Who won israel vs gaza ?

[russ_watters]

Hamas wins by default as Israel's reputation is further damaged by their actions.

I guess they both with in that case then - I'm sure Israel cares little about this reputation you see (I don't see it), and Hamas wins by setting the bar so low that you'd stub your toe on it.

Who wins and who lost needs to be interpreted based on what the combatants want - not what your own personal feelings tell you about it.

 

[The Dagda]

I guess they both with in that case then - I'm sure Israel cares little about this reputation you see (I don't see it), and Hamas wins by setting the bar so low that you'd stub your toe on it.

Who wins and who lost needs to be interpreted based on what the combatants want - not what your own personal feelings tell you about it.

No one wins then. I was right all along. Thanks for playing though.

I'm joking, of course in terms of peace no one won peace through war in a situation like this, all that does is create more terrorists, more hate, and what's worse it's circular.

 

[angel 42]

Reference, please? A quick google search suggests that "is internationally banned" is a misleading, if not outright false statement. (I would be mildly interested in seeing a reference that they use such bombs as well)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza
and
http://www.france24.com/en/20090111-israel-white-phosphorus-bombs-shells-gaza-human-rights-watch [Broken]

How? The phrasing of your post indicates that you think "using white phosphorous bombs" proves this point, but I see no evident connection between the two.

Israel has the most highly technological weapons which are provided by the U.S. they could target who ever they are aiming to kill with out sending a solder there!, like they did when they assassinates Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/mar/23/guardianobituaries.israel

Are we actually talking about the same conflict?

search history!

 

[The Dagda]

Russ was responding to a post that quoted an Asimov character, you need to read the posts you are quoting.

I see my bad, but I still don't see how his platitudes mean anything, or platitudes that come from platitudes do. That's just platitudinal. If that's a word.

 

[russ_watters]

Platitudes never solve anything, and neither does moral equivocation.

Moral equivocation? Wth are you talking about? I may be the most direct speaker in this conversation and the moral issues here are extremely straightforward for people who don't let their emotions cloud their judgment.

Heinlein is a good author he is not however a God of philosophy any more than Dawkins is.

I responded to one literary quote with another - in this case, though, one author gave examples to prove his point. That violence solves problems is just plain factually true and the assertion that it never solves anything is just plain factually wrong.

 

[The Dagda]

Pick any war and I'll tell you who won and who lost (there are probably wars that you could consider the end to be a mutual win or loss or stalemate, but not many). WWII - the Allies won and the Axis lost. The US Revolutionary war - the American rebels won, Britain lost. Those are just a couple of examples - I'm not going to go through all of history and list every war I can think of. If you're unsure of a particular war, let me know and I'll help you with it.

This isn't a difficult thing to grasp.

Great you have to go back that far in history to find a case, and its a civil war. :tongue2:

Who lost Vietnam?

 

[The Dagda]

Moral equivocation? Wth are you talking about? I may be the most direct speaker in this conversation and the moral issues here are extremely straightforward for people who don't let their emotions cloud their judgment. I responded to one literary quote with another - in this case, though, one author gave examples to prove his point. That violence solves problems is just plain factually true and the assertion that it never solves anything is just plain factually wrong.

And yet you cite examples that are in fact occasions where no one won. Civil wars and WWI/II.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza

Your reference proves you wrong:

The M825A1 rounds, which are the kind identified as being fired by Israeli forces, are made primarily for use as a smokescreen in a way that limits their effect as an incendiary weapon, experts say.

 

[russ_watters]

Who lost Vietnam?

The North Vietnamese won and the US and France lost. How difficult is this?

 

[The Dagda]

The unfortunate losers in this battle are the Palestinians for failing to rid themselves of Hamas. The fact that they are whining about Israeli retaliation just turns people away from any sympathy they might have otherwise gotten, IMO. You don't bomb someone and then whine about them retaliating.

Hamas are a waste of space, that's a given Evo.

 

[russ_watters]

And yet you cite examples that are in fact occasions where no one won. Civil wars and WWI/II.

Huh? In the US revolutionary war, the US civil war, and WWI/II, there were clear winners and losers. Perhaps you could explain why you think there were not. We'll pick one: why would you not say that the American colonists won the revolutionary war?

This is just absurd, Dadga.

 

[The Dagda]

Huh? In the US revolutionary war, the US civil war, and WWI/II, there were clear winners and losers. Perhaps you could explain why you think there were not. We'll pick one: why would you not say that the American colonists won the revolutionary war?

This is just absurd, Dadga.

I see you failed to answer my question.

US revolutionary war was won by circumstance, and the French bailing your arse out, and attacking England.

Civil war: no one wins when the two sides are the same people.

Vietnam, well Vietnam hands down, civil war the only loser was the US. Korea: stalemate.

WWI was a stalemate more or less and the Versailles treaty lead directly to WWII. I guess if you put spin on it anyone can win.

 

[russ_watters]

US revolutionary war was won by circumstance, and the French bailing your arse out, and attacking England.

So what!? They still won! You even used the word "won" in that sentence! Yes, it was won!

Civil war: no one wins when the two sides are the same people.

The union army had a goal of keeping the union together. They did. They accomplished their objective: they won.

Vietnam, well Vietnam hands down....

So again, you acknowledge that sometimes (often?) people win in wars!

What the heck are you doing here, Dadga? Your arguments are silly and you are contradicting yourself. Are you just trying to stir up trouble because you don't seem to have a real point.

 

[The Dagda]

So what!? They still won! You even used the word "won" in that sentence! Yes, it was won! The union army had a goal of keeping the union together. They did. They accomplished their objective: they won. So again, you acknowledge that sometimes (often?) people win in wars!

I think you're totally missing the point, for you win is arbitrary and is decided by the supposed victors, who lost far more than they did or would if the war never took place.

What the heck are you doing here, Dadga? Your arguments are silly and you are contradicting yourself. Are you just trying to stir up trouble because you don't seem to have a real point.

Are ad hominems strengthening your case?

 

[angel 42]

Could you rephrase that into a coherent sentence.... it sounds like you are saying Israel would still occupy Gaza in the case of a cease fire. There is no reason to assume such a thing: they didn't occupy it before this little war started, so I don't see why they would want to occupy it after.

just have alook at this (Award-winning documentary film on the root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) and you'll know what I'm talking about,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589 [Broken]

and please Evo don't delete this, this ia what the arabs know about this (conflict). if you have another view show it let the arabs see it

 

[tiny-tim]

Reference, please? A quick google search suggests that "is internationally banned" is a misleading, if not outright false statement. (I would be mildly interested in seeing a reference that they use such bombs as well)

…
http://www.france24.com/en/20090111-israel-white-phosphorus-bombs-shells-gaza-human-rights-watch [Broken]

From your (angel 42's) own reference … france24 quoting leading human rights group Human Rights Watch …

The group said Israel appeared to be using the munitions to make smoke screens to hide military operations — "a permissible use in principle under international humanitarian law".

 

[angel 42]

Your reference proves you wrong:

you are right sorry for that, I forget to tell you that the media doesn't show the same look at
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=284415

42

 

[devil-fire]

4. The fact that Israel has gone to great lengths to warn the civilians about impending attacks shows they are cognizant of the risk of civilian casualties and are endeavoring to avoid them.

I've been wondering where these people are expected to go when they get a phone call that their houses are about to be blown up...

 

[The Dagda]

just have alook at this (Award-winning documentary film on the root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) and you'll know what I'm talking about,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589 [Broken]

and please Evo don't delete this, this ia what the arabs know about this (conflict). if you have another view show it let the arabs see it

That's unbelievable. The fact that it's made by Jews is a testament to the Jewish people and to their belief that this is a war of propaganda that certain US officials would rather not see or even care about.

You can't help but be on the side of both the Israelis and the Palestinians because this is a war caused by colonialism and by the West and UN, and the US.

 

[drizzle]

From your (angel 42's) own reference … france24 quoting leading human rights group Human Rights Watch …

Your reference proves you wrong:

have a look at this
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009110181945232797.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-illegal-white-phosphorus-shells-in-Gaza.html

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/16/64339.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece

“It should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas” that’s the whole point of prohibiting the use of it

 

[Alfi]

Wait -- you're arguing that Israel and Gaza are both incompetent, and thus war is the best solution available to them?

If they have chosen war as their solution , then yes! They ( the leaders ) are incompetent.

 

[Evo]

If they have chosen war as their solution , then yes! They ( the leaders ) are incompetent.

I agree, Hamas is incompetant. They are the ones that have chosen war by attacking Israel. Israel is completely blameless in this.

It's rather unbelievable to me that anyone here can point the finger of blame at anything but Hamas. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. Hamas is attacking Israel. Israel is not attacking Gaza, they are trying to stop the attacks on them. There is no argument on this fact. The more that Palestinians whine about this, the more they alienate the rest of the world to the Palestinians.

Seriously, the pictures only condemn Hamas for what they are doing to the Palestinians. Keep posting if your goal is to gain more support for Israel, because that is what you are doing.

 

[Hurkyl]

Israel has the most highly technological weapons which are provided by the U.S. they could target who ever they are aiming to kill with out sending a solder there!,

With perfect targetting information, top of the line weapons can only get within 13 meters away about half the time. In the real world, you usually don't even have perfect targetting information.

And of course, like any other bomb, it's going to damage everything around it, not just the intended target.

The weapons you're imagining are the work of science fiction fantasy, not reality.

And even if such weapons were possible, that does not mean they are a good way (or even a feasible way) to wage a war.

like they did when they assassinates Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/mar/23/guardianobituaries.israel

What was the point of that link? I can't find anything relating to your comment about weapons.

search history!

A search of history yields a lot of obvious reasons for force, such as "they shot a rocket at us".

 

[turbo]

I agree, Hamas is incompetant. They are the ones that have chosen war by attacking Israel. Israel is completely blameless in this.

It's rather unbelievable to me that anyone here can point the finger of blame at anything but Hamas. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. Hamas is attacking Israel. Israel is not attacking Gaza, they are trying to stop the attacks on them. There is no argument on this fact. The more that Palestinians whine about this, the more they alienate the rest of the world to the Palestinians.

Sorry, Evo, but I have to disagree. Israel is the occupying force in Gaza, and their blockade of the borders is an international crime, according to humanitarian law. There are 1.5M people living in that narrow strip of land, and when food, medicine, and fuel are cut off, people suffer. There is little that Hamas could do against the overwhelming superiority of the US-supplied Israeli army, so home-made rockets were about all they could pull off.

Terrorism is defined as violence against civilian populations to achieve political ends. Neither side has clean hands in this regards, but it is clear that Israel has inflicted severe collective punishment against the Gazans for its own ends, and is the offender here. It is not helpful to draw time-lines and say "See, X obviously was the offender" or something similar when grievances go back some 60 years. I hope our next administration refuses to turn its back on such asymmetrical exchanges, or there will be no peace in the ME.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is little that Hamas could do against the overwhelming superiority of the US-supplied Israeli army, so home-made rockets were about all they could pull off.

So what? That doesn't obviate them of the responsibility of choosing civilian areas to be the battleground.