True story.

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

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:53:50 PM
Sure that's an example, but it's hardly representative.

Neither is the time frame covered by the communiques in your link.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 12:31:54 PM
I can see we are shifting to the ad hom portion of the debate.

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

Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2009, 12:57:17 PM
Well, wasn't he on active duty during Tailhook?

Not in Naval Aviation, alas.  :(

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 01:00:23 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
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?

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 01:05:01 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 01:00:23 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
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

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 01:03:53 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2009, 12:57:17 PM
Well, wasn't he on active duty during Tailhook?

Not in Naval Aviation, alas.  :(

:console:

I had to google Tailhook. :blush:

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 12:54:19 PM
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.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 01:13:59 PM
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.  :lmfao:

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 01:03:53 PM

Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2009, 12:57:17 PM
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.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 01:16:09 PM
Berkut's argument was that Gaza was "mostly a desert." It's no surprise he's completely wrong.  :lmfao:

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 01:24:58 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 01:16:09 PM
Berkut's argument was that Gaza was "mostly a desert." It's no surprise he's completely wrong.  :lmfao:

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."

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 01:13:59 PM

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 12:54:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 01:16:09 PM

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 01:13:59 PM
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.  :lmfao:

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.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 01:13:59 PM
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!  :lol:

Whatever. :P  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.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 01:54:52 PM

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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: frunk on March 24, 2009, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 01:54:52 PM

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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 01:24:58 PM

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.   

Psst. Guys.

My point doesn't really have much to do with how much rainfall Gaza gets.

Quote from: Queequeg on March 24, 2009, 02:21:57 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 01:24:58 PM

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.

Israeli has a very varied climate.  Parts get quite a bit of rainfall.  Parts of very dry, and are considered to be desert - for example, the Negev desert, near Gaza . . .

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 02:31:29 PM
Psst. Guys.

My point doesn't really have much to do with how much rainfall Gaza gets.

don't mess with the counter-troll.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 02:31:29 PM
Psst. Guys.

My point doesn't really have much to do with how much rainfall Gaza gets.

No, your point was that Gaza is mostly desert, which is clearly false. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 02:19:40 PM
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.

I thought his point was that the density map did little to prove or disprove the point you were making, as it noted the uniform density of the region and didn't show the clustering of population centers in that region.  Basically he was just picking at the supporting image used.

Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2009, 02:50:53 PM
I thought his point was that the density map did little to prove or disprove the point you were making, as it noted the uniform density of the region and didn't show the clustering of population centers in that region.  Basically he was just picking at the supporting image used.

Actually, I think it showed the opposite - that there were regions of higher and lower density.  It wasn't granular enough to show actual empty areas, but it definitely disproved any "uniformly densely populated" claims.

:bleeding: The next Board Cleansing cannot come quickly enough.

Quote from: The Brain on March 24, 2009, 03:43:21 PM
:bleeding: The next Board Cleansing cannot come quickly enough.

I cleansed a board last night, but only because I had been cutting chicken on it.

Quote from: fahdiz on March 24, 2009, 03:49:29 PM

Quote from: The Brain on March 24, 2009, 03:43:21 PM
:bleeding: The next Board Cleansing cannot come quickly enough.

I cleansed a board last night, but only because I had been cutting chicken on it.

How did you cook the chicken?

Quote from: The Brain on March 24, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
How did you cook the chicken?

On a grill.

Fate is has been taking tips from Strix.

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 02:42:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 02:31:29 PM
Psst. Guys.

My point doesn't really have much to do with how much rainfall Gaza gets.

No, your point was that Gaza is mostly desert, which is clearly false. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

As far as population goes, Gaza is deserted.
There aren't any human beings in there.

Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2009, 06:52:23 PM

Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2009, 02:42:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2009, 02:31:29 PM
Psst. Guys.

My point doesn't really have much to do with how much rainfall Gaza gets.

No, your point was that Gaza is mostly desert, which is clearly false. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

As far as population goes, Gaza is deserted.
There aren't any human beings in there.

Its one of the most densely populated areas on earth. 

Quote from: Queequeg on March 24, 2009, 06:55:42 PM

Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2009, 06:52:23 PM
As far as population goes, Gaza is deserted.
There aren't any human beings in there.

Its one of the most densely populated areas on earth.

:whoosh:

Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2009, 03:40:24 PM
Actually, I think it showed the opposite - that there were regions of higher and lower density.  It wasn't granular enough to show actual empty areas, but it definitely disproved any "uniformly densely populated" claims.

The region = Gaza. I suppose that the map did show that there are two different density areas in Gaza.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960824.stm

Now, the source is suspect, given the rabid antisemitism of Sri Lanka, but this is getting ridiculous.

Quote from: Faeelin on March 25, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960824.stm

Now, the source is suspect, given the rabid antisemitism of Sri Lanka, but this is getting ridiculous.

That's a bombshell.  And the Israeli response is pathetic.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2009, 03:27:31 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on March 25, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960824.stm

Now, the source is suspect, given the rabid antisemitism of Sri Lanka, but this is getting ridiculous.

That's a bombshell.  And the Israeli response is pathetic.

Hardly a "bombshell". Similar allegations have been made for years.

QuoteAmnesty International[3] and Human Rights Watch[4] assert the Israel Defense Forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the 2002 Battle of Jenin. The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem reported that "for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives".[5][6] The practice was outlawed by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2005 but human rights groups insist the IDF continues to use it, although they acknowledge the number of instances has dropped sharply.[5][7]In February 2007, Associated Press Television News released footage of an incident involving Sameh Amira, a 24-year-old Palestinian. The video appears to show the West Bank resident serving as a human shield for a group of Israeli soldiers.[7][8] The video can be seen on the AP website. The Israeli Army launched a criminal investigation into the incident.[7] In April 2007, the Israeli army suspended a commander after the unit he was leading was accused of using Palestinians as human shields in a West Bank raid.[9]

... and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields

This is just the small change of allegations in the region. Both sides regularly accuse the other of doing it, the difference being that, at least in Israel, the practice is illegal and those actually caught doing it do in fact face discipline.

Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2009, 03:51:52 PM
This is just the small change of allegations in the region. Both sides regularly accuse the other of doing it, the difference being that, at least in Israel, the practice is illegal and those actually caught doing it do in fact face discipline.

The way the BBC is reporting the story, the UN chick is not passing on a third party allegation, she is reporting it as fact.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2009, 03:55:04 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2009, 03:51:52 PM
This is just the small change of allegations in the region. Both sides regularly accuse the other of doing it, the difference being that, at least in Israel, the practice is illegal and those actually caught doing it do in fact face discipline.

The way the BBC is reporting the story, the UN chick is not passing on a third party allegation, she is reporting it as fact.

Still not a "bombshell". It has obviously actually occurred in the past many times - people have been dismissed from the service for doing it, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled it illegal, etc. All tend to indicate Israelis have in fact done it before (but that it is not approved).

The "allegation" aspect is not that such things occur, as they obviously do now and then, but that those in charge basically wink at it.

The "tactic" aspect, which ought I think to be familiar by now to Americans, is to take something that some troops do under fire (but which is not in fact approved) and claim that this is what the generals and politicians actually want the troops to do - to which the usual response is a denial of intent.

Fair enough.  I was unaware similar things had happened in the past.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2009, 03:55:04 PM
[The way the BBC is reporting the story, the UN chick is not passing on a third party allegation, she is reporting it as fact.

I think she is reporting it as a "finding."  More than a report, less than a fact.

Weak.

Quote from: Siege on March 27, 2009, 02:50:08 PM
Weak.

Yes, Israel has shown itself to be quite the paper tiger.  ^_^