Comments

  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    What Amnesty International says about how famine is used now in the Gaza strip:

    (Feb 26th, 2024) One month after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply, Amnesty International said today.

    The scale and gravity of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s relentless bombardment, destruction and suffocating siege puts more than two million Palestinians of Gaza at risk of irreparable harm.”

    The supplies entering Gaza before the ICJ order have been a drop in the ocean compared to the needs for the last 16 years. Yet, in the three weeks following the ICJ order, the number of trucks entering Gaza decreased by about a third, from an average of 146 a day in the three weeks prior, to an average of 105 a day over the subsequent three weeks. Before 7 October, on average, about 500 trucks entered Gaza every day, carrying aid and commercial goods, including things like food, water, animal fodder, medical supplies and fuel. Even that quantity fell far short of meeting people’s needs. In the three weeks after the ICJ ruling, smaller quantities of fuel, which Israel tightly controls, made it into Gaza. The only crossings that Israel has allowed to open were also opened on fewer days, further demonstrating Israel’s disregard for the provisional measures. Aid workers reported multiple challenges, but said that Israel was refusing to take obvious steps to improve the situation.

    Across the Gaza Strip, the engineered humanitarian disaster grows more horrifying each day. On 19 February, humanitarian agencies reported that acute malnutrition was surging in Gaza and threatening children’s lives, with 15.6% of children under two years acutely malnourished in northern Gaza and 5% of children under two years in Rafah in the south. The speed and severity of the decline in the population’s nutritional status within just three months was “unprecedented globally”.
    See Amnesty International website
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It's a tricky issue who is justified to a piece of land.BitconnectCarlos
    I don't think it's tricky. Where you live and have been born and where your family has lived ought to give the right call that your home. The US has here shows an example here with everybody that is born on US territory has the right to be an US citizen. My best friends sister's first born boy is an American, the father is an Austrian and she is a Finn now living in Vienna.

    But if you think that some people are more justified than others when both have been born and lived on the same territory, then the problem is you. The whole idea of seeking justification for this from some ancient history is wrong in my mind. It's the problem itself!

    IMHO as long as Hamas, a totalitarian regime, controls Gaza -- Gaza will be a prison for the palestinians.BitconnectCarlos
    Gaza was a prison even before Hamas. People couldn't get in an out without the permission of Israelis. And Netanyahu supported Hamas, as it was perfect for him to show that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians.

    What is the protocol when 1200 are killed, 300 kidnapped, and many other raped? As an American, it is war. Anything else is out of the question.BitconnectCarlos
    And why on Earth you even seek a "protocol" for handling a terrorist attack? If there's a "protocol" I think it's quite obvious: raise security for it not to happen again, seek out the perpetrators. Then look at what the reason for the attack. If it isn't an estranged lunatic individual, for whom prison/mental asylum is the answer, but the attack is part of a political struggle, then seek a solution for the political problem.

    But since you took up the numbers here, about 900 civilians killed and the rest being soldiers and security operators, you actually bring up something that is a problem here. At some point, it all just becomes this urge for reprisal, for retribution. Hell with anything else!!!

    (And btw, how many of decapitated babies were there actually?)

    And that's the thing that for example the US can easily be entangled in a war that the terrorists seek. You only need a successful attack, and then the answer is reprisals. And reprisals are the thing terrorists want.

    Here the objectives of "Al Aqsa flood" were successfully met. It prevented the Israeli-Saudi peace-deal and it put the Palestinian issue at the forefront. That Hamas is destroyed is illogical? Well, for them every dead Hamas fighter is a martyr. In fact every killed Palestinian is a martyr. For them, Israel has just shown it's real face.

    The thinking is just like the "Red Army Fraction" had in Germany: the members were convinced that West-Germany was still Nazi Germany, and they as the "fraction" of the true Red Army would have to attack the system for it to show it's true colors and thus create the mythical Rote Armee would rise up from the proletariat. Yet that didn't happen. And perhaps the simple reason is that they didn't kill enough Germans for Germans to stop thinking about is a police matter, but declare a war against them.
  • Postmodernism and Mathematics
    Do you think Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Husserl are postmodernists???

    You think Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is postmodern thought? I beg to differ. I think that what Wittgeinstein says about mathematics there is quite true philosophy of mathematics.

    I'm not familiar with Deleuze, but at least Heidegger and Husserl did have a broad understanding of philosophy before them and that of Francis Bacon, Descartes, Kant. That the 19th and 20th Century continental philosophy had the "linguistic turn" isn't at all postmodernism, but at least they had an understanding of what they were criticizing.
  • Is the work environment even ethical anymore?
    It’s out of Marx’s Das Kapital.NOS4A2

    :grin: :grin: :lol:

    REALLY? YOU NOS4A2???

    Let me get this straight. YOU take Karl Marx not as a political philosopher, one major political ideologue of 19th Century, but the most accurate economic historian in his most important ideological book, to represent the best what economic history can say about the industrialization? Who cares if he didn't have that historical hindsight we enjoy when looking at the age of industrialization.

    Or is it a cynical remark or something? :razz:

    Or has you account been cracked and occupied by someone and we're looking at identity theft?

    I've never thought you were the tankist Marxist here, NOS4A2. :snicker:
  • Is the work environment even ethical anymore?
    When the factory system came into being in England, an army of workers were readily available because the State had expropriated them from their land. It was either go into the factories and work for sustenance wages or else to beg, steal, or starve.NOS4A2
    As having studied economic history in the university, this sounds quite strange. :brow:

    The basic reason is exactly the same why people choose to work in sweatshops in poor countries today: the income is better. The income working in a farm field is nonexistent, especially if and when you are a subsistence farmer. Income at a factory even if lousy with bad working conditions compared to later, it was better. And even today a farmer can have an income basically similar to working at McDonalds, even if he or she would be a millionaire if all the land would be sold.

    That then (and now in the poorest countries) people are poor in the countryside isn't because of the state.

    I don't know where you get the argument that this was because of the State. But please inform me, if I've gotten it wrong (which is a possibility).
  • Postmodernism and Mathematics
    I don't have enough maths knowledge to drill down into this, but no doubt axioms or presuppositions (and their justifications) lie the core of postmodern investigation.Tom Storm
    I don't think so. I still think that their focus is on the societal aspects of mathematics, starting perhaps with the way it's taught.

    Postmodernists don't have such knowledge about ZF etc.

    What they will (unfortunately) refer to is Gödel's incompleteness Theorems, but... basically I get the feeling that the just mention it to say that they are aware of incompleteness results existing. But that's basically it. If they say something more, it's quoted by Alan Sokal in "Fashionable nonsense".

    Or if I'm wrong, please quote the text that shows your point.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Even ethnic cleansing, genocide was on the table.Punshhh
    Or is on the table.

    A traumatized event leaves politicians to do something dramatic. It cannot be something of the ordinary or otherwise the leaders are seen as timid, indecisive or simply cold to the suffering of the people when the trauma hits the population. And hence some people will get a "window of opportunity" because a simple "Destroy Hamas totally" will resonate to everybody. There's nothing to debate, just destroy them! And if you have these grand plans that can be fulfilled now, then this is the moment.

    INTERACTIVE-Israels-Return-to-Gaza-Conference-map-1706522923.png?w=770&resize=770%2C770&quality=80
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Nuking countries apparently is a good method to obtain peace, sure.neomac
    A bit off the topic, but this also is something not so obvious, was it the atomic bombs or was it actually the Russian attack on Japan? Or both?

  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Anyways, if nuking is a good strategy for prompting surrender and permanent peace, then that's also an option for Israel to consider, right?neomac
    Winning a war is one thing, what to do then is another. Winning the peace is the fact that is missing here.

    Perhaps you don't get my point: there has to be a peace that will prevail in the future. If the other side loses, then it loses and it is open to hear your terms. Yet if your terms are simply "drop dead" or there are no terms, then there is no reason to subject, but simply go on, plan how you can defeat the enemy occupier. Hence a war has been quite futile, if the peace will be broken in the future.

    And what's the solution you have in mind? A final solution like Mr Hitler had in mind for the Jews? There's seven million Palestinians, so 'doing away' with seven million will get you into Guinness World of Records and topple Mr Hitler's previous Holocaust. That is neither possible or sustainable and quite deplorable.

    How about Germany?neomac
    Actually with Germany this becomes even more clear when you think of the two Post German states! Which one experienced a revolt against it's occupier as early as the 1950's? Which had to build the Berlin wall to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the other Germany? And which Germany basically collapsed as a house of cards and end up in the dustbin of history after the unification of the two states? And finally, which Germany is still an ally of the US and is totally happy that the US has bases in it's territory?

    Picture questionnaire: Are the German throwing rocks at American or Soviet tanks in 1953?
    65875634_1004.webp

    Just having a war and winning the battles doesn't give you peace, especially if you don't think about what to do after a military victory. If you have only naive or delusional ideas that the people will thank you after you have bombed them or then just want retribution, the likelyhood that peace will continue is doubtful. Didn't the Americans find out that after invading Iraq? Mission accomplished, as you remember
    ! Well, there the US is still stuck, have basically given the place to Iran with the Iraqi government asking the Americans to leave.

    the problem is that ALSO peace depends on narratives and it remains unreachable if it is grounded in incompatible narratives about peace conditions.neomac
    Exactly. And that means you really have to take into consideration what the losing side WILL ACCEPT! True peace is what both sides can accept. But if you don't care shit about the enemy you have beaten or think of them as human animals who are incapable of handling themselves and are totally irresponsible, then you reap what you sow when the enemy comes back after a decade or two. Or continues simply continues the war with the limited resources it has.

    You really have to think about it this way. For Finns this is easy because we did lose a war, yet we did prevail and didn't become after the Winter War a Soviet republic and afterwards a Soviet satellite state. Stalin didn't militarily defeat Finland, Finland opted for peace and got Stalin to agree with this (which it wasn't going to accept in the case of Germany). "Finlandization" came the norm, however the Finnish military went to great lengths to prepare to fight an insurgency if the Soviets would try to invade the country afterward. This was noted by Stalin and he preferred to keep Finland neutral rather than to invade and fight a long insurgency in Finland. It wasn't about good will.

    It’s the military build-up and the consequent power projection of Russia that enabled and encouraged the Ukrainian invasion WAY MORE than the trigger of NATO expansion.neomac
    Military build-up is an outcome of an agenda, it's not an agenda itself. NATO expansion was only one small reason, another was simply that there's only the narrative of Russia as an (threatened) empire. Russia simply cannot see itself as a nation state, because it isn't one made for just Russians.

    Secular zionism wasn’t ideologically more prone to support a Palestinian state than Israel todayneomac
    I might have to disagree here, even if you make your point well. Religious zionism is far more intolerant at making compromises. At least the founding fathers assumed that in the future they ought to make peace with the Palestinians/Arabs.

    . On the other side what was the Palestinian endgame? Always very confrontational toward a Israeli state, and expectedly so.neomac
    The pro-Israeli narrative goes to extreme lengths to tell it like this, because all that the Palestinians want push the Israel and the Israelis to the sea, right? And the Isrealis are the adults in the room here.

    In truth, the PLO/FATAH and the PA would have said again and again the pre-1967 borders would be enough for them. Even Hamas would have hinted at this (for example @Benkei referred to this at the start of this thread). And there have been the Arab peace proposals, so you can look them up.

    It's just one of the myths that the Arab/Palestinian side hasn't made any efforts at a negotiated peace themselves.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I’m going to reserve judgment until we know more. But it’s absolutely tragic.Mikie
    These kinds of incidents do tell something. As did for example the case where Israeli hostages taken by Hamas tried to surrender to Israeli forces (whose objective is to liberate them) by waving white flags were gunned down. Or the video shown in South Africa's case of Israeli soldiers singing "there are no civilians in Gaza". Yes, those are individual events, but when you have many individual events, then something can be said about them in general. But it's hardly an act of "the most moral" army as Netanyahu has described them. To believe so is as whimsical as the idea that the 30 000 Hamas fighters lurk in every building and under every cemetery in Gaza, which some seem to believe. Historical clarity comes later and likely in this case there's going to be a fierce battle to control the narrative.

    Perhaps one way to try to put the war in Gaza into a context is to look at the urban battles that have been even more bloody. Hence to look at what this war in Gaza isn't. Naturally the obvious counterexample is the warcrime comitted by Hamas in the first place, where obviously the objective was to create civilian casualties too, even if military target were attacked (with 373 soldiers and security forces being killed). But this was done by a dash of 3 000 Hamas fighters or so, which suffered 50% losses themselves. Even Hamas has admitted that "there were excesses", hence it's obviosly a warcrime.Yet now over 30 000 killed has been reached with 70 000 wounded. That's 26 times the number of whom were killed in October 7th. I think these are somewhat credible numbers, because it's hard to fabricate 100 000 dead and wounded.

    And as I noted to @BitconnectCarlos, the quelling of the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 was more bloody than the war in Gaza has been and likely similar casualty numbers aren't going to be reached (hopefully), hence Nazi warmachine with it's SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger were indeed far more heinous. Another case is the battle of Manila, where over 100 000 civilians were killed. That 100 000 civilians are killed during urban combat is very difficult to understand. Here's a good depiction of that told by the WW2 Documentary about the battle of Manila and what lengths you have to go to get so many killed:



    And how is this compared to other instances of clearing cities from terrorists in the Middle East? Hence let's compare this for example to the Battle of Ramadi (2015-2016), where you had ISIS holding on to the large city and the US and UK supporting the Iraqi forces with airpower. The ISIS put a very stubborn defense, and in the end Ramadi, a city of 200 000, was destroyed. However, there was only about 150 civilians killed. As I earlier took the example of the US fighting in Fallujah, similarly the civilians casualties (800) don't come anywhere close even when you take into account that cities were smaller (basically a quarter of Gaza's population).

    There's actually only one instance in the Middle East where fighting in a city has come to similar numbers of killed than now in Gaza. That is the 1982 Hama massacre, which is depicted to be a genocidal massacre by the Hafez Al-Assad regime to put down the Muslim Brotherhood's rebellion attempt. There the Syrian army had the objective of making an example of the city and not just take out the terrorists. The result was that about 20 000 - 40 000 people killed from a city of quarter of a million were killed.

    I think Netanyahu has a similar ideas of making Gaza "an example" to discourage anyone thinking of doing the same as what Hamas did. Syria of course was (and is) a totalitarian regime. Not a country that people assume to be a democracy.

    And that is very tragic.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    No, racism, no mythology, only the facts from me:BitconnectCarlos
    Facts?
    Seems you don't even notice in your thinking the obvious myths you cling to:

    "Palestine" has always described a geographic location. It did not become a people until the 1960s. So yes that will raise eyebrows. "Palestinians" are a people without a history, at least not one that extends back further than the 1960s. They are a recent invention.BitconnectCarlos

    The obvious myth here is that somehow people that have lived ages ago somewhere before, have then more justification for the land while if people who have lived there, but haven't had a sovereign state, are somehow less justified. And more over, because Zionism is a creation of the 19th Century, so actually your ideas are not so old either.

    Jews migrated to Europe even during the Roman Empire, so they had been here for quite a while until Zionism came along (and Hitler, obviously too).

    And overall if we generalize, this kind of thinking, that one people have more right to territory than others living there, then puts any kind of immigration and migrants to have less claim to the home they have, which at worst can be and is a form of racism. If Finns and the few thousand Sami people have lived on the same place since Antiquity, that surely doesn't mean the few people whose ancestors have migrated here later are somehow less justified to be here. Someone who has gotten citizenship should have equal rights, obviously.

    These kinds of attitudes are so similar how (Putin's) Russia thinks and belittles Ukrainians and Ukraine itself. The state of Ukraine is "artificial" to them and quite in a similar way that Palestine and Palestinians "raise your eyebrows".

    And this also makes the narrative of Israelis being an "European settler-colonial movement" repulsive too, because it too also promotes the idea that then the Palestinians are more justified than the Israelis. The obvious solution should be that both have equal right for having a home.

    The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history.BitconnectCarlos
    I think in this case they are even less willing to assist in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, when their people are already outraged how Israel is killing and starving Palestinians.

    Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable.BitconnectCarlos
    I think it's quite apt in this occasion.

    I would encourage you to listen to one former US president of yours:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I didn’t mean to suggest that the Japanese attack and the Islamist attack were on the same scale, just that the American nukes more than aiming at destroying military capabilities, strategic infrastructures or decapitating/disrupting the Japanese chain of command, were aimed at demolishing morale in the civilian population and force total surrender.neomac
    It's actually the basic concept of Douhet's argument from the 20's: strategic bombing ends wars more quickly. And simply the invasion of Japan planned for late 1945 and 1946, Operation Downfall. But notice that it didn't happen as Japan did surrender. But here comes the part I have tried to explain: The US had then a plan that made peace to prevail. The US didn't annex Japan or Japan wasn't cut into pieces by the allies (even if the Soviets took the Kuril islands, which has causes problems). The US left the Japanese emperor alive. The US did many things that the Japanese could accept, even if the surrendered.

    And this of course all happened because there was no Operation Downfall. No marines or allied troops had set foot on the beaches of the main islands. Hence indeed McArthur had to respect the Japanese.

    macarthur-d.jpg

    And this is my point: the war had a Klausewitzian goal. After the surrender the peace worked. Imagine how well it would have worked if Japan would have been cut into to with Stalin holding one part? North and South Korea give an answer to that. Yet there's no similar goal other than to "get the terrorists" when the US invaded Afghanistan. What was the plan then for Afghanistan? Nothing, George Bush had no intention of country-building at first. How did the plan take into account Pakistan? In no way. And hence Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends and in the end got it's Taleban back into power with the US retreating in humiliation.

    My point is actually very well explained by Yuval Noah Harari in the following interview from some days ago: if you don't have the time to check it out all, please go to minute 09:00 where after the question Harari explains well what in the war is lacking: an Klausewitzian goal for the war. He takes the example of the invasion of Iraq, which simply played into the hands of Iran. Again something that wasn't clearly thought over, but concocted by the neocons.



    Furthermore it's exactly on the point what Harari says about the battle for the soul of the Israeli nation between patriotism and Jewish supremacy. Harari explains very well the difference between patriotism and the feelings of national supremacy. As Harari also notes, Netanyahu hasn't said what the long term plan is. That Klausewitzian goal is missing: a peace to end this war.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Russia's next move:

    Transnistria asking for help!!!

    Politicians in Moldova’s Kremlin-backed breakaway region of Transnistria have appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to “protect” it against “pressure” from Chișinău.

    “[We resolved to] appeal to the Federation Council and the State Duma of the Russian Federation, requesting measures to protect Transnistria amidst increased pressure from Moldova,” read a resolution adopted by hundreds of Transnistrian politicians in Tiraspol, the region’s capital and largest city.

    The appeal stops short of directly asking Moscow to integrate Transnistria into Russia, as had been predicted by one Transnistrian opposition politician in the days before the resolution was adopted.

    Let's see when how this is masked to be a NATO plot, especially when Moldova is neutral by it's constitution. :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.BitconnectCarlos
    ...and then continued the open air prison of Gaza by closing the land and sea borders and had the occasional bombing of the place. That just now has hit a new crescendo.

    Exactly like... Lebanon. Where Isreal went into to defeat the PLO and stayed there for decades and thus emerged the opposition to this occupation in the form of Hezbollah, and then they decided to withdraw. And there's no peace deal between Lebanon and Israel, but the occasional larger war with an low-intensity conflict going on all the time.

    You see, withdrawal would be far more effective if you would do a peace treaty. But it seems that the occasional war is a far better choice.

    Where are the ancient Palestinian burial plots? Where is there anything that is ancient Palestinian? Jews are the indigenousBitconnectCarlos
    The typical racism that jingoists use. Reminds me of the Serbs and their fixation with Kosovo Polje and how important for Putin is ancient Rus being the craddle of Russia, hence Ukraine and the Ukrainians are so artificial. It always starts from despising the other and questioning their overall existence and mythologization of one's own past.

    But seriously, what has happened to Palestinian burial grounds?

    (CNN) The Israeli military has desecrated at least 16 cemeteries in its ground offensive in Gaza, a CNN investigation has found, leaving gravestones ruined, soil upturned, and, in some cases, bodies unearthed.

    IIRC you mentioned a historical instance where Finland won a war (against Russia?) and as a result won a bit of land from the aggressor.BitconnectCarlos
    Now I'm even more confused. You do realize that we have been around as an independent state only from 1917, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

    The only war Finland has ever won is it's own Civil War against the Reds. But lost first the Winter War and then after Continuation war. Even the Germans basically withdrew to Norway in our Lapland War. Hence we are very proud just to have survived and avoided an occupation.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    1. When the US got attacked by the Japs in WW2, the US nuked the Japs twice, as soon as nukes were ready. Is this an "empathetic response” or a first necessary step of a “clear strategic” path for Japs to democracy, peace and prosperity for Japan in the next half century which American politicians/diplomats conceived?neomac
    When Japan tried to wipe off and sink whole Pacific fleet of the US, invaded the Phillipines (then a colony of the US) and Guam and Aleutian Islands of Alaska are something totally different on scale to a terrorist strike perpetrated by a non-state actor as tiny as Al Qaeda was. So it's a bit strange to say that Roosevelt responded with oversized force. There's no doubt that the US was attacked with the objective of taking it's territory (the Phillipines). The stupidity of this action from the Japanese is really a good question.

    Secondly, the atomic bomb was thought as a large bomb and note that more people were killed in the fire bombings of Japanese cities. Only with the Cold War it gained it's reputation. The idea of strategic bombing wasn't purely American, Giulio Douhet had proposed it first in the 1920's and obviously the other countries believed in the concept that taking the battle to the whole enemy country made sense.

    In short, long-term strategies can still be worked out of “empathic responses”: indeed, it’s the empathic element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world.neomac
    Yes. Assuming they make sense. Did the reason why the US had it's longest war in Afghanistan make sense? The reason given was that "If the US doesn't occupy Afghanistan, it might possibly become a terrorist safe haven." It was repeated over and over again, but in my view it's even far more crazier than the "Domino Theory" in South-East Asia.

    So if Osama bin Laden would yet had been staying in Sudan (as he did earlier). Then I guess the US would have gone an invaded Sudan. Guess how well that would have gone? I mean, just look at what Sudan is now EVEN WITHOUT American involvement.


    2. “War on terror” doesn’t seem to me an example of unclear strategy, even if it ultimately failed.neomac
    How about "War on Blitzkrieg"?

    And then just a reminder about the "War on Terror" thinking, I assume you have seen it, but if not, it is one of the classic interview from general Wesley Clark, which btw. he absolutely hated to be reminded about during the Obama administration:


    That above isn't a clear strategy. It's the strategy of "We can do now everything we have wanted to do". That is unclear and will lead ultimately to failure, which it did. And actually also why there is indeed a lot to be critical about US policy.

    Or this clip: here is the former secretary of Defense saying on why invading Iraq would be a stupid idea and would end up in a quagmire, which he the later promoted and then pushed through and indeed ended up as a quagmire.


    Both interviews show just how clueless the response after 9/11 and the Global War on Terror was. That also domestic flights in the US started to have security controls might have indeed been the proper thing to do.

    Maybe one can think better strategies or better ways to implement them in the hindsight, yet politicians do not have the chance to test different long-term solutions before picking the best one. They are compelled to follow a certain path under lots of national and international pressure, and despite all the unknowns.neomac
    It is said that prior to invading Iraq, George Bush didn't know the difference between a Sunni or a Shia. Pretty important to understand if and when you attack Iraq and think it's going to be a short, cheap war and the Iraqis will thank you. So maybe there indeed are better strategies. But when it's a unipolar moment, why listen or even think about others. Either they are with you or against you, right?

    But let's think for a while what would the Americans would have thought if Bush had acted just by negotiating the handing over of OBL from the Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taleban), then had FBI and NYPD among other police departments working on the terrorist strikes. Not only would it looked like a weak response, but in fact extremely cold. That's the whole problem here. It's a version of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine": if you a strike leaves your country in shock, you can do anything you want.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    That's easy. The EU is an undemocratic, untransparent, bureaucratic monster of an institutionTzeentch
    EU is basically a confederacy of sovereign states, so wtf with it being "undemocratic"?

    My country is democratic and I don't wish any intergovernmental union to have any more of that sovereignty, especially when we do have the European Parliament and it's elections.

    Untransparent, bureaucratic, yes! Well, so is the UN and still I would keep that organization around too.

    So if you naively think that Brexit made the UK better, then that's your opinion, not mine and not something that many Europeans would agree on. And just ask how many Britons are satisfied how that went. We should thank the British of showing how awful it is if and when similar UKIP idiots would be followed. The BREXIT disaster put off similar aspirations in other EU countries pretty well.

    and saves it the hassle of having to deal with each European nation seperately.Tzeentch
    Which actually also is a benefit for smaller countries when they have to hassle with Russia. Another good effect that EU membership gives. Without the EU, Russia could bully European countries picking them individually.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I cannot find the book now, but luckily you have made it easy to reply further:

    This once again proves one cannot be too cynical when analysing US foreign policy.Tzeentch
    Perfect example of your faulty argumentation. As you can notice, Brzezinski is talking about 'brutal age of ancient empires'. It's the Noam Chomsky's of the World who do this, and they aren't running the US.

    Usually US leadership and even former security advisors don't relate the US to brutal ancient empires. But actually from Brzezinski himself you can find just how wrong you are.

    Best here a QUOTE (meaning to write what the author has said about the issue at hand) Brzezinski. Here's what for example Brzezinski wrote in 2000 about the US and Europe:

    The transatlantic alliance is America's most important global relationship. It is the springboard for US global involvement, enabling America to play the decisive role of arbiter in Eurasia - the world's central area of power - and it creates a coalition that is globally dominant in all key dimensions of power and influence. American and Europe serve as the axis of global stability, the locomotive of the world's economy, and the nexus of intellectual capital as well as technological innovation

    And in fact, Brzezinski continues later where he actually says exactly what you get wrong:

    Europeans often fail to grasp both the spontaneity and the sincerity of America's commitment to Europe, infusing into their perception of America's desire to sustain the Euro-Atlantic alliance a penchant for Machiavellian duplicity.
    See Living with a New Europe

    And that's exactly what I think you are saying: that the whole Euro-Atlantic alliance is some kind of powerplay from the US to keep Europe down. Or as Brzezinski says, the penchant for Machiavellian duplicity.

    And moreover to the point, the US has actually done exactly the opposite to a Machiavellian power play by giving an OK to European Integration in the first place. If the US would be such a Machiavellian player when it comes to Europe, why favor then the emergence of the EU? The simple fact is that the relationship has been mutually beneficial, just as Brzezinski said above. The US was crucial in the start of the European integration process and the European states do not want that the US goes away from Europe. This couldn't be more clear from the fact that the US wants the European countries to arm themselves and take more role in their area.

    Yet many naturally think otherwise, especially those who have the naive idea that everything evolves around the evil doings of the US and everybody else is either it's stooges or it's victims. These kind of attitudes don't take into account that global order is the end result of larger and smaller players acting together and totally dismiss even the idea cooperation that creates mutual benefit.

    If WW2 ended with the allies occupying Germany, that there are still US troops in Germany isn't a sign of a continued occupation, but that the fact that actually Germany, as the Europeans, want the US to be hear as the Euro-Atlantic link has been successful.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    They paint a clear picture. I could dig through them to find the exact quotes, but I have done that enough times to know you will handwave them simply because it's not something you want to hear.Tzeentch
    No, if you say person, be it Brzezinski or Mersheimer says something, then they really have to say that. Not something similar.

    Learn to use quotes.

    Or then simply say "I think".
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Why are Jews never referred to as Palestinians?BitconnectCarlos
    I think the reason is that they formed a country called Israel and usually the citizens of that country are refered to being Israelis. The Jewish homeland and all that, remember?

    Prior when it was Mandatory Palestine, only then had you talk about Palestinian Jews.

    For your information, here's from Israel's basic law: ISRAEL - THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

    1 (a)The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the
    Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was
    established.
    (b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish
    People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious
    and historical right to self-determination.
    (c) The realization of the right to national self determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
    Jewish People.

    2. (a) The name of the State is "Israel"

    So there's your psy-op. :snicker:


    But no, Palestinians are not Jews. They're indigenous to a magical, non-existent land known as "Palestine." None of it makes any sense.BitconnectCarlos
    On the contrary, that state of Palestine is a non-exist is quite true. There's Israel and it's occupied territories.

    Why doesn't the UN go tell Finland to return the land it won from Russia?BitconnectCarlos
    What land have we gotten from Russia? I'm confused.

    FYI, Finland wasn't part of Russia itself. After Sweden lost it's eastern provinces (called Finland), they were made a Grand Dutchy, which just happened to have as it's Grand Duke the Tzar of Russia. Russians needed a passport to come to the Grand Dutchy of Finland...
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If after 500+ pages of discussion these thinkers and their works are still a mystery to you, I can't be bothered to educate you either. (I have mentioned, quoted and linked them many times) Do it yourself:

    The Grand Chessboard (Brzezinski, 1997)
    Tzeentch
    From those I've read the Grand Chessboard and even if Brzezinksi can be quite accurately be seen as proof of the evil intentions the US has for Russia (assuming one ex-security advisor literally speaks for US foreign policy), he never states what you said about Europe. For example he goes so far as to say that a Russia divided to three parts would be the best. But that's about Russia, not about the whole continent.

    Defense Planning: Guidance FY 1994-1999 (aka "The Wolfowitz Doctrine", Paul Wolfowitz, 1992)
    Actually a very interesting document, but it also doesn't AT ALL SAY WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING IT SAYING. Keep Europe divided, keep it in chaos during war? Nothing like that! And anyway, why was the US so OK with European Integration in the first place???

    So learn how to use references, @Tzeench. It's very sloppy and wrong (at least in academic circles) to say something and then refer to papers that don't say what you are saying!

    So educate yourself first and stop fabricating things up.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I’m not sure how clear strategies can be even conceived in a period of international uncertainties and power balance shifts. In the absence of a clearer strategy, maybe one can simply try to gain time and prepare for the worse.neomac
    Nonsense, actually they can. And the US showed this during the Cold War. And just how?

    Well, they asked first:
    -IF we do X, how is the Soviet Union going to react and counter us doing X?

    It worked wonders. The US didn't go invading countries. When it got to wars (South Korea, South Vietnam), there was actually a country that had been attacked. And obviously it was then as uncertain as now, but this thinking that what would your actions make others respond was thought. This lead after the Cold War ended the US to form a coalition with multiple Arab states, even Syria, to oust Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and get the green light from the UK and from the Soviet Union.

    And that then simply went to their head and diplomacy was forgotten.

    Hence after 9/11 the "empathetic response" of 19 terrorists attacking the US, hence we have to invade a landlocked country on another continent because the financier of the 19 terrorists there, didn't have any kind of thinking of this kind behind it.

    Did the US shed one thought just what Pakistan would do (or what goals Pakistan had)? Absolutely not. Hence Pakistan could give the US a photo op, talk the talk and not only give refuge to the Taliban, but in the end assist them to take back the country after the surrender-deal that Trump did with the Taliban.

    Same thing has now happened with Israel, because so many civilians were killed on October 7th. Anticipation of what could or would neighboring Arab countries (plus Iran or Turkey) doesn't matter. What the long term solution here and how does Israel get there doesn't matter. Destroy Hamas! Let's see what to do after that.

    Quite similar to current US policy.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    In addition, I think in a sense NATO (or actually the US) is too powerful and therefore can get away with military aggression. The EU wouldn't be but it could be powerful enough with sufficient nuclear deterrence to really be just a defensive organisation.Benkei
    I think the real problem was that many countries thought after the collapse of the Soviet Union that Russia a) would never get on it's feet and b) never would return to it's old imperialist ways. People genuinely thought that Russia could join NATO. Yet both a) and b) happened. It took a long time, several wars, several annexations (both in Ukraine and in Georgia) and simply one all out war for people to understand this. People eagerly dismiss all the "rebooting efforts" the US made on the way. Just like the US thought that through time Communist China wouldn't be run by Communists, even if they themselves say that they have figured the correct way to go with Marxism.

    The real problem were all those people "inventing" a new role for NATO and declaring that the old idea of military defense of European territory to be old. Last person to say so was actually incredible Donald Trump, a decade later than anybody else, but still. In fact I'm happy that Finland became a NATO member only now, because if it had become a member in the 1990's, it would have been NATO itself demanding Finland to dissolve it's "antiquated ideas" of a reservist army that defends it's own territory. Sweden did that and basically dismantled it's army. Luckily there was more understanding about the Russian's here.

    And in truth EU as a defense treaty of NATO minus US (minus Canada, perhaps minus UK also?) would simply be far more weaker entity and far weaker even in defense. So weak, that likely many countries choosing the road of Finlandization with Russia. But if let's say the Turks invaded some islands belonging to Greece or tried the full invasion of Cyprus, would your or my country go to war with Turkey in the traditional way? After all, it would be an non-EU country attacking an EU country. Likely not, as if Erdogan did this hypothetical (and crazy) thing, he wouldn't try to bomb either Amsterdam or Helsinki.

    And furthermore, even if the EU can entangle itself in debacles (like Libya) without even the US, it is lacking very important factors, starting from the fact that it's not a single sovereign entity and not a Great Power itself. It's de facto a confederacy of independent states with large amount of bureaucrats. However much it wants to be the United States of Europe, it simply isn't!

    And lastly, if you want that an European country doesn't get entangled with military adventurism, have then universal conscription and a reservist army! With "volunteer" armies people get the strange idea that the military is just a service as anything else which they pay with taxes and there's nothing else to it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The US will be forced to pivot sooner or later.

    When that happens, NATO and American influence in Europe will be used to send Europe into chaos, the seeds for which have already been sown when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status which was the key to stability between Europe and Russia.
    Tzeentch
    ?

    What is happening is that the US fears that Russia and/or Europe will become the laughing thirds when the US is sucked into a large-scale conflict in the Pacific. Provoking war between these two is the way it intends to stop that from happening.Tzeentch
    Quite incredible idea. This goes into the tinfoil hat category.

    People here are simply misunderstanding the US' central strategic challenge, which is to keep the Eurasian continent divided (as described by Mackinder, Wolfowitz, Brzezinski, etc.) in times of peace, and in utter chaos in times of war. (and also to stop any regional powers to arise in the Western Hemisphere, but that's another topic).Tzeentch
    This is the kind of anti-US bullshit that won't fly, if you don't even give any kind of actual reference of Wolfowitz, Brzezinski actually saying this.

    If your capable of giving actual quotes, then it's fruitful and interesting to continue this discussion forward.

    And if by "Eurasian continent" you mean Russia with the rest of Europe as the junior partner, just look at the mirror and asked just who and how got neutral countries like Sweden and Finland into NATO.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles.Benkei
    No. They are not. You cannot reproduce with reptiles being a human. But with Americans you can. :wink:

    If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire.Benkei
    NATO has shown it again and again that there is no automation for this. Remember Freedom Fries?



    Hence it's the Americans that will voluntarily leave and thus force Europe to think about itself.

    Secondly, the vast majority of Americans are blissfully unaware just what kind of a crown jewel NATO still is. Just look at your country or Belgium next door. Both countries have totally morphed their armed forces to operate as part of NATO, not alone. This shows just how deep the integration and the acceptance of NATO has gone. Then you can see how simply both CENTO and SEATO simply collapsed. The member countries simply didn't share much anything in common, hence no integration. All those 'pivot-people' arguing that the US has to pivot to face China seem not to notice just how little teamwork there is between US allies.

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are already 3 wars the Dutch were pulled into where we shouldn't have been. That only happens because we are in NATO and the USA is portrayed as an ally, except of course or isn't when it's the agressor.Benkei
    And you could have not participated, just like I think you didn't participate in the Iraqi invasion of 2003. And yes, face then the wrath of the Americans, just like the French with "Freedom Fries".

    If there's one thing clear that you don't get brownie points on sucking up to the US. The administration won't care a shit about what you did with the last administration and how loyal ally you have been. The UK hasn't gotten any special treatment even if it has been the most loyal ally. Israel get's it, but that's because of the Israeli lobby in domestic US politics.

    And you should then ask yourself, IF the EU would go all alone here, why would it not get to situations like in Libya by itself then?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power.Benkei
    Why?

    Yep :up: if Europe can get its act together (I intentionally expanded "the EU" to "Europe").jorndoe
    What's the logic of breaking up the Atlantic relations, which is the primary objective for Russia? Russia is far more powerful than any European country, so this would benefit them very much.

    And what do you have in mind when saying that Europe getting it's act together? There's no nuclear parity between Russia's nearly 6000 nuclear weapons compared to France's 300 deployed nuclear weapons. You think the people in Brussels would want (or have the ability) to suddenly start a large nuclear weapons program? I'm not sure how much @Benkei want's his tax dollars to go to pay for a new nuclear weapons procurement program.

    Besides, when the US starts one of it's hopeless not well thought wars, there's no automatic mechanism that NATO members have to follow the US into the next epic American quagmire.

    We have already seen this before and we are seeing this today. Biden has just gotten in his "whack-the-Houthi" war only his trusty sidekick, the UK, to assist with few Typhoons from Cyprus to join in. France hasn't. NATO hasn't. And when it comes to the crazy war against Shiia militias of Iraq, even the UK isn't there so Biden has to go alone there.

    And even if another NATO member is attacked (or a member asks for help), then it's still to up to the member state just how to assist (perhaps send blankets, humanitarian aid and a "We're with you!" card).

    Trump bitching about the US leaving NATO might do enough for Europe to get it's act together. And Trump has been more successful in that than Obama was.

    I'm all in favor of the EU and Europe NOT taking the role of the US and going on elsewhere in the World with military adventures. To assist Ukraine is enough and has a rather clear mission. Supporting a country that has been invaded by a larger country that wants to annex large territories from it is enough reasons for me.

    Getting tangled into conflicts around the World isn't a good solution for the EU. If a member state wants to do it, they can if the need to.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I think there might be a change happening in the US, but these things take time. Views for example here show well that there is a large support for US-Israeli relationship, even if it can spark a heated discussion.

    Yet what is obviously happening in the region is the hardening of attitudes and religious fanatics gaining more power. Peace processes have followed conflicts, but perhaps not this time. Tony Klug made the fitting comment here: both sides don't know what they are doing, they don't have clear strategies.

    And when someone will counter and argue saying that destroying Hamas is a clear strategy, well, so was fighting Al-Qaeda and the War On Terror a 'clear strategy' to many at the time. Just go to Afghanistan and destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban! What could have been more clear?

    We know what that lead to.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Regarding humanitarianism I would tend to agree, and Israel has actually fought this war fairly humanely.BitconnectCarlos
    Well, compared to putting down the Warsaw Uprising, a battle that took 64 days with a city with less people and which ended up with 15 000 dead fighters from the Polish Home Army and 150 000 - 200 000 civilians killed, we can surely say that IDF fighting methods are different from Hitler's army and the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger. (The remark on the actual whole Iraq war isn't here comparable, as you should know it was also a civil war between the sunnis and shias and not all urban comment.) So yes! The "most moral" army (as Bibi puts it) isn't in the Dirlewanger-brigade level...

    Yet there's the use of air power: now IDF has used bombs multiple times more than the US did in it's six year war in Iraq, which is telling.

    And even to the Warsaw of WW2 there is one eerie kind of similarity:
    By January 1945, 85% of the buildings were destroyed: 25% as a result of the Uprising, 35% as a result of systematic German actions after the uprising, and the rest as a result of the earlier Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the September 1939 campaign.

    In Gaza:
    (BBC, 9th February) Gazan officials say more than 50% of housing units in Gaza have been destroyed, left uninhabitable or damaged since the start of the conflict. They say more than 500,000 people will have no homes to return to, and many more will not be able to return immediately after the conflict because of damage to surrounding infrastructure.

    The map below - using analysis of satellite data by Corey Scher of CUNY Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University - shows which urban areas have sustained concentrated damage since the start of the conflict.

    They say at least 150,000 buildings across the whole Gaza Strip have suffered damage. North Gaza and Gaza City have borne the brunt of this, with at least 70% of buildings in the two northern regions believed to have been damaged, but their analysis now suggests up to 62% of buildings in Khan Younis have also been damaged.
    _132592114_gaza_damage_s1_02feb-2x-nc.png.webp

    Even if 50% or 70% isn't 84%, the idea that Hamas has built in more than 50% of housing a military positions is simply outrageously ludicrous. It simply isn't the case. The simple fact is that there's what, only 30 000 Hamas fighters at most while buildings have been attacked. And since the Israeli administration has thought of "voluntary movement" of Palestinians, having cabinet members cheering for building new Israeli settlements to Gaza, the case that South Africa made to the ICJ is quite credible.

    That make Gaza unlivable is a worrying possibility.

    I don't deny such notions exist. We're only human after all. I have no idea what the post-war order will look like, only that a military response towards Hamas is justified.BitconnectCarlos
    That's the problem. Because actually the current Israeli administration is thinking exactly like you. They have no real post-war plan, they are making things on the fly. Day by day. They seem to hope that it becomes so unbearable that the Palestinians simply have to be moved somewhere else. They aren't interested in thinking how those Gazan Palestinian people and children will remember this and how the fight will go on once a new generation comes to age.

    To look a bit further and to think just how this conflict will end is not something that people will want to hear. Israelis don't want to hear about a two state solution. And Palestinians aren't either wanting now to sit down and continue where the Oslo peace process ended.

    Millions of Evangelical votes? Do you have any compelling evidence that millions of Evangelicals would vote for Biden, if only Biden let Netanyahu do whatever he wants in Gaza?neomac
    Naturally most of the vote for Trump, of course, but notice that the Israeli lobby is so powerful in both parties. And isn't Bibi just waiting for Trump to arrive?

    And it's going to be even worse when Israel attacks Lebanon.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I do not find Russia’s stated security concerns even remotely as credible as Israel’s.neomac
    At least there's something we agree on.

    And my criticism is on the way Israel is currently handling it's security concerns. Yes, it has to handle them, but perhaps the idea of building more settlements isn't the path to safety.

    Notice that the American diplomatic leverage over Israel should arguably be very high since Israel is international isolation is increasing and isolationist trends are growingly popular among Americans.neomac
    Actually it isn't. During the Cold War Israel understood it's role against Soviet leaning Arab nationalism. But that is ancient history now. The US-Israeli connection is far more than than. And Bibi (and likely others) can play the Washington game too. They have the Israeli lobby of whom the most powerful group is the Evangelicals, not the American Jews. Hence actually US leverage is smaller. You can see this easily with for example with Obama. Bibi didn't have to go through the White House or the Secretary of the State, he could easily meet politicians in the Congress directly.

    As I said, I would exclude the Evangelical issue (at least the way you argued it, preserving the support of the Jewish lobby may be enough compelling to Biden), and give more weight to hegemonic concerns that also led the US to get involved in the beef between Russians and Ukrainians.neomac
    It is election year, so I would assume millions of votes do count. Biden can sacrifice the Arab-American vote and some young progressives in the campuses, not millions that would vote for him.


    With friends in the Congress...
    465165596

    IF it’s really matter of nation-state struggle over the same land on both Israeli and Palestinian sides (the war between Ukrainians and Russians is not the same, Russians have their state while threatening integrity and independency of the Ukrainian nation-state), then that’s a dead-lock and they both, Israelis and Palestinians, are compelled to fight it out even at risk of ethnic cleansening on both sides.neomac
    That the most realistic way to put it. And that's why this conflict has gone for over 75 years.

    IF it’s matter of fighting as martyrs for pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, or just as Iranian-proxies Palestinians are an extension of Arab/Islamic/Iranian imperialism which even the West may be compelled to fight (as the West is fighting Russian imperialism), not only Israel.neomac
    That's the more unlikely reason. Various ism's come and go. But naturally Israel hopes it can get this role of being the defender of the West against the Muslims threat. That Israel's fight is your and mine fight too.

    IF it’s matter of peace and safety for civilians, then Palestinians are MORE EASILY compelled to emigrate to more hospitable lands than Ukrainians and Jews (indeed, it’s what Jews did to flee from the Nazis), because their Ummah-brothers in neighbouring Arab/Muslim countries have ALL THE LOVE AND LANDS to host and protect ummah-brother Arab/Muslim Palestinians (unless the Ummah-brother story is all bullshit).neomac
    I think European response to the war in Ukraine here shows that this isn't the case. Even if European countries are OK with refugees (mainly women and children) coming to their lands, they are more eager to give Ukraine weapons. Nobody than Iran is giving any weapons to the Palestinians. And for Palestinians, they have the Nakba as close to heart as the Jews have the Holocaust.

    But of course it can get even worse. When that attack to Lebanon starts, for example. And usually things get worse when Israel thinks that it's enemies are incapable idiots that it can beat off, if it has done that previously. Then things like the Yom Kippur war and October 7th happen.

    So when Iran then attacks Israel's Jericho II/III missiles based in Sdot Micha and the Arrow missiles cannot fully defend the site, then Biden is really close to sending the US to the aid of Israel.

    Sdot-Micha-Airbase.jpg
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So, because of this warped, stupid way of thinking, thousands more children will be starved and killed. And our enlightened, philosophy-reading hobbyists will continue to cheer.

    How repulsive.
    Mikie
    When enough people are killed in the first place, we don't care about our laws we have been so proud of. That's the frightening part. It is all about numbers.

    Just look at what the difference between numbers of 6 and 2977.

    In the case of an (unsuccessful) terrorist attack that killed six people the US legal system prevailed: the attack was a police matter and finally after years the terrorists were tracked and caught in Pakistan by the FBI, sentenced in a US court and are now in the US prison system serving their terms.

    The same target attacked later now successfully attacked along other targets by terrorists with links to the former. The attack killed 2977 in total (plus the terrorists themselves) and the US went on to fight it's longest war. Which it humiliatingly lost. And an invasion of Iraq. Where the now "pro-US" government wants the US out. With 7245 US servicemen killed in both wars. The terrorist weren't dealt with the US justice system, but by a special military court tucked away in Cuba. And the war is actually still going on, even if not admitted.

    Same has happened in Israel. With similar numbers like 11, 22, 38 and then 1139 (or 799)

    Now these numbers were PLO attacks of the Munich Olympics attack of 1972 (11 deaths), the Ma'alot massacre 1974 (22) and Coastal Road Massacre of 1978 (38). The last one actually was similar to October 7th in that the terrorists came inside Israel by boat and then simply roamed around and tried to kill as many as possible. This from the PLO that finally agreed into the peace process.

    All of those 'numbers' still held Israel back (and of course there would be more), but that 1139/799 didn't. 799 referring to the civilians and 1139 referring to the number when also the soldiers are counted. Operation Al-Aqsa flood succeeded very well and created first the shock and then this response. 9/11 showed us what the response will be.

    Many commentators are eager to point out that those kibbutzes attacked on October 7th had many of the 'peaceniks' of Israel that were for a two state solution and now how unison Israel is against any Palestinian state. And in truth the Israel left that did try to get the peace process moving is tiny.

    So yes, the war will prevail now. And likely will escalate. We have seen this play out and it will take decades for the desire for revenge to calm... assuming the war won't bring even larger numbers.
  • What makes nature comply to laws?
    That there's non-euclidian geometry was actually rather easy to understand because it's so useful for instance when mapping the World.

    I think the real question is all the issue that are in the realm of non-computable mathematics.
  • What makes nature comply to laws?
    Naturally, the tendency is for humans to interest themselves particularly in the kind of maths that is instantiated in their world, and be less concerned with N dimensional hyperbolic manifolds and klein bottles and transfinite arithmetic etc.unenlightened
    Actually, I think all the problems and confusions we have in math starts from what you mentioned. Math for humans, and I would dare to say for animals too even if they math is "nothing, one, two, many", has started from the necessity of counting things. And we have thus put this small part of math as to be the basis of math, as the initial axioms everything starts from.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    OK, I'll put it as simple as I can. If the Westerners have to take seriously Israel's security concerns (and I argued why they should, unlike Russia's security concerns)neomac
    Actually stop there as this is a very good point. Because naturally for Putin it's allways about security concerns (even if he cannot stop blabbing about Ukraine being a natural part of Russia as the cradle of the Russian state). And we have to accept that "security concerns" are the reason for war. After all, my country was (and is) a "security concern" for Russia just where it is.

    , and the Israeli government has proven to be incapable of dealing with it in ways more digestible to us, then either the West finds a way to appease Israel's security concerns for good (and in a much better way much than it did with Ukraine) or it has to abandon Israel to its fate[/quote]
    Or simply do what Ronald Reagan did with the Isrealis after they launched "Operation Peace for Galilee" (which btw created Hezbollah in the first place). Show the red card, put limits. It's easy, has been done in history.

    And if you want peace than the present to continue for another 75 years or more, you simply have to put pressure on both sides. That's it. That's the only reason why both Israel AND the PLO chose the Oslo path, but when Israel say it doesn't have any pressure to do anything about it, why would it not opt to put more grind on the Palestinians. IF PLO would have had their Gulf support, I think that Arafat would have been just fine to direct attacks on Israel and try to fight the war.

    Israeli people don't want a two state solution. Hence their one state solution of Israel to the river to the sea will have a perpetual security problem they are willing to have. Or then kick out the Palestinians, do the ethnic cleansing. What a superb way to solve the problem. Then bitch about how anti-semitism is on the rise.

    Bibi is following exactly the neocon playbook that George Bush followed after 9/11. Remember that the Americans loved that so much they voted him to office another time. And the neocons wanted to go other countries than just Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the solution for Bibi too, win a great victory and get the support back. Far more territorial his aspirations. So let's have that war in Lebanon.

    After the initial shock and fear, the lust for revenge pretty natural. Crowd wants punishment. That's how humans react. But what politicians then do is important, do the pour gas into the fire or do they do something else, try acting with statesmanship. Going with the let's destroy everything simply isn't a war winning tactic in this situation, but surely is a great way to stay in power.

    And what I've stated is that there is no peaceful solution to this conflict.

    Previously, you showed me to what extent you could empathize with the Palestinians, now you are showing to what extent you could not empathize with the Israelis. That's all.neomac
    And you are incapable of understanding the question, it seems.

    But if my argument is that "fight like the Americans did in Iraq" is the extent I cannot empathize with the Israelis, I think it actually a lot about you.

    Ukrainians aren't going to "get the message" and become Russians. And surely Israelis won't either "get the message" and go away from Israel back to Europe, that's for sure. They'll choose fighting over being refugees. Yet somehow Palestinians should here different and get "the message and move on". Of course they won't.

    And the conflict will continue...
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    OK and prior to the current horror show, what was the morale of Palestinian civilians (the non-Westerners, the Westerners) about Israel exactly?neomac
    Quite similar to the Israeli view. Likely even more demonizing than the Israeli far right.

    If Israeli supported the laws of war as you claim (and putting aside the issue that international laws of war do not seem to fix any specific ratio civilian/militant casualties for proportionality assessment) how much Palestinian increased morale and the morale of World of people concerned about Palestinian morale do you estimate would benefit Israeli's security concerns?neomac
    Somewhat confusing statement there.

    Let's take a theoretical example:

    First of all, just think yourself as being an officer and in command of troops. What would you think about your country if your leaders and superiors would say that it is important that you follow the laws of war or you can face court martial.

    Or then what would you think about your country if you wouldn't ever even be told about the laws, your superiors would be after body counts, how many of the enemy have you and your troops have killed and if you kill civilians on the way, doesn't matter so much as they obviously were supporting the enemy.

    At least for me I would far more willingly serve a country that truly upholds things like international laws of war. Important to have that when in war killing people still is obnoxious.
  • Rating American Presidents
    His Star Wars Initiative was ruinously expensive for us, as well as the soviets.BC
    This is by his supporters seen as part of his genius. Because it (or the weapons race in general) was really ruinous for the Soviets. Even if btw. the weapons armament program had been already started by Carter, which the Carter supporters aren't keen to admit.

    I think George Washington should get some merit. He could have become a King, or at least a president for life. He didn't, which was one of the first obstacles for the new Republic. One crucial hurdle, actually.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    How exactly do you want Israel to respond to 10/7?BitconnectCarlos
    Simply go and fight like how the US armed forces did, when they destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq. Understand that you have to give a reason for the civilians to support you or at least tolerate you. Don't put them into a corner where there's nothing for them: that will just say to the Palestinians that the way of war is the only way forward.

    And then understand that the only solution is political. Or then you will have these wars again and again. You just have to wait for the next generation of Palestinians to grow up. They will continue the fight, because what else is there for them?

    I've said when this conflict started and I'll repeat it again: fight just the way the US dealt with Al Qaeda. When fighting the terrorists, it also took care of the civilians too understanding that if it treats cruelly the civilians, that the kill the present Al Qaeda supporters won't matter, there will be new ones that they make. It won Al Qaeda. Only to be defeated by Obama's withdrawal and letting the Iraqi government get in charge that basically immediately rejected and stopped all the work the US military had done with the Sunni population.

    And when that happened, you got ISIS after the US withdrew and let the Shias in control.

    So yes, there is a true difference on how you fight the insurgency. Do you stop water and food to the two million population or not? You really think that Hamas cannot take care of it's fighters? Would keeping water on give Hamas fighters a real edge?

    I know you will not admit it, but Israel simply wants revenge and the current administration milks that revenge. Gaza is the evil city. They are human animals. They elected Hamas (years ago) so they surely aren't innocent. All this dehumanization works wonders if you want to satisfy the emotions of a people traumatized by October 7th, but it won't help you in the long term. But who cares about that!

    Even the US example shows this well. When Trump got into power he insisted that limitations and restrictions in bombing had to be lifted. Well, that meant that more civilians did die when the US fought ISIS. What is telling to even to this the discussion is what Trump told us that he had with Mattis. When he asked the marine general about the efficiency of torture, Mattis replied that a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack works better. But Trump was adamant: if the US people wanted torture, he would use it. That's how a populist politician thinks. Populist politicians will milk the emotional feelings of the crowd. Hence all that bullshit of laws of war are somehow viewed as an "obstacle", because the crowd hasn't served itself in the army and doesn't understand that actually upholding the laws of war makes wonders for morale. Body counts don't.

    Also, understanding that while the US will support Israel totally blindly, the rest of the World won't and that rest of the World matters. The obvious case is the ICJ case brought upon South Africa. It basically relies on what the Israeli politicians themselves have said about the human animals. With that kind of discourse, making the case was easy.
  • Postmodernism and Mathematics
    No, that is wrong and you either did not read the rest of the post or ignored it, that much I expected many posts ago.Lionino
    And it simply doesn't mean that mathematics is culturally relative. It's about education of mathematics, not about math itself.

    Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
  • Postmodernism and Mathematics
    It says in the article "a proposed mathematics curriculum framework, which would guide K-12 instruction in the Golden State’s public schools". Another manual says that addressing students’ mistakes forthrightly is a form of white supremacy.Lionino
    AND THIS IS MY POINT!

    It's about K-12 education.

    It's not about mathematics itself, or math being racist or about 2+2=5.

    It's about minority students not being so as majority students, and that the current is educative methods aren't good when it comes to them. Or something like that. That is a totally different discussion. And you can make a great argument against this if you want to engage in the actual statements. Not the strawman argument of Oh No! The pomo wokesters want 2+2=5.

    Because arguing here the 2+2=5 simply is a strawman argument, lazy and misses the point. There's ample reasons to say just why when teaching math to kids in school, you have do it the way it's been done, but that is an educational debate. One can start from the fact that it isn't a form of "white supremacy"... starting from how mathematics is taught in Asia, for example. In China they haven't been subject to "white supremacy". And you can oppose these views on educational reasons too. That kids who aren't so interested in math, arithmetic is actually good to be taught by doing and doing it again until you don't have to think that 2+2=4. You don't have to start to teach it with first teaching set theory (which was in the 70's taught to me at first grade) or the present woke arguments.

    Even if written in Chinese, some of us could do the math:
    70

    And when it's not actually confronting the real issue at hand, this kind of argument (2+2=5) can easily be dismissed. You aren't making any point here with 2+2=5 if the argument is about the ways to educate people.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    All right, I can respect that. And, for my education, how representative do you think your views are among Finns today?neomac
    I think it is representative. It is a simple question about geography, something we cannot do anything about. The question of defense is in politics easy here. No difference between the left and the right wing parties. If we had an over 1000-km eastern border with Canada, I wouldn't ever gone to the military: it's not something for me whose has so low physical fitness. Or so I thought, I never imagined to be an officer. Likely we wouldn't have conscription.

    Now we have conscription, and still the majority of all adult males are or have been reservists. For a very long time, for decades now, Finns have been asked in polls the same question: "Would you yourself defend Finland, even if the outcome would be questionable (meaning there is a large risk that we will lose)?"

    In the last poll:

    12% say no.
    26% didn't give an answer / are unsure
    62% say yes

    The majority saying yes, even if the outcome is doubtful, has been there for decades since the end of WW2. The nation having survived WW2 without an occupation has firmed the attitudes of Finns that defending your country works.

    Europeans that were the least ready to defend their own country were:

    The Dutch: 16% of the Dutch would defend their country
    The Germans: 22% of Germans would defend their country.

    The Finnish Parliament decided on applying NATO membership by a 188 "yes" vote to 8 "no".

    Besides, in the Finnish constitution it says:
    Section 127 -National defence obligation

    Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.
  • What makes nature comply to laws?
    The general issue then is: are there regularities in nature or are we only imposing them to be able to better plan our lives.Pez
    Either there are regularities or we are quite the kind of imposers!
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Let's say Netanyahu is a psychopath and can/wants to murder ALL Palestinians in Gaza for fun, would you ssu still want to remain in Gaza and risk the life of your entire family to be massacred for Netanyahu's fun or would you try to flee to more hospitable lands of the holy All-Peace&Love Pan-Arabic Pan-Islamic Pan-Brotherhood Islamic Arab Ummah AS FAST AS POSSIBLE (like Jews massively fled to the US when persecuted by the Nazis)?neomac
    Sorry, but I'm an old reserve officer... so I would fight and die for my country if needed. I cannot know what I would be as a Palestinian, but likely I wouldn't be fleeing my country. That's the best option we Finns know when faced by an overwhelming enemy which we cannot militarily destroy is to defend yourself and hope it's too costly to continue the war and you get a peace deal where you remain independent. Being a refugee and you know how much respect refugees get in this world. Fuck that!

    My grandparents were in WW2 and they didn't send their children, my parents, away to Sweden. In fact, those children that were sent to Sweden had far more traumatic experience as the country wasn't occupied by the Russians. I wouldn't have respected them if they would have sent their children away. Children adapt to things and are happy with their parents, even it's just their mother there.