A war requires two sovereign nations. — Benkei

Really, it doesn't!

Civil wars are wars, really. By all accounts.

Chechnya wasn't sovereign state. So aren't the Kurds and a multitude of other people or groups that have fought against one state or another. There's uh... history in general to show this.

You simply cannot make the argument that this conflict isn't a war as the Palestinians, from time to time with the resources they have, have taken up an armed struggle. If it was all passive protesting (or protests in general), then the conflict wouldn't be a war.

But I offered arguments and evidences, not slogans. — neomac

If you offered arguments, you didn't offer evidence. And your argument is like saying that all Americans support the Democrats, because they are in power. And Hamas hold little if anything now, with the West Bank being in control of the Fatah. Which makes your arguments simply poor.

And the reason why I believe they are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel doesn’t depend on their holding Hamas flags, or their praising Hamas’ actions, or their response to controversial questions (like the one about decapitated kids), but on their actually chosen arguments and rhetoric. — neomac

Again with your thinking that Palestine = Hamas.

There's an inherent problem to both-sideism though when people think equal monks, equal hoods but they start forgetting its corollary: unequal monks. — Benkei

Being objective isn't both sideism. For example in WW2 you can surely question about the Allied terror-bombings, but that simply doesn't compare with other side's "Final solution". But some people simply get offended about any criticism. That's the problem of being objective.

There's no war. These are not equal parties. There's only a struggle for independence made futile by the unconditional support of a coloniser by the West. — Benkei

Now I have to disagree.

It is a war. Trying to make this conflict to be something else is wrong in my view. A low intensity conflict or a conflict that erupts every once and a while is a war. Even with the 100-years war there were moments when nothing happened with large battles being the exception.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that wars should be fought by equal parties? Usually wars are fought by very unequal parties with the end result quite obvious from the start.

Thirdly, you can call the Israeli's whatever, but they are not leaving the place and Israel exists.

I would also disagree that every Palestinian wants that but it wouldn't be particularly reassuring to find that e.g. only ~75% of them want that. — BitconnectCarlos

So only one of four doesn't want to commit suicide? Really?

If so, then the "Palestinian problem" would solve itself in no time with a huge stream of explosions, I guess...

Maybe I'll keep bringing up both, hoping that some folks can get over themselves, and the discourse not just be the usual repetitions. — jorndoe

Oh they won't. They won't notice at all you or others that do look at both objectively. They just will notice that you are criticizing their side (and thus won't notice you also criticizing the other) . How (and why) would they notice it?

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death?

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human. — kindred

Pain isn't a constant and it isn't just something physical that the nervous system tells from our body. It's what we feel it to be. Heck, even boredom can be painful. Besides, if you ever haven't felt pain, how can you know what it is. Ask yourself, how many of us have experienced real hunger. The human can go without eating for days. How many of us have gone out without eating for days? Not many. So what on Earth do we know about real hunger, about what starvation feels like?

And most of the things that cause unhappines or sadness aren't something the society can solve. It starts with our own acceptance of ourselves.

There's the narrative that propaganda tells.

Then there's reality and understanding the realities.

But if you think that every Palestinians craves to be a martyr, because the gates of heaven will open and (I forgot how many) virgins are there waiting for them, I would disagree. But yes, there are those among them who will believe that bullshit.

I think some would be happy, if they would get to what it was like before the first Intifada. Memories are always so rosy.

Possibly connected, in some way, to their unflinching insistence on their (stronger) neighbor's destruction and replacement with Islamic rule. — BitconnectCarlos

If you think that Palestinians are so insane that they don't have any touch to reality, then do think so.

...just like anybody else, me and you included. — neomac

Well, of course an interviewer can just ask the protesters what are they doing and why and leave then those who watch it to make their own conclusions.

Hardly done anymore, but totally possible. In fact, I remember the best coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests made by Russia Today (when we saw it still). They actually truly just went around interviewing people and once ended up with a student that was libertarian supporting Ron Paul, which just shows how different thoughts protesters have. Naturally the channel didn't cover Anti-Putin demonstrations similarly. Then was very much done like Fox News made coverage of OWS. :smirk:

I don't doubt that either. Yet one must be naive, if not disingenuous, to believe that those pro-Palestinian students "protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending)" may have a political impact immune from risks such as costly unintended consequences (like being instrumental to Hamas) where the most direct costs are on Israeli's and Jewish shoulders. — neomac

What political impact do they have?

I don't think so much. In the media, "students" are basically portrayed to be protesting for one thing. Now it's Palestine, another time it was Black live matters. Even Greta has changed his costume to wear a keffiyeh.

If governments' legitimacy and accountability highly depend on the governments' capacity of preserving security (whatever that means) of those who willingly submit to it, we should not expect governments to pursue security of foreign people at the expense of domestic people's security. — neomac

What a government does to foreigners ought to matter. And there are laws of war. But then you can take the attitude of Russia and don't care at all.

Actually we are compelled to expect quite the contrary, especially if security concerns between foreign and domestic people are perceived as incompatible for historical and geopolitical reasons. Then of course you can add on top of that the risk of nasty polarising propaganda and politicians' selfish interest on one or both sides, among others. — neomac

Some of us still make the difference between a civilian and a combatant.

My point is that one can't convincingly flatten the analysis of this conflict down just to nasty propaganda on one or both sides. I find it shallow, if not hypocritical, and arrogant. Even more so if this is done in a philosophy forum. — neomac

Then don't think that everybody else see's the conflict as black and white. First of all, Israel exists, and it's victory in this conflict should be evident from the fact that the arguing is over the 1967 borders. As myself I have said, this conflict ought to have ended when the Cold War did. It didn't and there's no way back now. As long as it is with so little impact to Israel, the mowing of the lawn every once in a while will continue. And on the Palestinian side, a new generation of young men have to come to military age, which will also come to be.

They all are part of the same political game, — neomac

...just like the interviewer with her own political bias.

And I support Ukraine and am against the Russian invasion of that country and respect very those Finns who have gone and fought in Ukraine. I've even met a couple and talked with them, and to my surprise, they are very much respected.

I am definately sure that those American students who protest for Palestine are far more protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending) than supporters of the armed branches of the Palestinians in a way that would put them on a terrorist watch list.

A prison of their own making formed through their own fanatical commitment to destroying their stronger neighbor. — BitconnectCarlos

In their own making in the way that they've been on a losing side of a war with Israel, that is true.

It doesn't make sense that Gaza is reliant on Israel for food. Can't they make their own? Same with water. It's not expensive to provide. — BitconnectCarlos

Are you serious?

Look at the how tiny the place is and how many people live there. Add to the fact that what isn't allowed is the natural answer, a harbor or port, that could create trade, which keeps city states fed (and basically Gaza is a city state). Before this war, there was a puny fishing harbor for only the smallest vessels, but nothing for actual cargo ships. Kept so on purpose, just like there is no airport. Or freely open land borders.

Sorry, but Gaza is really an open air prison, where the guards have just moved to siege the prison from the outside. And now have moved back inside. To say that Palestinians "are incapable of this and that" and forgetting the open air prison doesn't cut it.

When I walked my dog, I decided his sniffing was equal to humans reading a newspaper and that made me more patient as I waited for him to move on. — Athena

You read emails, they read peemails.

Question: Is an animal's response the result of rationally thinking through a communication or something else? — Athena

Just as we, they try to be rational. That helps them to survive. Information like what is food, where is food and predators and how to avoid them (or kill them) that can kill you are important.

Feelings, anger and fear, happiness etc. are the easiest things to "communicate". "I'm here" or "Warning" are also easy. What animals lack is to communicate in the advance way we can do with an advanced language, and they also lack a collective memory. This is central. It can be seen even from the simple fact how much philosophy, the love of wisdom, put's emphasis to language. It's really not an accident or coincidence. Wit a collective memory, especially with written language, all information can add up on a totally different level, which creates then all that advanced "rational thinking" that separates us from other animals.

Also I'm sure that animals have some equivalent number system like "no predators, one predator, two predators, many predators". That might be totally enough for them, a system of zero, 1, 2 and many is sound and rational. If they see three or more predators, there's no reason (or time) to count, just flee! Yet there's no reason for them to then to think about transcendental numbers or imaginary numbers... the problems they face can already be dealt with the simple "arithmetic".

(Clever Hans the horse. Not perhaps a great mathematician, but an awesome horse in reading human body language)


Also when you don't have that collective memory, the findings or innovations of some extremely smart animal won't go on as information to the next generations.

This means that you can hunt animals even today with totally same strategies that people used tens of thousands of years ago. Animal predators can also use tactics to hunt their prey, but not with the ability and tactics that humans can. Like one group of people approaching the animals by making noise and hence guiding the animal pack to go away, only then to be ambushed with others lying in wait, armed either with spears or arrows or present day hunting rifles. In a similar way, a hunter using an elkhound has been effective in the past and will be also in the future: a moose won't think that a small barking dog next to it poses any danger to it. And a future moose will not notice it either.

(This moose doesn't know in what danger it is)


Assume if moose would behave as humans in this case: first as a collective they would notice that they are hunted. Then they reason out how they are hunted and then decide how to avoid this and then teach these methods to the next generations. Yet for now, the basic survival skills for an animal is hearing, eyesight, scent and general alertness. Yes, some things can be taught by their parents. Yet these teachings are not learned rules like "If an elkhound comes to you, get the hell out of Dodge. Preferably first kick the little dog that it cannot follow you. Here's a picture of an Elkhound, if you counter one".

Israel clearly sympathizes with the Palestinians as they just conducted polio vaccines there. — BitconnectCarlos

Clearly sympathizes?

I recal them saying that Gaza is an evil city. And the Palestinians in Gaza are also guilty, because they voted (years ago) Hamas to power. But now they've conducted polio vaccines... :roll:

Well, I guess they have also let in food, as typically no human, not even an Palestinian, can live soon a whole year without eating.

This is debatable though: — neomac

Then shouldn't they show the flag, march in step in what they believe?

Hezbollah's flags look more popular: — neomac

Hezbollah is different. It's been the Palestinians, PLO before Hamas, that has used traditional terror tactics. I think the only accusation to Hezbollah has been the attack on Khobar Towers in 1996, which the US holds to be an Hezbollah / Iranian-backed attack. Yet Hezbollah in Lebanon was formed in response of the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon and mainly it has been fighting the Israeli armed forces. And of course there is the Shia Sunni divide between Hamas and Hezbollah.

And your video is a perfect example of the media bias ...this example on the right-wing side. Are the demonstrators really celebrating Hamas, as the interviewer says? Celebrating Hamas? And the decapitated babies rumour? Still going on?

God I hate this stupidity.

Was there ever a time when Fascism and Communism did not have a lot in common? Both are totalitarian ideologies right out of the box, and in their practical implementations they always gravitated towards each other. — SophistiCat

National socialism surely was quite leftist, and hence the overwhelming vitriol against communism. Especially on the political left, competing ideologies are extreme enemies of each other.

With here with the "fascism" of the Chinese is the close relationship and even state ownership of huge part of the economy with private billionaires having no political power. I remember Xi Jinping describing the system as Marxism that isn't chained to ideology (or something like that). Yet the CCP officially and firmly believes that the Chinese system is Marxism that works.

A lot of leftist members even here would laugh at the idea.

Of course the issue what isn't at all talked about is the leftist ideology that has indeed prevailed in the Western World and that is social democracy. Dismissed by the "true leftists" and ignored by the right wing as they just feast with the horrors of communism, this really important ideology is sidelined. In the US it's basically been even more invisible as basically we are talking about the left wing of the Democratic party, which itself is a centrist party. But some could call modern social democracy centrist. And as they have been in power, there isn't that interest in them: they are just part of the problem.

Yet it actually appeals to many people: that even if Capitalism works, however the excesses of capitalism must be restrained. And the social democrat, just like any sane person, can list those excesses what typically happens when the "free market" system is based on a global oligopoly on basically every sector in the World. But that seems as a whimpy surrender for many ardent leftist, who think the only way is to believe in the utopias.

Yes, I know, the thread is Communism. But if there's a lure for the academic student to learn about Marx and that all the attempts in history around the World were "just done wrong", we shouldn't forget the ideology that is the real elephant in the room.

With the above said, I want to ask, to whom would communism appeal towards, nowadays? Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has? — Shawn

Oh, there's even on PF members to whom communism and the ideas of Marx appeal. If we talk about Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology of the Soviet Union, there's few if any that support that.

Political ideologies, both on the right and the left, always re-emerge with vigor once a new generation finds the old ideas again when the generation "tried-that-didn't-work" has gone away. And now when even the CCP looks more like fascist than communist and time has past from the days of the Soviet Union, things seem even more nostalgic.

Hamas's apology for 10/7 is absurd. — BitconnectCarlos

It's naturally not an apology. But it was an admission that civilians were killed. But hardly they feel or have anything to apologize given the multiple amount of dead Palestinians.

Hamas support is surprisingly present on college campuses, particularly elite universities. That is cause for worry. Hamas support/sympathy is more popular with the youth. Our future leaders. — BitconnectCarlos

Don't go all in with the culture war discourse and put your brains out on the shelf. It is as silly as the talk from leftists about Trump supporters the racist alt-right neonazis.

With a small search, I couldn't even find a picture of a US campus protest with Hamas flags. Multiple Palestinian flags yes, but those holding Palestinian flags aren't supporters of Hamas. If they are truly supporters of Hamas, then they should at least have the proper flag:

This one:


Not this one:


And the majority think that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Yet if the question is that if they sympathize with the Palestinian people, it's the culture war bullshit to say then that they sympathize with Hamas.

I have had enough of this alarmist culture-war media discourse, which treats everybody as brain dead.

In reality, the majority of students today, just as in our time or in the 1960's simply try to study and get a degree and get an interesting job. A tiny minority are the so-called "activists" anytime, yet they talk as they own the time (or the era) and unfortunately many people believe that they indeed represent all students.

Which is as crazy as thinking that Greta Thunberg represented the children ....until she got to be 18.



But hey, no need for her to go to school. Even the University of Helsinki made her a honorary doctor, so there's an academic career all done when your 21! :blush:

So now onwards to the next activist fest... and trying desperately to be and stay hip and in the limelight with the times as an adult! (I'm not sure, but is Greta's mom behind her?)


But feel free to swim in it if you want. Yes, your future American leaders worship Hamas. How could they do anything else?

Let me attempt to clarity: I'm attempting say I can't enact the negation of what I'm doing. →
→
Anything I write will not be something I do not write. — ucarr

You understand it perfectly clear. The basic issue here is the negative self-reference. And that issue is similar in Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Turings result (on the Entscheidungsproblem).

Please note that what I'm referring is that this doesn't mean that there's sentences that cannot write, let's say that you cannot refer something from "War and Peace". You can naturally refer some text from "War and Peace". There's no limitation on just what you next will write. Yet there's always those sentences you don't write, it's simply not fixed what these sentences are. Naturally everything what you write also defines all the sentences that you don't write. Hope you get my point.

This sounds perhaps trivial, but I think some people don't understand the meaning when we say that a Turing Machine cannot compute something. They immediately start assuming that some "Oracle Machine" or a "Busy Beaver" that could overcome the "limitation" of a Turing Machine and then make further assumptions what would this imply, with just assuming that the limitation is somehow overcome.

If a thing is not computable, thus causing attempted measurements to terminate in undecidability, is it sound reasoning to characterize this undecidability as uncertainty — ucarr

For me uncertainty refers to a situation where you don't have all the information, for example. This isn't the case. You can have all the information, yet there's no way out of this. The reason is negative self-reference. And in the case of Gödel's theorems, it's not even a direct self-reference (the statement s is not provable). What should be noted that Gödel's incompleteness theorems are sound theorems, not paradoxes. Even if many relate it to being close to the Liar paradox.

If so, then why is it not a logically preemptive limitation on what I can write? — ucarr

Why would it be not logical? The undecidability results are totally logical. Not all statements are provable and not everything is computable by a Turing Machine. It is totally logical. You can call them preemptive limitations, that's fine. So a Turing Machine has this "preemptive limitation" and hence it cannot compute everything.

Even though the parallel breaks down at b) incompleteness because, in the example, it's due to the entropy of electromagnetic transduction (albeit mathematically describable), nonetheless the physics of entropy causes the incompleteness and, in turn, the incompleteness causes the uncertainty. — ucarr

If there is any logical equivalence, mathematical incompleteness (or undecidability) would be something equivalent to the problem in physics of the measurement of an object effecting itself what is to be measured and hence ruining what was supposed to be an objective measurement in the first place. The undecidability results simply show that not all is computable (or in the case of Gödel's theorems, provable), even if there is a correct model for the true mathematical object (namely itself).

I always give the example of trying writing something you will never in your life write.

There is a lot of text which you won't ever write, but anything you write will automatically be something you do write (and hence not in the category of all the texts you will never write). So is this a limitation on what you can write? Of course not. You can still write anything you want. It's a bit similar with the undecidability results.

The French? Haha. — Tzeentch

When it comes to the history of Syria and Lebanon, the French have been major influencers. Just like the British had a role with Mandate Palestine played a role in the conflict this thread is about.

Zzz....Baseless insinuations of racism reeks of intellectual exhaustion and doesn't bode well for whatever else you have to bring to the table. — Tzeentch

You of course don't even notice that what you are promoting here, that "Israel is doomed" is a talking point of the islamofobes on the right.

No, they wouldn't. — Tzeentch

Ummm... if a gun has an effective range of 2000 meters, the it can shoot 2000 meters forward and 2000 meters back. Guns, especially AAA can traverse 360 degrees. :snicker:

AAA relies on line-of-sight, and engaging targets at equal elevation rarely happens at ranges exceeding 2 kms simply because of geographical factors. — Tzeentch

:rofl: :rofl: :joke: :razz: Have you any idea of the utter crazyness you are saying???

Do you have any idea of the curvature of the Earth? Have you ever been outside and measured distances? If you are next to the sea and let's say you are at 2 meter height, the horizon is then at 5 kilometers. But anything higher than on the surface of the water, you will see further. And obviously AAA are deploy in places they can see in the air. In fact, in aerial engagements it's extremely typical that targets are engaged (or could be engaged) in longer distances than 2 kilometers. By NATO standards weapon systems having only 2-3 kilometers of range are described "very short range".

And the simply fact is that drone do not huge literally the ground...only when they have wheels, but then they aren't airborne. Anyway, you have no idea what you are talking about, so just change the subject.

It is surrounded by Arab nations which have been artificially kept down by US power (regularly with Israel's help). The US could do that because it was the unipole, which it no longer is. — Tzeentch

Artificially kept down? Have you any knowledge of Lebanese or Syrian history and the state their in? Oh, it's just the US that has put them there (of course by your thinking). You might put the blame more on the French than the US, actually.

And how is the US keeping down Egypt or Jordan or Saudi-Arabia by military and economic assistance? Or that's the way it's artificially keeping these countries down???

The only country that you might rightfully proclaim to be kept down by the US is Iraq, which in their wisdom the Saudis told older Bush would be exactly the kind of quagmire as it became if after the Gulf War the Allies would have marched into. Which younger Bush did anyway and created the exact result, which basically benefited only Iran.

The problem for Israel is that it has given its neighbors every possible reason imaginable to not treat it kindly when the balance of power shifts. — Tzeentch

How does it actually shift? By Egypt and the other neighbors having rapid growth, solving their structural problems and having booming economies and a highly educated labour force that then could make them to create armed forces that are capable of defeating the IDF?

Now, Israel is a tiny country, but if you have to create a defense network out of 2km bubbles I think you see the problem. This is simply not what AAA was designed for. — Tzeentch

Yeah, well, AAA or any kind of Air Defence isn't designed how you think. And btw they would be 4 km bubbles. And that's just the GBAD, then there's the air force and it's fighters.

Your idea was literally done by the UK to defend against the V1 flying bombs with simply putting AA batteries next to each other on the southeastern coast of England and creating a "wall of AAA" as you think. Still, it was intended to defend London, the target big enough for either V1 or V2 to accurately hit.



Even this example tells the obvious: GBAD is intended to defend specific targets, bases, HQs, manufacturies, urban areas etc. Not farmland or the desert. Israeli Iron Dome calculates immediately if a Hamas rocket is going to hit an urban area or some specific target and won't engage those hitting the desert or empty farmland. This is basic 1.0 tactics in deploying air defense assets: you deploy them to defend possible targets, not just everything. And with the small size of Israel, nearly everything can be defended.

During Iran's attack the drones were the least effective weapon system. Majority of cruise missiles are subsonic and only few are hypersonic. Here's a "swarm" of seven US cruise missile tracked in flight in a tight formation:



And this is how in reality the Israeli Air Force has shot drones out from the sky:



So I'll just repeat: drones aren't a miracle weapon as some hype them to be.

In what world is it not obvious Israel is not going to survive the test of time? — Tzeentch

In a world that doesn't believe in whimsical replacement theories like you. Israelis have far enough incentives to defend their country. Somehow you seem not to understand this, perhaps being yourself a citizen of a country that faces no existential threat from it's neighbors. It might hard for you to fathom this. For Israelis it isn't hard at all.

The Israeli right has convinced, unfortunately, enough of the Jewish citizens that there cannot be peace with Palestinians, that this is the reality they will endure. That attempts to have a peace deal will only backfired. That's the Likud line. That the peace they have with Egypt and Jordan is the best they can have. And perhaps that it's better to have Lebanon and Syria as failed states rather than united countries.

And actually people like you only strengthen these kind of attitudes with saying that the country is doomed, which reeks to islamofobia.

This is a long-winded way of saying Israel has no way of decisively defeating its adversaries, and therefore no long-term solutions for the problems that plague its borders, which was exactly my point. — Tzeentch

Never has anybody thought of "decisively defeating" its adversaries. What would that mean?

Israel has already succeeded to make a peace deal with the largest Arab neighbor it has, Egypt. And also with Jordan. And it has simply is OK with Lebanon and Syria being failed states, as long they don't portray an existential threat for Israel. A drone here or there, a cheap rocket fired into Israel isn't an existential threat.

It's objective is first to survive, which it meets. It doesn't have peace, but still it can keep it's Apartheid system up, which is far enough for the Likud party.

And what do you reckon is the effective engagement range of AAA firing against low-flying drones? — Tzeentch

A simply ZU-23-2 has an effective range to 2200 meters and larger guns usually to something like 5 kilometers. A gatling-gun type system can be far more devastating for even a swarm of drones. Let's just remember that first uses of drones were to be practice targets or tow a target sock for AAA. And altitude you ask? Well, usually AAA can shoot ground targets too, so low flying drones can fly as low as possible.

Oh, they might be ok with it. But they will also lose that war in the long-term. — Tzeentch

And your consistently failing to describe the way that somehow they would lose the ability to control the area they have taken in 1967. Or earlier. How will Israel perish you fail utterly to say, only repeat that in the long run they will lose.

You're contradicting yourself. According to your own views Israel cannot go on the offensive, thus cannot rely on pre-emptive attacks to protect itself. — Tzeentch

No I'm not. Your simply not understanding, it is as simple as that.

Israel has the ability and likely the objective to destroy an armed force that attacks it or will likely attack it (hence the pre-emption). That ideally takes those famous six days or some weeks. But not years. It cannot solve the internal problems of Lebanon and it simply cannot be a "benign occupier" that would be tolerated. In truth there are footage of Israeli tanks roaming into Lebanon with locals clapping their hands. They were doing this because they were fed up with PLO in Lebanon. But it didn't last long until Israel's tactics of fire first and ask questions later made the local population hate them.

Yet Israel has learnt from Lebanon, that it cannot stick around as an occupying force. It can destroy the weapon systems, eliminate the enemy forces, but that's it. And if you would (which you likely don't) follow the debate in Israel and with it's military (usually with retired high ranking officers making the critique), this is even what Bibi's government is actually rightly criticized now: that it doesn't have a plan after Hamas active members are destroyed in the way that they don't pose an imminent threat anymore.

Drone warfare has greatly undermined lynchpins of Western air defense systems like Patriot, since the drones are too cheap and numerous to effectively combat them. — Tzeentch

You have absolutely no idea of air defense or weapon systems like the Patriot. And you simply don't read what I write.

For starters, Patriot isn't to defend against drones. And no armed forces that deploys the Patriot system (or similar like S-300 or S-400) will only have them as GBAD is an integrated system. Patriot, a weapon system from the 1950's was made to shoot down high flying aircraft and only later was the system designed to act as an anti-ballistic missile defense. Drones are engaged with cheaper weapon systems and usually with AAA systems. A Cold War SPAAG like the Gepard can indeed shoot down drones, if it's target acquisition is programmed to pick up small targets.

Unlike you seem to think that drones are sime kind of miracle weapon. They aren't. They have been used quite extensively even in the 20th Century. And a major user and pioneer of drone warfare has been Israel itself. Classic Israeli successes in using drones are for example the destruction of Syrian Air Defense in the Bekaa Valley during Peace for Galilee and some naval engagements that Israel has had with it's Arab counterparts.

As you have said yourself, Israel cannot go on the offensive, and neither can the US. So it's a forever war. — Tzeentch

It cannot occupy, hold the land for long of it's neighbors. That is different from going on the offensive. It does go on the offensive... basically daily. How many times Israel has made air strikes in Syria during the Syrian Civil war and even before it? Multiple times, so many times I've lost count. Hence it can indeed go on the offensive.

And do understand that the current Israeli leaders are perfectly OK with a forever war. That every now and then they have to make a military operation against their foes. It doesn't ruin their economy. The fight with the Palestinians hasn't ruined Israeli economy. The people aren't demanding peace with the Palestinians on the streets ...at least not in large numbers.

Obviously they do. Imagine not seeing the US as a military threat.

The US has invaded less important countries over nothing. You bet your ass they view the US as a threat. — Tzeentch

Now @Tzeentch seems to be in his la-la-land dream. Seems you have absolutely no idea of just what neutrality means for a country. No idea.

(30th July, 2024) President Joe Biden spoke today with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues, including the emerging political situation in Venezuela following the July 28 presidential election. President Biden thanked President Lula for his leadership on Venezuela. The two leaders agreed on the need for immediate release of full, transparent, and detailed voting data at the polling station level by the Venezuelan electoral authorities. The two leaders shared the perspective that the Venezuelan election outcome represents a critical moment for democracy in the hemisphere, and they pledged to remain in close coordination on the issue. The presidents also committed to deepen cooperation between our two countries on accelerating the clean energy transition and to continue advancing the Partnership for Workers’ Rights, which they launched together on the margins of last year’s United Nations General Assembly to empower workers and combat some of the most significant issues facing working people.

And then the US Indian relations:

The relationship between the United States and India is one of the most strategic and consequential of the 21st century. The United States supports India’s emergence as a leading global power and a vital partner in promoting a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. The 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue between the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and their Indian counterparts is the premier recurring dialogue mechanism between the United States and India. Through the 2+2 mechanism, U.S. and Indian officials advance a wide range of initiatives across the breadth of the United States-India partnership.

Defense and Security

The United States and India have established a strong defense industrial cooperation that looks at opportunities for co-development and co-production of important military capabilities for both our countries.

Earlier this year, the United States approved a pathbreaking manufacturing license for the co-production of GE F414 engines in India.

Looking to the future, the United States and India have launched an educational series that prepares startups and young innovators to contribute to the defense industries in both countries. The United States and India also cooperate through the bilateral U.S.-India Counterterrorism Joint Working Group and the Defense Policy Group.

Why did Putin do it then? Is it because he would have eventually lost power if he worked on making Russia healthy? — frank

Right from the start of his political career Putin's favorite move has been war. It's an integral part of how Putin's policy. Right from the start.



He was practically a nobody in politics when Yeltsin made him Prime Minister, even if he had been in the position of the director of the FDB. But after starting the Second Chechen War (after dubious apartment buildings were bombed in a distant suburb of Moscow), he won popularity. For him the "strong man" image has been important.

(The Second Chechen war was actually a victory for Russia, and Putin)


And since he and his Kleptocracy couldn't make Russia economically great, he chose the imperial greatness card. After all, for him the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a huge tragedy. Something that shouldn't have happened and which left many Russians stranded in these new "artificial" countries that got independence after the breakup of Soviet Union.

The first dent on his shiny image was the submarine Kursk disaster. It would have been an ordinary debacle for any Western politician, but for the former head of FSB it was too much. From there on the autocratic style was reinforced.

And Putin did see the writing on the wall that especially the young had had enough of him when he took the Presidency again after one brief stint of Medvedev on that role. Already 2011-2013 there were a lot of protests against Putin in Russia (see Russian protests 2011-2013).



And I think the real issue is that Putin is utterly corrupt as are the people around him. As one Russian opposition leader once commented, the watch on Putin's hand is more valuable than what the President's official annual salary is. He couldn't just leave office like old and sick Yeltsin and just hope that Medvedev's around. What if another party comes around and puts him into jail?

And now he's chosen his and Russia's path. Russia could have played the Imperialist card in the Caucasus and in Central Asia, but Ukraine was too close for East European countries. And annexing territory was the real no-no, which other states simply couldn't turn away from. But the lure of being "Putin the Great" for Russia was too much. Territory, land mass, has always been extremely important to Russian rulers. And the most obvious thing is to call it imperialism.

(One really should listen for example what Putin is saying here - especially those who think that everything has happened because of the US)

Won't Russia become more and more hollowed out economically? — frank

Of course!

It's been a disaster for Russia. Not perhaps as big as for Ukraine itself, but still.

Putin's gamble went all fine: first Russo-Georgian war, then the annexation of Crimea, then the involvement in Syria. Then finally this absurdity in 2022. Oh, it likely was a brave dashing plan.

And add to the picture that the US had just been humiliated in Afghanistan where it had just lost a war. So time for Putin to just pit it all in again and throw the dices ...with absolutely devastating consequences this time!

Europe and the West can keep supporting Ukraine. For them it's not a strain in any way. The real question is Ukraine, which with invading Russia proper has done a surprising move again. And what has Russia gained? With Crimea, a problematic territory which creates far more expenses than revenues. With the occupied Ukrainian territories it's even worse.

And this brings to the real question: What if Putin had resisted his imperialist urge and not grabbed Crimea from Ukraine. What would be the consequences?

- Many Ukrainians would still see Russians as brother people. With lots of Russian speakers Putin would be respected in Ukraine as he was prior to 2014.
- Ukraine would be seen as a problematic country. It wouldn't be anywhere close to NATO membership.
- West European countries would have continued their military disarmament.
- Sweden and Finland would be neutral. Finland would still be having bouts of "Finlandization" as it would try to keep good relations with Russia.
- Russia would enjoy good ties with the West and would be seen as a constructive European country. Putin likely would be in G8 meetings.
- A lot of Ukrainians and Russia wouldn't be dead and fighting the "break-up war of Soviet Union", a state that had ceased to exist before many of the victims of today had been born.

In fact the "Finlandization" of Europe that Gorbachev hoped to happen might have actually happened as European countries would have continued dismantling their armed forces leaving Russia to be better.

Israel is the size of a post stamp. — Tzeentch

Hence it's easy to defend.

It has zero strategic depth. — Tzeentch

Hence the urge for "Pre-emptive" attacks: simply fight on your neighbors territory. As Israel has done.

Hamas alone was able to drain Israel's air defense system to critical lows in a couple of days. Hamas - they're nobody on the military power scale. — Tzeentch

When you achieve strategic surprise, then Hamas was able to do October 7th. The lack of air defense equipment was not the only thing lacking then on October 7th. But Israel today isn't what it was pre- Oct 7th.

Against modern swarming tactics Israel's air defense would stand no chance. At that point, it becomes a sitting duck. — Tzeentch

Incredible bullshit. Where general @Tzeentch gets his facts I don't know.

Somehow it has gone past your radar that Iran attacked Israel with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles on the evening of April 13th this year. That's over 300 stand off weapons used in one coordinated attack. Oh but for you "Israel's air defense would stand no chance".

Because why?

Don't need to give a credible logical answer!

Swarming attacks, drones, cruise and ballistic missiles represent a severe threat when you don't have systems to counter them. Hence during Desert Storm the Scuds launched by Saddam Hussein went actually through the Patriot defenses in 1991 unlike the propaganda given at that time said. That's over 30 years ago! The Turkish Bayraktar drones were successful in 2022 at the start of the Russian assault because the Russian Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) was shut down in order to avoid shooting down Russian aircraft. The drones that Azeris used against Armenians were successful because Armenian GBAD systems from the Cold War era were designed only to shoot down targets of the size of conventional combat aircraft. But you can fix them to acquire smaller targets too, actually, as Ukrainian Gepards have shown.

The drone swarm hype is really...hype. Because you have the technology to counter them. And Israel not only has that tech, it has shown in combat that it can defend against a huge stand off attack. It's "postage stamp" size is beneficial here, as I said. In fact, for Iran the attack against Israel was devastating as it crippled the country's own deterrence, and actually also the deterrent of Hezbollah. OK, they've massed a huge conventional rocket force. But that doesn't do much. It cannot dream of wiping out Israel's nuclear deterrence... or large part of it. Yes, it can do some damage, but that isn't enough as a credible deterrent. It's Iran that really has to rethink it's doctrine and strategies again.

And of course now not only has Israel endured an attack like this, it has had ample time to rearm. And basically any military operations it takes against Hezbollah means it has rearmed itself.

It would need a US intervention, but what is the US going to do? Stick its head into an Afghanistan-like quagmire x100? That's the BRICS wet dream - for the US to commit to the mother of all forever wars trying to protect Israel. — Tzeentch

Why would it be an Afghanistan-like quagmire? As I've stated, Israel won't occupy it's neighboring states. I think they learnt that lesson from "Peace for Galilee" hence any operation into Lebanon will likely also have a planned withdrawal.

And what BRICS wet dream? Again in your mind you think BRICS is some defense arrangement... as if Brazil, India or South Africa see the US as a military threat. :rofl:

Perhaps you really don't get what actually non-alignment means. It doesn't actually mean that your are against others. Really, the only countries that look at the US as a military threat and hope for it's demise are Iran, North Korea, Russia and in some way China.

(And perhaps some people in the West who see the US as the origin of all evil)

It is the problem. It's an ongoing problem. — BitconnectCarlos

Well over for 100 years... so I'm not holding my breath.

What happened on 10/7 was - and I don't use this word lightly - straight-up demonic. Yet you have a large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified. — BitconnectCarlos

A large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified? Really????

Perhaps we have to consider just what "a large portion" of the World is.

Don't you remember that even Hamas itself acknowledged that there were "some faults" on attacking civilians? Yep, even they admitted it:

See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’

Which in all fairness has already been achieved at some points. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed. Yet annexing territory is one of the most difficult things for any state to get acceptance from other states. Just look at the response of Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. Or Morocco with Spanish Sahara.

Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them. — NOS4A2

UK isn't in the EU, btw.

Israel certainly does not enjoy military superiority in that area. It has suffered defeats against Hezbollah in the past, and the balance of power today is probably closer than it was back then. — Tzeentch

This is simply false and your confusing things.

It can win the conventional armies and air forces of it's neighbors. What Israel cannot do is to venture out into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt and occupy those countries. That ability it doesn't have. Or will or stomach even to try. But it certainly can defend the areas it got in the Six-Day war.

And that's it.

That's the real objective For Likud.

It's from the River to the Sea. Not further.

And it's small, basically tiny airspace can give it the ability of defending projectiles from long range ballistic missiles to drones and mortar fire. What Hezbollah can do is to create a nuisance, not a potential threat that can destroy the ability of the IDF to defend itself and the country. And this is why there is no peace: the current environment can be indeed the "new normal" for politicians like Bibi.

How long can Russia continue going as it is? Forever? — frank

Not forever. This is a high intensity conflict, a conventional war, and it cannot go like this forever. It can easily become a frozen conflict.

This conflict has gone for a decade, actually, so with the losses and the strain, it won't go forever. But it can go at worst for decades. But then it's likely, as in the 100 year war between France and England or the 30 years war in Germany, it will have those time of lower intensity.

The longer it will go, the worse will be Russia's failure and more likely that Russia will fall from being the last Western Empire.

Given that everything in Turing Computability is decidable, and hence deterministic, then past states will elucidate future states of a process given enough time.

- What are your thoughts about this? — Shawn

Do remember that Turing's paper is an undecidability result. Not everything is Turing Computable, which would be very useful for us. Hence you are really stretching it when you conclude that "then past states will elucidate future states of a process given enough time".

But how to use already done work on algorithms and not to repeat the work, which @fishfry referred to, is obviously useful.

Regime commissars don’t like when people talk amongst themselves. — NOS4A2

I think it's the typical way that actually BOTH Republicans and Democrats would do this:

When corporations ask for simple rules they ought to then adhere to (by legislation), naturally the political establishment doesn't give this (which actually would be their job). Why? Because there's Freedom of Speach, of course!

What the government wants is to have in secret a watchdog system where they will inform the corporations which isn't tolerated and who should be banned. And if the corporations themselves won't follow, it's be trouble for them. And as they are free companies, they can decide who to ban and who not!

And if you think that the Republicans are different, well, it's simply other issues than the progressive wokester's see inappropriate.

I'm just being realistic.


What I'm seeing in Ukraine and what I'm seeing in Israel are quite similar patterns, except that every factor is even worse for Israel.

Israel has a population of roughly 7 million, and is housing a number of Palestinians roughly equal to that on the soil which it occupies. — Tzeentch

Realistic?

- Israel has a nuclear deterrence and enjoys military superiority over all of it's neighbors. The futility of Iran's missile attacks showed this. The sole Superpower will also defend it, as it happened during Biden's watch.

- Israeli losses in this conflict, especially after the initial attack that gain total strategic surprise have been minimal. Israel can perfectly contain the Palestinians and has the ability to continue military operations in Gaza (and the West Bank). It's not at all burdened by war like Ukraine (or Russia).

- After the October 7th attacks views have hardened in Israel and there's support for the hardliners. Those that don't like Likud and the hardliners are much more likely to simply migrate away from Israel than create a strong opposition against the current administration.

- Israel not only enjoys US support, but also support from other countries in the West. It also has still peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. There is no desire on the Arab side to join Iran and organization it has sponsored.

- There is no true sanctions or boycotts against Israel that hit the country hard.

So I guess your "realism" just bubbles up from your hatred about the US or something.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. — neomac

The Sunni Shia conflict started in earnest with Iraq and later with the civil war in Syria. It hasn't intertwined actually so much. For example for a long time Isrealis went as tourists to see (naturally from their side) from the Golan Heights the Civil War in Syria. That you can sit comfortably on a hill and watch the fighting on the other side of the border tells that ISIS wasn't targetting Israel (which btw. has created a lot of conspiracy theories in the Middle East). The Sunni Islamists simply left their wounded on the border where Israeli troops picked them up and moved them to a Israeli hospital.

Innocent looking at first: Israeli tourist viewing the battles inside Syria from the Golan Heights.

For such Sunni and Shia regimes, supporting the Palestinian cause is also about securing domestic legitimacy and enhancing regional influence. By advocating for Palestinians, such regimes attempt to gain the moral high ground and appeal to the broader Muslim population, which often sympathizes with the Palestinian struggle. — neomac

Yes, just like Saddam Hussein then launched Scuds to Israel because ...why not. A populist move to gain support of the "Arab street" which people occasionally try to do.

Yet what has been the response this time? Some angry rhetoric from the Turkish leader and some angry rhetoric from other countries. And well, that's about it...

So these are quite different conflicts, even if the actors intertwine as you say.

From Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people”: — neomac

Why wouldn't OBL too go for the Arab street too? Yet I think that Al Qaeda was first and foremost interested in toppling the current monarchies and leaders in the Middle East.

And of course note that this is a "letter to the American people”. Naturally here OBL doesn't say what he says to his followers, things like it's all right to kill even American civilians, women and children. Which made Al Qaeda different from a lot of groups. In 1996 Osama bin Laden said about the Americans the following:

The ordinary man knows that [Saudi Arabia] is the largest oil producer in the world, yet at the same time he is suffering from taxes and bad services. Now the people understand the speeches of the ulemas in the mosques--that our country has become an American colony. They act decisively with every action to kick the Americans out of Saudi Arabia. What happened in Riyadh and [Dhahran] when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America.

So if Osama was against Al Aqsa being in the hands of Israelis, he was more against Mecca (and Medina) being in the hands of Americans, actually. But naturally, why not also mention the plight of Palestinians when agitating terrorism?

Well, I don't believe it is in Israel's interests, because I don't think Israel will survive the moment the US leaves it to pay the bill. — Tzeentch

You underestimate the Jewish people far too much.

Really, not everything revolves around the Americans.

I generalize of course, but for whatever reason the Europeans here tend to understand e.g. Islamic violence in terms of blowback so, basically, whatever Islamic violence befalls a people it is in some sense deserved. — BitconnectCarlos

What blowback? Within Islam there's a lot of totally different struggles going on, which then splash even on our shores and then there's the question of migration in general. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one specific conflict that soon will have gone for a Century. Separate is the Sunni Islmamism that started with Al Qaeda. Then there's Sunni-Shia struggle we've seen in Iraq and Syria. And then there's the now quite institutionalized Iranian revolution that is something like Marxism-Leninism was for the Soviet Union, which has picked Israel in it's crosshairs (and vice versa).

So umm, yes, you generalize. Perhaps a bit too much in this case.

I feel bad for the Europeans because with the decline in Christianity they're left without much guidance and they're facing a people who have a strong sense of purpose. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh for crying out loud, Christianity has withered for a long time starting from the 19th Century, so that cannot be the problem.

Besides, I've experienced a huge political and cultural transformation in my country, where actually people went for and the politicians changed their stances in a week or so after February 22nd 2022. Seldom you see such a huge change from a neutral country still suffering from "Finlandization" as it tried to keep good relations with Russia, then simply stop and change the course altogether.

And furthermore, what the right-wing media doesn't report is that a lot has changed in Europe: Sweden has changed it's migration policies, Denmark has all the time been very negative towards migration. There's a huge change happened in the discourse of migration... except in the UK. And East Europe want to have literally nothing to do with it. And nobody's talking about Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Kosovo or Albania, which have indeed the large muslim populations. Well, they've had them starting from the fall of East-Rome in 1453.

Nope, you think that Europe is like the Post-Brexit Keir Starmer lead UK. Well, it isn't.

Hence the narrative of the "Culture Wars" gives a false description especially if one makes the mistake of talking about Europe as one single entity. It simply isn't that. It would be like if we would generalize and talk about "North America" as one single entity. Well, Canada is different from the US and both of them are far different from Mexico. But of course I could say: "Oh, North America has no strong sense of purpose..."

You may believe that - many do - but I don't see it that way.

I disagree with those who portray Israel as the beneficiary in this relationship. — Tzeentch

We disagree again.

While Israel is carrying out US policy in the Middle-East, it is inching itself closer and closer to the geopolitical abyss. — Tzeentch

The US and Israel might agree on some policies, that is true. But if it's in the interest of Israel and also the US is fine with a policy, is it really then "Israel carrying out US policy".

Just state how is Israel carrying out US policy in the Middle-East that wouldn't be benificial to itself?

It wasn't too long ago that 2000+ Americans were killed in American soil and it sparked a war that at least initially had widespread support. Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe. — BitconnectCarlos

Hmmm... but what did Israel do for the US actually in the War on Terror?

The only thing it might have done is give intelligence... which likely played more to their interests. Which isn't to fight Sunni Islamists, but Israel's own enemies, the Palestinians and Iran and it's henchmen, which actually fight also the Sunni Islamists.

But did Israel help the US in Iraq?

Of course not.

But did Israel help in Afghanistan, in the longest war the US fought and lost?

Of course not.

Did Israel help in the fight against ISIS?

Of course not.

Did Europe help in Iraq?

Some countries did.

Did Europe help in Afghanistan? In the response to 9/11?

Yep. A lot more countries than just NATO members. In the end there were more NATO personnel than were US personnel. Were they consulted before bugging out of Afghanistan done by the Trump-Biden adminstrations? Of course not. And European countries also lost soldiers in Afghanistan: UK: 457, Canada: 159, France: 90, Germany: 62, Italy: 53, Poland: 44, Denmark: 43, Spain: 35, Romania: 27, Netherlands: 25, Czech Republic: 14, Norway: 10, Estonia: 9, Hungary: 7, Sweden: 5, Latvia: 4, Slovakia: 3, Finland: 2.

But of course, that doesn't mean a Goddam fuck to you that your allies did participate in your invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Israel fighting it's own war of existence makes you state: " Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe."

In Israel Netanyahu is considered a 'moderate', if you can believe that. — Tzeentch

That's how bad things have gone in Israel, Tzeentch.

Also do notice that the Labour party is now a tiny party and not the force it was earlier.

Essentially Washington uses the same trick, but it uses Israel. Their interests align with that of Israel, and they have Israel to say and do all the things that would be erm... 'embarassing'... to have to say and do themselves. — Tzeentch

Please give example of this. Because I think Israel is and has been quite an independent actor.

Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. — Tzeentch

You should view what American politicians say on AIPAC conferences. That's actually also an eye-opener.

Netanyahu seems to believe he has US Congress in the palm of his hand, but US Congress may as well be playing to his shitty megalomaniac/narcissistic personality. — Tzeentch

But the US Congress is in the palm of his hand. Of course it can be squigly and difficult to hold. But the loyal devotion to Israel is a bipartisan issue: both parties want to have good relations with Israel because they fear having bad relations will alienate their own voters. Not the Jewish Americans, but the Evangelists. That's why both parties are so in favour of Israel. I think that Netanyahu was one of the first to understand this, because other Israeli politicians thought of the US had been such an ally because of the Cold War and the threat of Soviet Union. But it wasn't just that and Bibi understood. As I've said, Bibi is a lot more than just an Israeli politician, he understands how US politics works and is basically also an American politician.

The issue is that Israeli politicians want to draw a picture of the relations being fragile and problematic, which they actually aren't. That's just a way to influence Washington. But in truth, we've seen just this year in April just how the US came to the defense of Israel. And we surely know that it will do the same, hence this alliance is solid.