|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?
Yeah he's pretty fucked up in the head. Las time I saw these kinds of kids they were cheering on murdering innocent iraqis.
|
On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too.
Who would've thought that there will be a posting even worse than Nyxistos X pages back. Are you by any chance roughly 14 years old or younger? I hope so, for your sake.
But to be clear, since you made clear what you'd be "personally comfortable with", i bet you any money that alot of people here would be personally comfortable if you were 1/45000.
edit: since it bothers me, weasels have no "alpha male" in their social structure, so you didn't even get that right. And why do i get the whiff that your closest "experience" with death, weapons and war in general is call of duty?
edit2: by that logic btw, the hamas would "only need to kill 61000 jews to make israel surrender". I don't even grasp the concept behind that thinking, there's literally zero logic.
|
the line doesn't lie between 2000 and 3.3 million, honestly, the line was probably at around zero.
are we really calculating total percent civilian casualties as a way to force hamas to give up? cuz i dont know, but advocating fucking mass murder looks pretty bad to me. while we're discussing this, why don't we just consider a tithe or arming any israeli who wants to go into the gaza strip and announcing a 24 hour reverse ceasefire where all human decency is suspended.
i would not be okay with a 1/100 chance of dying for some pretty arbitrary reason. are you even willing to play your twisted version of russian roulette?
|
On August 06 2014 12:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
the line doesn't lie between 2000 and 3.3 million, honestly, the line was probably at around zero.
are we really calculating total percent civilian casualties as a way to force hamas to give up? cuz i dont know, but advocating fucking mass murder looks pretty bad to me. while we're discussing this, why don't we just consider a tithe or arming any israeli who wants to go into the gaza strip and announcing a 24 hour reverse ceasefire where all human decency is suspended.
i would not be okay with a 1/100 chance of dying for some pretty arbitrary reason. are you even willing to play your twisted version of russian roulette?
yeah I agree. I don't really think any amount of civilian casualties will result in Hamas truly giving up. they don't care about civilian casualties. They don't care about the people of Gaza at all honestly all they care about is trying to push Israel out. They haven't been doing anything to improve the way of life in Gaza in the past 8 years.
The only way it changes is if the Palestinian people remove Hamas leadership (I guess they elected them in 2006?) and get them out of power so they can't spread their shit as easily. Israel is way too strong and has way too much western support to really "lose" at this point.
|
Besides Israel potentially ceasing to destroy civilians along with weapons, what else would the Palestinian people get out of total and complete surrender?
|
On August 06 2014 12:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
the line doesn't lie between 2000 and 3.3 million, honestly, the line was probably at around zero.
are we really calculating total percent civilian casualties as a way to force hamas to give up? cuz i dont know, but advocating fucking mass murder looks pretty bad to me. while we're discussing this, why don't we just consider a tithe or arming any israeli who wants to go into the gaza strip and announcing a 24 hour reverse ceasefire where all human decency is suspended.
i would not be okay with a 1/100 chance of dying for some pretty arbitrary reason. are you even willing to play your twisted version of russian roulette?
Someone watched the purge lately huh  .
|
you can't fault people no matter how cold they may seem, some people do look at wars purely on statistical bases. i mean, i can't think of any wars/conflicts that ended without civilian casualties except Torrhen Stark during the Targaryen invasion of Westoros. the wish for zero civilian casualty warfare is well noted but seems to belong in fantasy or far in the future, if ever.
|
On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?)
You do not intentionally target civilians obviously. You state your goals and use your might to achieve them. The idea that some things are worth killing/dying for is something that western society has (fortunately) mostly lost. With that loss of perspective, all the west can realistically do is stay out of it. Israel and Hamas have gone and decided that their ideologies are worth killing and dying for. Maybe what they really do need is the horrors of war to sober them on what they are willing to do as both sides seem more keen on negotiating than in 1990.
|
1. Which is different?
A. Ghandi B. MLK C. Mandela D. Khaled Mashal
2. Which is different?
A. India B. Black Americans C. Black South Africans D. Palestinians
|
|
|
Really interesting article, thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. Gave some new perspective for me, who has only seen one side of the story.
|
On August 06 2014 16:08 Savant wrote:
1. Which is different?
A. Ghandi B. MLK C. Mandela D. Khaled Mashal
2. Which is different?
A. India B. Black Americans C. Black South Africans D. Palestinians
3. Which one is not like the others?
A. British Empire
B. The South before the Civil Rights Movement
C. Apartheid Regime
D. Israel
+ Show Spoiler +It's a trick question. The answer is neither. All of them use state sponsored violence to disenfranchise a large part of their population.
User was warned for this post
|
This is a truely amazing work, even though the author might have focused slightly too much on the israeli propaganda (I am calling it propaganda since the exclusion of objectively important information is a common propaganda trick. Haaretz is also getting a bit of a saintification.). These network graphs are absolutely amazing at giving perspective about events. I think I saw several about ACTA/SOPA/PIPA too to show the change in behaviour over time. Initial media picture --> spark/spread --> biased information --> less biased academic/primary source information --> process information. These trees and understanding them can be really important for understanding the world in a more nuanced way and understanding what media are better at staying on point than others in different issues.
I would love to see the same done for Ukraine and Syria/Iraq. I imagine very different results in those situations.
|
Fantastic article.
Having worked a lot with these kinds of network graphs, I really appreciate when they are well done like those and the work needed to integrate all the data. Anyway, great perspective on the information war.
Edit: Looks like they used gephi, did not know that tool.
|
Good, this might slightly curb the insanity that was prevalent in this thread. The war of ideology, of who is right and wrong, was getting on my nerves. Both sides have vested interest in their cause or justification for slaughter and death, and civilians on both sides are suffering, creating more and more hatred. Living, is suffering right now in the Middle East apparently.
Edit: correction, did I say right now, I should probably have said decades. It's a cycle, yes I am well aware, every country cycles between war and peace.
|
Thanks for posting that article, it was really interesting. It makes sense that certain people hold the views they do when relevant news stories are just not being reported at all to one side.
|
On August 06 2014 23:11 DinoMight wrote:
Thanks for posting that article, it was really interesting. It makes sense that certain people hold the views they do when relevant news stories are just not being reported at all to one side.
Now imagine the way it is in Israel and Gaza where the population is bombarded with propaganda from birth...
|
On August 07 2014 01:30 Bulugulu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 23:11 DinoMight wrote:
Thanks for posting that article, it was really interesting. It makes sense that certain people hold the views they do when relevant news stories are just not being reported at all to one side.
Now imagine the way it is in Israel and Gaza where the population is bombarded with propaganda from birth...
Trust me, I have family in Egypt and they sound crazy as fuck to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
