On November 19 2012 13:27 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
Except it's much closer to you have a sniper rifle, him having a pistol, and you being a half a mile away.
And if he chooses to shoot at me with the intent to kill. I'll snipe him. Is that surprising to you?
Little bit, yeah. The accuracy of a pistol at half a mile probably means that the statistical probability of him harming you is approaching 0% if not there already.
So you admit what you called "a more accurate example" is actually a piece of garbage not in any way representative of the current situation. Given that Hamas rockets are able to harm Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile, swords are pretty deadly if you get "cut" as you said. So I'd think the chances of you dieing before firing your weapon back is MUCH higher.
So no, my analogy is much closer to the truth than yours.
lol... why would we care about what percent of rockets hit? /facepalm As long as one person gets kill by the rockets Israel is getting "cut".....
Your analogy is based on the idea that the side with the pistol has virtually no chance to harm the other side, so much so you wouldn't even give a reprisal. Hamas has kill Israelis, therefore your example is crap.
And your analogy was based on the idea that the person with a sword still has a really good chance in a fight, which is just utter crap if you look at really any source.
Look guys, you're missing the fucking point. One side is harming another sides people, the first side knows the other side has the capability of wiping out more of it's own people but continues to do so, latter side retaliates and people get mad at them for it?
edit: sry decided to take out the "fuck this society", ive been drinking :p
It's sort of like a parent that snaps at their child who has been a brat all day and slaps them. The child is wrong, but the parent is wrong too.
NOTE: MURDERING Israeli citizens is not anything like a bratty child, but it doesn't mean we can't hope that Israel would should more restraint than they do.
You can target the people who orchestrated the attacks and kill civilians in the process or do nothing and get attacked more until you fall apart, even though you have the capability to stop it.
Which option is logical?
Both, and most likely there are other solutions as well. But maybe that's just ideology, and this is the only one. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
On November 19 2012 13:30 Feartheguru wrote: [quote]
And if he chooses to shoot at me with the intent to kill. I'll snipe him. Is that surprising to you?
Little bit, yeah. The accuracy of a pistol at half a mile probably means that the statistical probability of him harming you is approaching 0% if not there already.
So you admit what you called "a more accurate example" is actually a piece of garbage not in any way representative of the current situation. Given that Hamas rockets are able to harm Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile, swords are pretty deadly if you get "cut" as you said. So I'd think the chances of you dieing before firing your weapon back is MUCH higher.
So no, my analogy is much closer to the truth than yours.
lol... why would we care about what percent of rockets hit? /facepalm As long as one person gets kill by the rockets Israel is getting "cut".....
Your analogy is based on the idea that the side with the pistol has virtually no chance to harm the other side, so much so you wouldn't even give a reprisal. Hamas has kill Israelis, therefore your example is crap.
And your analogy was based on the idea that the person with a sword still has a really good chance in a fight, which is just utter crap if you look at really any source.
Look guys, you're missing the fucking point. One side is harming another sides people, the first side knows the other side has the capability of wiping out more of it's own people but continues to do so, latter side retaliates and people get mad at them for it?
edit: sry decided to take out the "fuck this society", ive been drinking :p
It's sort of like a parent that snaps at their child who has been a brat all day and slaps them. The child is wrong, but the parent is wrong too.
NOTE: MURDERING Israeli citizens is not anything like a bratty child, but it doesn't mean we can't hope that Israel would should more restraint than they do.
You can target the people who orchestrated the attacks and kill civilians in the process or do nothing and get attacked more until you fall apart, even though you have the capability to stop it.
Which option is logical?
Both, and most likely there are other solutions as well. But maybe that's just ideology, and this is the only one. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No country in the world would put up with getting BOMBED when they have the capability to stop it. Not a single one.
On November 19 2012 13:31 hinnolinn wrote: [quote]
Little bit, yeah. The accuracy of a pistol at half a mile probably means that the statistical probability of him harming you is approaching 0% if not there already.
So you admit what you called "a more accurate example" is actually a piece of garbage not in any way representative of the current situation. Given that Hamas rockets are able to harm Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile, swords are pretty deadly if you get "cut" as you said. So I'd think the chances of you dieing before firing your weapon back is MUCH higher.
So no, my analogy is much closer to the truth than yours.
lol... why would we care about what percent of rockets hit? /facepalm As long as one person gets kill by the rockets Israel is getting "cut".....
Your analogy is based on the idea that the side with the pistol has virtually no chance to harm the other side, so much so you wouldn't even give a reprisal. Hamas has kill Israelis, therefore your example is crap.
And your analogy was based on the idea that the person with a sword still has a really good chance in a fight, which is just utter crap if you look at really any source.
Look guys, you're missing the fucking point. One side is harming another sides people, the first side knows the other side has the capability of wiping out more of it's own people but continues to do so, latter side retaliates and people get mad at them for it?
edit: sry decided to take out the "fuck this society", ive been drinking :p
It's sort of like a parent that snaps at their child who has been a brat all day and slaps them. The child is wrong, but the parent is wrong too.
NOTE: MURDERING Israeli citizens is not anything like a bratty child, but it doesn't mean we can't hope that Israel would should more restraint than they do.
You can target the people who orchestrated the attacks and kill civilians in the process or do nothing and get attacked more until you fall apart, even though you have the capability to stop it.
Which option is logical?
Both, and most likely there are other solutions as well. But maybe that's just ideology, and this is the only one. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No country in the world would put up with getting BOMBED when they have the capability to stop it. Not a single one.
well i haven't seen any other country getting bombed lately .. only israel, and i wonder why.
On November 19 2012 13:33 Feartheguru wrote: [quote]
So you admit what you called "a more accurate example" is actually a piece of garbage not in any way representative of the current situation. Given that Hamas rockets are able to harm Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile, swords are pretty deadly if you get "cut" as you said. So I'd think the chances of you dieing before firing your weapon back is MUCH higher.
So no, my analogy is much closer to the truth than yours.
lol... why would we care about what percent of rockets hit? /facepalm As long as one person gets kill by the rockets Israel is getting "cut".....
Your analogy is based on the idea that the side with the pistol has virtually no chance to harm the other side, so much so you wouldn't even give a reprisal. Hamas has kill Israelis, therefore your example is crap.
And your analogy was based on the idea that the person with a sword still has a really good chance in a fight, which is just utter crap if you look at really any source.
Look guys, you're missing the fucking point. One side is harming another sides people, the first side knows the other side has the capability of wiping out more of it's own people but continues to do so, latter side retaliates and people get mad at them for it?
edit: sry decided to take out the "fuck this society", ive been drinking :p
It's sort of like a parent that snaps at their child who has been a brat all day and slaps them. The child is wrong, but the parent is wrong too.
NOTE: MURDERING Israeli citizens is not anything like a bratty child, but it doesn't mean we can't hope that Israel would should more restraint than they do.
You can target the people who orchestrated the attacks and kill civilians in the process or do nothing and get attacked more until you fall apart, even though you have the capability to stop it.
Which option is logical?
Both, and most likely there are other solutions as well. But maybe that's just ideology, and this is the only one. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No country in the world would put up with getting BOMBED when they have the capability to stop it. Not a single one.
well i haven't seen any other country getting bombed lately .. only israel, and i wonder why.
Eh. Maybe watch the news every once in a while... lol
I am just glad IDF is managing to defend itself from these evil journalists. After all, we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword. Missiles, on the other hand, are able to deal with both easily.
Money quote in the article "Hamas communication devices". Hahaha, in the civilized world (that is the one not populated by the Nazis in Israel) we call those satellite dishes.
On November 19 2012 09:50 Feartheguru wrote: This conflict is not gonna end with Israel winning over the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. If you suggest that Israel should not target militants (at high civilian casualty rates), suggest an alternative. Spewing rhetoric isn't helping anyone.
I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
On November 19 2012 09:50 Feartheguru wrote: This conflict is not gonna end with Israel winning over the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. If you suggest that Israel should not target militants (at high civilian casualty rates), suggest an alternative. Spewing rhetoric isn't helping anyone.
I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
Please find out what the word genocide means, a simple Google search would go a long way. This is ironically hilarious considering the Arabs actually tried to commit genocide in Israel 3 times. If Israel's goal is genocide, Gaza can be turned into a burning wasteland in a few hours.
On November 19 2012 14:38 redviper wrote: I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
If Israel was committing genocide, I'm pretty sure there would be a few more dead Palestinians. Like, about half a million at least?
On November 19 2012 09:50 Feartheguru wrote: This conflict is not gonna end with Israel winning over the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. If you suggest that Israel should not target militants (at high civilian casualty rates), suggest an alternative. Spewing rhetoric isn't helping anyone.
I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
Please find out what the word genocide means, a simple Google search would go a long way.
Before telling people google, perhaps you should do the same?
Genocide is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
On November 19 2012 09:50 Feartheguru wrote: This conflict is not gonna end with Israel winning over the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. If you suggest that Israel should not target militants (at high civilian casualty rates), suggest an alternative. Spewing rhetoric isn't helping anyone.
I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
Genocide? Really? Can I suggest a dictionary?
"the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
Now do tell me how Israel's attempt at destroying Hamas, and only Hamas, fits into that definition. Good luck...
On November 19 2012 09:50 Feartheguru wrote: This conflict is not gonna end with Israel winning over the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. If you suggest that Israel should not target militants (at high civilian casualty rates), suggest an alternative. Spewing rhetoric isn't helping anyone.
I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
Please find out what the word genocide means, a simple Google search would go a long way.
Before telling people google, perhaps you should do the same?
Genocide is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
A simple google search would go a LONG WAY!
I see the problem. It's not that you're uninformed, you just lack either reading comprehension of basic logic reasoning.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
You should read up on the history of the middle east, the creation of the state of Israel and its wars ... And also study a map of Israel and the palestinian enclaves. There is no reason to use an atomic weapon in the first place and second they would most likly bomb themselves too ... Also using any atomic weapon would give Iran just more reasons to accelaerate their nuclear program.
The problem is that the arabic leaders and their religion or lets say at least how it is conducted fails them and to not turn the people against their leaders they need the enemy, in this case all evil Israel which needs to be destroyed according to Ahmadinechad. Why is he saying this and why are other arab leaders proposing this ? Because they are idiots without the intelligence to govern their countries in a civil and human way so they need a threat and some one to blame.
Israel has no real other option to respond and they have to respond in some way ... I really dont get it how these hisbollah and other dispshits can afford millions of money on hundred of rockets and other stuff but fail to do anything worthwile for the population they claim to protect with that money.
Death rates are completely one sided in Israel's favour though. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that Israel is in any way the victim here. I'm pretty sure Hizbollah gain a large portion of their support from families to unrighteously murdered civilians and people who've had their homes bulldozered down with potential family members stuck in the debris. They probably gained some support when the Israeli army started targeting red cross vans. Even more support was probably gained when Israel started bombing white phosphorus, indiscriminately incinerating men women and children at random in the world's most tightly populated city. Perhaps when they bombed that UN camp with their precision bombs, or when they hit the magic numbers when they had more UN resolutions to stop their violence than all other countries together. How many decided to join the resistance when Israel boarded and shot up the ships on their way with food and medicinal supplies to Gaza on international water?
It's probably got more to do with vengeance, hopelessness and deep tragedy than collected economical ideas. Israel's foreign policy is atrocious at best. The only real good thing it does is to show how futile and utterly pointless the UN as an organization is when it comes to preventing genocides and wars, as the countries with veto and their allies are safe against any repercussions.
You have got to be kidding... this is literally the most misguided and hopeless post I've seen yet. Yea, the Palestinians are suffering but you only recognize the ways in which Israel contributes to this and completely ignore the massive effect from the Arab nations and their political leadership itself. Your view of the conflict and situation is so ridiculously biased and one sided it's really not possible to even debate your position.
Well if you say so. Mind you that I only brought up the point of view of the Palestinians, and the fact that death rates of civilians are one sided. I didn't even describe the conflict. I described why I believe Hizbollah and Hamas are getting continued support.
The point is that an overwhelming amount of civilian casualties are cause by the Israelis, and yet people in this thread are trying to make out Israel to be the victims, which is factually incorrect.
The Editor-In-Chief of the most popular Arab newspaper in the region "Asharq Alawsat" wrote a very interesting piece about why Hamas started this round of fire.
Therefore what is happening in Gaza is escaping forward, particularly in the hope of saving al-Assad or at least ensuring that the cost of toppling him will be greater for everybody. The greatest architect of such wars is Iran, from the unmanned Ayoub drone, not to mention all the attempts in the Sinai Peninsula. When the Golan front did not move quickly enough for al-Assad and Iran, they resorted to the Gaza front, because this can be inflamed far quicker, whilst it is also easier for Israel in this regard.
He is saying that this specific flare up happened because Iran and Assad want to divert the Arab nation's attention away from what's going on in Syria. Full article: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=31846 - read it, it isn't long and very interesting.
And since we can't be serious all the time, here is a funny video about the connection between Hamas and Iran:
Meanwhile, swords are pretty deadly if you get "cut" as you said. So I'd think the chances of you dieing before firing your weapon back is MUCH higher.
So no, my analogy is much closer to the truth than yours.
lol... why would we care about what percent of rockets hit? /facepalm As long as one person gets kill by the rockets Israel is getting "cut".....
Your analogy is based on the idea that the side with the pistol has virtually no chance to harm the other side, so much so you wouldn't even give a reprisal. Hamas has kill Israelis, therefore your example is crap.
And your analogy was based on the idea that the person with a sword still has a really good chance in a fight, which is just utter crap if you look at really any source.
Look guys, you're missing the fucking point. One side is harming another sides people, the first side knows the other side has the capability of wiping out more of it's own people but continues to do so, latter side retaliates and people get mad at them for it?
edit: sry decided to take out the "fuck this society", ive been drinking :p
It's sort of like a parent that snaps at their child who has been a brat all day and slaps them. The child is wrong, but the parent is wrong too.
NOTE: MURDERING Israeli citizens is not anything like a bratty child, but it doesn't mean we can't hope that Israel would should more restraint than they do.
You can target the people who orchestrated the attacks and kill civilians in the process or do nothing and get attacked more until you fall apart, even though you have the capability to stop it.
Which option is logical?
Both, and most likely there are other solutions as well. But maybe that's just ideology, and this is the only one. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
No country in the world would put up with getting BOMBED when they have the capability to stop it. Not a single one.
well i haven't seen any other country getting bombed lately .. only israel, and i wonder why.
Eh. Maybe watch the news every once in a while... lol
its that supposed to make sense? there is a reason those rockets are falling over your friends heads, the Palestinians aren't sending them for fun or for Christmas maybe you should look up the reasons and watch the news every once in a while.
On November 19 2012 16:20 Noam wrote: The Editor-In-Chief of the most popular Arab newspaper in the region "Asharq Alawsat" wrote a very interesting piece about why Hamas started this round of fire.
Therefore what is happening in Gaza is escaping forward, particularly in the hope of saving al-Assad or at least ensuring that the cost of toppling him will be greater for everybody. The greatest architect of such wars is Iran, from the unmanned Ayoub drone, not to mention all the attempts in the Sinai Peninsula. When the Golan front did not move quickly enough for al-Assad and Iran, they resorted to the Gaza front, because this can be inflamed far quicker, whilst it is also easier for Israel in this regard.
He is saying that this specific flare up happened because Iran and Assad want to divert the Arab nation's attention away from what's going on in Syria. Full article: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=31846 - read it, it isn't long and very interesting.
I love it! If you want to carry out the holy war against the infidels, consult your local Iranian peace broker. They're currently offering rockets in your area, should you find yourself surrounded by rivals that you hate! Be sure to locate all launch sites near your local school, playground, or mosque. Enjoy firing your missiles from ease, as your adversary finds creative ways to explain away the mass reporting on civilian deaths. Your short-term terror goals, made easier, with Iranian rockets. Shoot hundreds first, ask questions later.
This is just the latest continuation in the efforts to wipe Israel off the map, or cede enough territory to advance this purpose. Israel is no stranger to violent neighbors ready and willing to fight. I stake their odds in this one to be very high.
On November 19 2012 09:50 Feartheguru wrote: This conflict is not gonna end with Israel winning over the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. If you suggest that Israel should not target militants (at high civilian casualty rates), suggest an alternative. Spewing rhetoric isn't helping anyone.
I would suggest genocide, but you said alternative. Genocide is exactly what Israel is up to so it doesn't really qualify.
Please find out what the word genocide means, a simple Google search would go a long way.
Before telling people google, perhaps you should do the same?
Genocide is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
A simple google search would go a LONG WAY!
I see the problem. It's not that you're uninformed, you just lack either reading comprehension of basic logic reasoning.
Shocking that a western Israeli apologist thinks that this isn't genocide. I forgot, only jews have ever faced genocide?
But perhaps you should listen to your own politicians eh?
"The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said.
Good thing he lost his job over this .. wait no, good thing he continued to serve in the cabinet and is now the ambassador for china.
This is just the latest continuation in the efforts to wipe Israel off the map, or cede enough territory to advance this purpose. Israel is no stranger to violent neighbors ready and willing to fight. I stake their odds in this one to be very high.
More like this a continuation of the efforts to perform the Palestinian holocaust. When they said "Never again", the Israelis actually meant "never again when we are the victims, 50 years before we are the Nazis".
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
You should read up on the history of the middle east, the creation of the state of Israel and its wars ... And also study a map of Israel and the palestinian enclaves. There is no reason to use an atomic weapon in the first place and second they would most likly bomb themselves too ... Also using any atomic weapon would give Iran just more reasons to accelaerate their nuclear program.
The problem is that the arabic leaders and their religion or lets say at least how it is conducted fails them and to not turn the people against their leaders they need the enemy, in this case all evil Israel which needs to be destroyed according to Ahmadinechad. Why is he saying this and why are other arab leaders proposing this ? Because they are idiots without the intelligence to govern their countries in a civil and human way so they need a threat and some one to blame.
Israel has no real other option to respond and they have to respond in some way ... I really dont get it how these hisbollah and other dispshits can afford millions of money on hundred of rockets and other stuff but fail to do anything worthwile for the population they claim to protect with that money.
Death rates are completely one sided in Israel's favour though. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that Israel is in any way the victim here. I'm pretty sure Hizbollah gain a large portion of their support from families to unrighteously murdered civilians and people who've had their homes bulldozered down with potential family members stuck in the debris. They probably gained some support when the Israeli army started targeting red cross vans. Even more support was probably gained when Israel started bombing white phosphorus, indiscriminately incinerating men women and children at random in the world's most tightly populated city. Perhaps when they bombed that UN camp with their precision bombs, or when they hit the magic numbers when they had more UN resolutions to stop their violence than all other countries together. How many decided to join the resistance when Israel boarded and shot up the ships on their way with food and medicinal supplies to Gaza on international water?
It's probably got more to do with vengeance, hopelessness and deep tragedy than collected economical ideas. Israel's foreign policy is atrocious at best. The only real good thing it does is to show how futile and utterly pointless the UN as an organization is when it comes to preventing genocides and wars, as the countries with veto and their allies are safe against any repercussions.
You have got to be kidding... this is literally the most misguided and hopeless post I've seen yet. Yea, the Palestinians are suffering but you only recognize the ways in which Israel contributes to this and completely ignore the massive effect from the Arab nations and their political leadership itself. Your view of the conflict and situation is so ridiculously biased and one sided it's really not possible to even debate your position.
Well if you say so. Mind you that I only brought up the point of view of the Palestinians, and the fact that death rates of civilians are one sided. I didn't even describe the conflict. I described why I believe Hizbollah and Hamas are getting continued support.
The point is that an overwhelming amount of civilian casualties are cause by the Israelis, and yet people in this thread are trying to make out Israel to be the victims, which is factually incorrect.
Just watch the pretty pictures if you can't be bothered to read the text. You'd still be better informed than anyone backing up Israel.
So many times have we gone over it, civilian death numbers dont tell the story. On 1 side you have Hamas who are entrenched in civilian areas, store munitions next to and in homes, mosque, schools . They also fire the rockets from densely populated areas and aim them at civilian areas to kill and cause panic. They dont even bother protecting their own civilians and use them to protect themselves knowing Israel tries to avoid civilian deaths. Whereas Israel set up the iron dome defense system spending huge sums of money to protect its citizens and has bombed over 1,100 targets in gaza while keeping civilian deaths low. People with your lack of understanding is exactly what Hamas want to gain bad PR as you think numbers tell the whole story. Perhaps we should disable the iron dome so that more people die to make it seem more "justified"......
EPT
