On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
The problem with that is that Israel doesn't just have to defend itself from Hamas.
Pretty much every country in the region want to see them destroyed, and their population are for the most part supportive of that position.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
On November 19 2012 01:36 Noam wrote: Can't we all just ignore the OP? It is useless and has not been updated at all except for adding a retarded poll about supporting "Palestine" when this is Hamas..
Let's go back to talking about what matters: Hamas still looking for a victory shot and refusing to make progress in the cease fire negotiations. As of today the Iron Dome has intercepted 302 missiles and rockets. Iron Dome only targets projectiles with a confirmed trajectory of hitting a populated area.
What would this conflict look like if 302 more rockets hit our citizens? How many Israelis would be dead? How many innocent Palestinians would die as a result?
Statistically you can answer your question by looking at times when the dome was not yet in effect. If you look at the number of persons killed by rockets from Gaza the ratio is something like 1:200 right? Every death is too much but we should keep the tone of discussion at a sensible level.
You did not fully read his post, Hamas fired many many more rockets, but the Iron Dome only intercepted those which are going to hit cities and towns or near them, only rockets which might endanger life are destroyed by the system, but there is a large number of missiles that hit open spaces.
If the Iron Dome did not exist now there would be a LOT more deaths.
sadly for some people, the lack of israeli deaths in israel is somehow an indictment of israel. considering israel spends much time and resources on iron dome, bomb shelters, warning sirens, etc... to defend themselves does not enter their thought process.
Guess who cannot built shelters (military OR public) because there is a blockade stopping building material and guess who does not get their high defense system sponsored by the US (50k per defense rocket was it?).
Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. Between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries, as well as widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.
This was before the iron dome. Now it's difficult to assess how many of those 8600 rockets (and mortars, which cannot be intercepted, right?) came close to settlements but some conservative guessing should give you a hint...
[EDIT]: Both Iron Dome and the rockets themselves are mostly psychological weapons.
On the other hand they are firing better rockets, and had the IDF not wiped out their stores of fajar-5 this would be very different. Also they cause alot more damage. Now, if you can please explain to me kind sir, how in gods name is the iron dome a psychological weapon????
On November 19 2012 01:36 Noam wrote: Can't we all just ignore the OP? It is useless and has not been updated at all except for adding a retarded poll about supporting "Palestine" when this is Hamas..
Let's go back to talking about what matters: Hamas still looking for a victory shot and refusing to make progress in the cease fire negotiations. As of today the Iron Dome has intercepted 302 missiles and rockets. Iron Dome only targets projectiles with a confirmed trajectory of hitting a populated area.
What would this conflict look like if 302 more rockets hit our citizens? How many Israelis would be dead? How many innocent Palestinians would die as a result?
Statistically you can answer your question by looking at times when the dome was not yet in effect. If you look at the number of persons killed by rockets from Gaza the ratio is something like 1:200 right? Every death is too much but we should keep the tone of discussion at a sensible level.
You did not fully read his post, Hamas fired many many more rockets, but the Iron Dome only intercepted those which are going to hit cities and towns or near them, only rockets which might endanger life are destroyed by the system, but there is a large number of missiles that hit open spaces.
If the Iron Dome did not exist now there would be a LOT more deaths.
sadly for some people, the lack of israeli deaths in israel is somehow an indictment of israel. considering israel spends much time and resources on iron dome, bomb shelters, warning sirens, etc... to defend themselves does not enter their thought process.
Guess who cannot built shelters (military OR public) because there is a blockade stopping building material and guess who does not get their high defense system sponsored by the US (50k per defense rocket was it?).
Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. Between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries, as well as widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.
This was before the iron dome. Now it's difficult to assess how many of those 8600 rockets (and mortars, which cannot be intercepted, right?) came close to settlements but some conservative guessing should give you a hint...
[EDIT]: Both Iron Dome and the rockets themselves are mostly psychological weapons.
to first point -
were these things being built before israel imposed blockade? and were they not able to bring in supplies though the numerous smuggling tunnels from which hamas taxed and profitted from? the point i was making was israel spends plenty on PROTECTING it's citizens. something i've yet to see hamas do.
regarding the psychological aspect of the rockets and iron dome -
um, no. the range of the rockets from gaza has been increasing with each passing year putting progressively larger israeli population centers within the crosshairs. thus the attempts by hamas this round to target tel aviv and jerusalem, something that wasn't in their capabilities before. iron dome is not just a psychological weapon, but rather legitimate defence.
however if it is all as you say just "psychological", why is hamas subjecting its population to the inevitable retaliation that would come from sending iranian made and funded weapons over the border? sounds more like "psychotic".
EDIT: reading your post over again, do you consider any israeli city a "settlement"? these towns/cities that are being fired upon are within the 1967 borders.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
The problem with that is that Israel doesn't just have to defend itself from Hamas.
Pretty much every country in the region want to see them destroyed, and their population are for the most part supportive of that position.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
You mean the Palestinians? How are you so sure that everyone of them supports Hamas? Okay, i'm not familiar with this crisis, but what i have read, watched and seen is that not everyone living in Gaza support Hamas. Especially after these few years after the election was held.
But thats that. I stumbled upon this video, i wonder how accurate it is with subtitles and such. Netanyahu sounds tough.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
Israel aims for terrorists and civilians get hurt by accident Hamas aims for civilians and civilians get hurt Clearly this is the exact same thing, without mentioning that we dont store ammunition in or fire from homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship etc.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
Israel aims for terrorists and civilians get hurt by accident Hamas aims for civilians and civilians get hurt Clearly this is the exact same thing, without mentioning that we dont store ammunition in or fire from homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship etc.
You're making a hard argument because it doesn't take into account the shells being used are white phosphorous on said hospitals.
So Israel aims for terrorists, ends up killing more civilians than the faction aimed at killing civilians? So your argument is that Israel's so good they can kill more terrorists completing their objective AND kill more civilians than Hamas ever dreamed of doing while having some of the most technologically equipped killing machines ever created on earth.
Sound argument to try and equate the IDF as something better.
On November 19 2012 01:36 Noam wrote: Can't we all just ignore the OP? It is useless and has not been updated at all except for adding a retarded poll about supporting "Palestine" when this is Hamas..
Let's go back to talking about what matters: Hamas still looking for a victory shot and refusing to make progress in the cease fire negotiations. As of today the Iron Dome has intercepted 302 missiles and rockets. Iron Dome only targets projectiles with a confirmed trajectory of hitting a populated area.
What would this conflict look like if 302 more rockets hit our citizens? How many Israelis would be dead? How many innocent Palestinians would die as a result?
"The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war." -Benjamin Netanyahu
it's pretty hard to argue with this quote and use facts to support your position. the same world that demands Palestinian statehood turned (and is turning) a blind eye to the massive persecution and cultural (and sometimes real) genocide against Arab Christians and Jews by Muslim countries. where is the right of return for the millions of Christians that have been driven out of their homes? or the thousands of Jews who have fled Muslim persecution? people who don't study history are driven by the sensationalism of Arab agitprop mascaraing as legitimate news. the sad thing is that the vast majority of the persecution against the Palestinian people comes from other Arabs and Arab countries, but you'll never hear a liberal screaming at Jordan or Egypt to let the refugees in their country.
Of course its true because Israel has everything it wants and Palestine doesnt. Palestine is being slowly crept in by the Israeli settlements and there country is part of a holy Islamic area. Those are some of the reasons they are fighting in the first place. That statement in and of itself is just sort of silly and I remember laughing when I heard it the first time.
Israel should give palestinians a home.... As a people without a true home for centuries you think israelites would be more understanding of how dire the palestinian situation is, but no, they greedily keep all of Israel for themselves.
Palestine would be much more successful in gaining a homeland if they did it through peaceful negotiation. These Hamas strikes aren't effective. Israel's military strength via the USA is way to much for palestine. I don't understand why they choose to create situations like this for themselves.
On November 19 2012 02:15 Grettin wrote: People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Oh I understand, you're the type of person that needs me to post pictures of dead Israelis and injured babies, and tell you how millions of Israelis run to bomb shelter every hour, for you to realize that Israelis are not "pretty safe".
But I don't do that unfortunately, I am here to show you how the country with the strongest willed citizens on earth deals with a situation that no other country deals with. We are not a poor defenseless country, but we sit and do nothing and let our citizens be shot at for years before we actually retaliate. And it is entirely obvious to me how any other country on earth (and firstly your country) would deal with an organization that constantly shoots rockets at its civilians.
And about the people in Gaza, this is the bitter truth that everyone needs to accept: People in Gaza are suffering FIRSTLY because of Hamas. You can blame Israel all you want, but look at the West Bank and look at Gaza and make your own conclusions.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
Its funny cause Israel is a democratic state, while most nations beside it are dictatorships, if our government was to blame we would replace it, but whoever is in charge has to take actions or else we would be destroyed, but I guess you know all about it from your harsh, war-torn country, oh wait no, you don't.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
The problem with that is that Israel doesn't just have to defend itself from Hamas.
Pretty much every country in the region want to see them destroyed, and their population are for the most part supportive of that position.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
You mean the Palestinians? How are you so sure that everyone of them supports Hamas? Okay, i'm not familiar with this crisis, but what i have read, watched and seen is that not everyone living in Gaza support Hamas. Especially after these few years after the election was held.
But thats that. I stumbled upon this video, i wonder how accurate it is with subtitles and such. Netanyahu sounds tough.
Video is from 2010 that much i know. However the sound quality is trash and totally out of sync and it dosnt look like what hes saying. There is a channel 10 logo and i googled the phrase he said in Hebrew and found nothing at all. I would need to see the source before i can say more but i can tell is its edit so i dont know what the context is. As far as support, i am aware that not all the population supports what they do but alot do despite the fact they gain nothing from these rocket attacks. Im not justifying targeting civilians in the least i am saying however that when rockets are not fired and the army isnt attack from gaza they are also not attacked.
You're making a hard argument because it doesn't take into account the shells being used are white phosphorous on said hospitals.
You talk nonsense. I never heard anyone other than you saying that Israel is now shooting white phosphorous shells in hospitals. You are out of this world. How come there are less than 40 palestinian casualties (most terrorists) after 1000 strikes? With white phosphorous shells on hospitals? They must have pretty empty hospitals there...
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
Its funny cause Israel is a democratic state, while most nations beside it are dictatorships, if our government was to blame we would replace it, but whoever is in charge has to take actions or else we would be destroyed, but I guess you know all about it from your harsh, war-torn country, oh wait no, you don't.
And those actions include acting against international laws such as the geneva convention to achieve said goals and negating the Red Cross from getting into Palestine on multiple occassions?
If Israel was protecting itself and accidents happen that'd be fine, no one is saying that they shouldn't defend themselves but they're not just defending themselves, they're abusing their position and power immensely and it pains me that is troubling for you to see.
You're making a hard argument because it doesn't take into account the shells being used are white phosphorous on said hospitals.
You talk nonsense. I never heard anyone other than you saying that Israel is now shooting white phosphorous shells in hospitals. You are out of this world. How come there are less than 40 palestinian casualties (most terrorists) after 1000 strikes? With white phosphorous shells on hospitals? They must have pretty empty hospitals there...
sorry what were you saying about nonesense? I didn't know citing facts were nonsense, I'll now resort to not condemning the use of white phosphorous because it'll help you sleep better at night. Do you even know anything you're talking about?
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
Israel aims for terrorists and civilians get hurt by accident Hamas aims for civilians and civilians get hurt Clearly this is the exact same thing, without mentioning that we dont store ammunition in or fire from homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship etc.
You're making a hard argument because it doesn't take into account the shells being used are white phosphorous on said hospitals.
So Israel aims for terrorists, ends up killing more civilians than the faction aimed at killing civilians? So your argument is that Israel's so good they can kill more terrorists completing their objective AND kill more civilians than Hamas ever dreamed of doing while having some of the most technologically equipped killing machines ever created on earth.
Sound argument to try and equate the IDF as something better.
We had the morals and white phosphors debate several pages back, take a look. You also ignore that hamas makes full use of the population to shield itself while Israel dosnt, so of course a lot more Palestinians will die. Like i have said dozens of times its a win/win for them, 1)Israel cant target them as they use population to shield themselves. 2)civilians dies (going to heaven as martyrs) and Israel gets bad PR.
On November 19 2012 01:36 Noam wrote: Can't we all just ignore the OP? It is useless and has not been updated at all except for adding a retarded poll about supporting "Palestine" when this is Hamas..
Let's go back to talking about what matters: Hamas still looking for a victory shot and refusing to make progress in the cease fire negotiations. As of today the Iron Dome has intercepted 302 missiles and rockets. Iron Dome only targets projectiles with a confirmed trajectory of hitting a populated area.
What would this conflict look like if 302 more rockets hit our citizens? How many Israelis would be dead? How many innocent Palestinians would die as a result?
Statistically you can answer your question by looking at times when the dome was not yet in effect. If you look at the number of persons killed by rockets from Gaza the ratio is something like 1:200 right? Every death is too much but we should keep the tone of discussion at a sensible level.
You did not fully read his post, Hamas fired many many more rockets, but the Iron Dome only intercepted those which are going to hit cities and towns or near them, only rockets which might endanger life are destroyed by the system, but there is a large number of missiles that hit open spaces.
If the Iron Dome did not exist now there would be a LOT more deaths.
sadly for some people, the lack of israeli deaths in israel is somehow an indictment of israel. considering israel spends much time and resources on iron dome, bomb shelters, warning sirens, etc... to defend themselves does not enter their thought process.
Guess who cannot built shelters (military OR public) because there is a blockade stopping building material and guess who does not get their high defense system sponsored by the US (50k per defense rocket was it?).
Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. Between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries, as well as widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.
This was before the iron dome. Now it's difficult to assess how many of those 8600 rockets (and mortars, which cannot be intercepted, right?) came close to settlements but some conservative guessing should give you a hint...
[EDIT]: Both Iron Dome and the rockets themselves are mostly psychological weapons.
to first point -
were these things being built before israel imposed blockade? and were they not able to bring in supplies though the numerous smuggling tunnels from which hamas taxed and profitted from? the point i was making was israel spends plenty on PROTECTING it's citizens. something i've yet to see hamas do.
regarding the psychological aspect of the rockets and iron dome -
um, no. the range of the rockets from gaza has been increasing with each passing year putting progressively larger israeli population centers within the crosshairs. thus the attempts by hamas this round to target tel aviv and jerusalem, something that wasn't in their capabilities before. iron dome is not just a psychological weapon, but rather legitimate defence.
however if it is all as you say just "psychological", why is hamas subjecting its population to the inevitable retaliation that would come from sending iranian made and funded weapons over the border? sounds more like "psychotic".
EDIT: reading your post over again, do you consider any israeli city a "settlement"? these towns/cities that are being fired upon are within the 1967 borders.
Let me quote this interesting link kindly provided by Goozen: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/18/palestinians-israel-rockets-duds-idUSL5E8MI2MI20121118 This looks to be one of the reasons why the rockets have extended range. Also so much for them firing better rockets. Yeah perhaps if Israel would not have destroyed the Fajar-5 it would probably look different but they did and it is like it is.
The physical damage caused by rockets (and mortars) from Gaza is extremely small (again every death is too much but just statistically speaking). This was before the Iron Dome the case (look at the numbers) and is now even more the case. The psychological damage caused seems to be far worse for Israel as whole, the alarms, feeling threatened all the time etc. (very consistent with Hamas' logic and the link above). The Iron Dome while not preventing all that many deaths (at least not for the money spend on it, all kinds of preventive health stuff would most likely save way more people) but suddenly Israelis don't feel defenseless anymore from the rockets, it feels like the state is really out there to help them. Which of course he is but the effects of this help in numbers is miniscule. This leads to support of the government probably support of more aggressive approaches and keeps people migrating to border cities.
Goozen although you posted that really interesting link you unfortunately missed my reply to it because you are again using this "morality from intent only" in your comparison of the attacks.
[EDIT]: I said settlements because the Iron Dome apparently only intercepts rockets targeted at locations where people live and I wanted to include everything. Sorry I did not intend to use a loaded term.
On November 19 2012 01:36 Noam wrote: Can't we all just ignore the OP? It is useless and has not been updated at all except for adding a retarded poll about supporting "Palestine" when this is Hamas..
Let's go back to talking about what matters: Hamas still looking for a victory shot and refusing to make progress in the cease fire negotiations. As of today the Iron Dome has intercepted 302 missiles and rockets. Iron Dome only targets projectiles with a confirmed trajectory of hitting a populated area.
What would this conflict look like if 302 more rockets hit our citizens? How many Israelis would be dead? How many innocent Palestinians would die as a result?
"The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war." -Benjamin Netanyahu
it's pretty hard to argue with this quote and use facts to support your position. the same world that demands Palestinian statehood turned (and is turning) a blind eye to the massive persecution and cultural (and sometimes real) genocide against Arab Christians and Jews by Muslim countries. where is the right of return for the millions of Christians that have been driven out of their homes? or the thousands of Jews who have fled Muslim persecution? people who don't study history are driven by the sensationalism of Arab agitprop mascaraing as legitimate news. the sad thing is that the vast majority of the persecution against the Palestinian people comes from other Arabs and Arab countries, but you'll never hear a liberal screaming at Jordan or Egypt to let the refugees in their country.
Of course its true because Israel has everything it wants and Palestine doesnt. Palestine is being slowly crept in by the Israeli settlements and there country is part of a holy Islamic area. Those are some of the reasons they are fighting in the first place. That statement in and of itself is just sort of silly and I remember laughing when I heard it the first time.
Israel doesn't have everything it wants, it wants peace and it can't get any. Palestine, which had multiple chances at statehood, has turned it down every single time. do Jordan and Egypt give a shit? are they being screamed at to let hostile refugees into their country?
when "settlement" is defined as adding an additional room to your house, I kind of stop caring, and it was holy Jewish ground a couple thousand years before Islam existed, so that argument falls flat too. add in the fact that every single Muslim country in the area is guilty of far more persecution and intolerance than Israel ever could engage in, and that the rest of the Arab world is willing to use Palestinians, but not willing to house them, it definitely makes one think about his statement a lot more, and suddenly its not so funny anymore.
On November 19 2012 01:59 Grettin wrote: There would also be way less deaths if your enemy would have the same defense-equipment as you do.
What? Are you trying to be funny?
If Hamas was shooting at our civilians and our air force could not destroy their missiles and ammunition with air strikes, we would be sending in ground forces to do the job.
That would mean a lot more deaths for their side.
I don't see why i or anyone would want to be funny when it comes to this. I just, before you commented, added my second thoughts to my previous post. And you are right about what you said, when it would come to ground attacks and such, but i wasn't considering what would happen if you add infantry to this.
What i was trying to say was something like, if both had Iron Dome -like system to defend theirselves and neither one would have high-tech military equipment like Israel has (missiles), then the situation would be as stated. But since this isn't the case.. well you can see how it's working out. People in Gaza are suffering because of IDF's direct hits and Israelis are pretty safe from Hamas's rockets.
Perhaps then they shouldn't be supporting their government while they are firing rockets?
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this".
Israel aims for terrorists and civilians get hurt by accident Hamas aims for civilians and civilians get hurt Clearly this is the exact same thing, without mentioning that we dont store ammunition in or fire from homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship etc.
You're making a hard argument because it doesn't take into account the shells being used are white phosphorous on said hospitals.
So Israel aims for terrorists, ends up killing more civilians than the faction aimed at killing civilians? So your argument is that Israel's so good they can kill more terrorists completing their objective AND kill more civilians than Hamas ever dreamed of doing while having some of the most technologically equipped killing machines ever created on earth.
Sound argument to try and equate the IDF as something better.
We had the morals and white phosphors debate several pages back, take a look. You also ignore that hamas makes full use of the population to shield itself while Israel dosnt, so of course a lot more Palestinians will die. Like i have said dozens of times its a win/win for them, 1)Israel cant target them as they use population to shield themselves. 2)civilians dies (going to heaven as martyrs) and Israel gets bad PR.
Are you saying Israel has never used Palestinians as human shields?
EPT
