Compare pictures from Holocaust with Gaza-pictures in a mail ?

[Kobal2]

@FinnAgain

No.
As should be obvious, you said it yourself. It equates one girl’s plight with another’s, not one aggressor with another. Both were living under threat of death and wanted the people, who wanted to kill them, themselves killed.
And while Hezbollah is genocidal, they’re not the Nazis.

So the plight is equal… but not the cause for the plight ? And I’m the absurd one ? :dubious:

Your argument keeps getting more absurd. Try to figure out the difference between ‘trying to kill her’ and ‘bulldozed her house’.

More “And I am the absurd one ?!” amazement. So what, persecution or injustice is OK, so long as there’s no bodily harm or risk of death involved ?

You keep making these absurd leaps, hoping that your fantasy will result in my actual hypocrisy. Here, I’ll throw you a bone. If Israel was indiscriminately raining rockets down on Gaza and trying to kill as many civilians as possible, I’d have no problem with any Palestinian expressing support for attacking the IDF.

Good - an actual answer, for once.

And we’re at a new quantum stage for absurdity.
I had assumed, wrongly it seems, that you knew the difference between a missile and a rocket (you don’t)

Oh, fuck off, will you ? A missile is a self-propelled projectile. Guidance or lack thereof doesn’t come into the definition, which is why there is a distinction made between “guided missiles” and “ballistic missiles”. A rocket, by any acception of the word you wish to put forward, is a missile. A shaped-charge rocket is an antitank missile.

that you’d heard that Hamas had been using missiles like the Grad (you din’t) or that an anecdote might job your memory (it didn’t). The fact is that Hezbollah has been smuggling weapons to Hamas for some time now, and a possible weapon system among that was the Kornet. A missile which, yep you guessed it, used an IR scope in order for its operator to select and track a target.

All facts which were made abundantly clear in your cite, of course.

Ya don’t say? So you’re participating in a debate, and challenging my claims, without knowing the facts? Well, it’s a Dope thread on Israel. I think that there’s some sort of clause that at least a few people need to argue a position based on their ignorance of the facts surrounding it.

I’ll just roll my eyes and let the readers judge, there. Seriously, your position is that “if you don’t know every aspect of the subject, you don’t get to have an opinion” ? “If you don’t know my cite, you can’t talk” ? That’s a novel way of fighting ignorance, I’ll grant you that.

And yet you want supposed violations of international law investigated.
Go figure.

I want the actions analyzed, and the facts exposed, without bias nor partisanship. Whether the investigation shedding lights on the facts stems from possible international law infractions or belief in space lizards doesn’t come into play. Ideally, I’d want every goddamn shell to have a camera mounted on it, every shot being captured on video, whether it’s a cop shooting (hello, Mesehrle !) or a Blue Helmet shooting back at a baby-eating sniper. How could anyone argue against more scrutiny ?

[Kobal2]

(I bow to the appropriately named straight man, who worded my innate revulsion much better than I ever could have.)

[FinnAgain]

@straight_man

Sure. First of all, writing a message on a bomb is by no means rational. It doesn’t make the bomb more effective, nobody will even read it; it’s just a symbolic middle finger.

So what if it’s only a symbolic gesture? People make symbolic gestures all the time, and it’s not creepy. In fact, when someone is powerless to effect their own defense, symbolic gestures are all that’s available.

@straight_man

Secondly, we generally do not associate spite in politics with children

Do we generally associate a desire for self defense in children who someone else is currently trying to murder?
Even the gloss of ‘spite’ is somewhat odd.
Self defense is not spiteful.

If she was writing on bombs which were destined for a peaceful population that wasn’t commited to her genocide, you might have a point. But she wasn’t.

@straight_man

Why does she want more than to make the bombing stop?

Because it would be creepy if in response to people trying to kill her, her response was to want her protectors to stop trying to defend her. And at what arbitrary cutoff point are we saying that human beings are creepy for wanting self-defense?

@straight_man

Third, Israel’s government has been at pains this time round to talk about its purely defensive intentions. Spite and defense are not the same emotion in any sense of the word.

Correct. Which is why her support of the defensive bombing designed to end Hebzollah’s rocket attacks against her home (among other places) was not spiteful.

@straight_man

Fourth, why would someone let her do that?

Why wouldn’t they? It’s almost definitely certain that the bomb was not armed at that point, so the risk was pretty much nil. And it probably did a lot of psychological good for her to feel (even via a symbolic gesture) that she wasn’t simply powerless and terrorized, but that she’d have a chance to come out of her bomb shelter some day and not have to live in fear a warning siren going off at any moment.

I think it’s much creepier that people would want to deny her that right, the right to express her frustration, fear, desire for safety and wish that the people who were trying to kill her would be stopped.

@straight_man

It’s like that old AFV video of a little toddler who had been trained to call Bill Clinton a jerk. Even if you think Bill Clinton is a jerk, you’d just as soon not have the toddler think so.

Except there’s no evidence that she was trained to do anything. For all we know, she requested to ese the army as it was mustering. I’ve worked with quite a few teenagers. Assuming that they don’t hold very passionate ideas of their own is a serious error in judgment. Especially if someone’s trying to murder them.

@straight_man

Simply put, the picture shows a girl who has been brought into the political world as a spiteful, hateful creature; it shows the destruction of innocence with the tacit consent of both parties.

It shows nothing of the sort. You already agreed that self defense isn’t spite. She was ‘brought into the political world’ as someone under threat of murder and who was happy to see that people were going to defend her against it. Besides, the fascination with ‘innocence’ is silly. Teens are supposed to try to find their role and position in the world, and a kid who is the target of murder can very reasonably be expected to want someone to defend her against that.

@straight_man

ETA: I missed your line that clairobscure quoted. I think the point is that kids just want fighting to stop, by nature, and their accounts of conflicts and wars confirms that idea.

No. Kids are desperately trying to define and create themselves and determine their place in the world as well as an acceptable schema with which to view the world. It’s not at all uncommon to see the ideal that there shouldn’t be war coupled with the relaity that they want the people who are trying to kill them to be stopped by military means.

That’s the point. We recognize that Anne Frank was just a normal child who was under threat of death, and her desire to see the Nazis killed, far from being ‘creepy’, was totally rational and natural even as she also wished for an end to war in general.
The point, also, is that some evidently hold a strange double standard whereby an Israeli cihld, under thread of death, who wants to see the people who are trying to kill her killed themselves is ‘creepy’ and has had her ‘innocence’ lost.

@straight_man

The very personal hatred and wish to kill the people on the other side is something that should not be nurtured in children.

I’m not sure if you’ve worked with many teens in your day, but I can wager that if you try to murder them, it takes no level of indoctrination or prompting, at all, to get them to want their would-be-murderer dealt with. Hell, look at how angry your average High School kid can get if they continually get picked on. Now imagine someone has a sustained campaign to try to murder them.

@clairobscur

Then, you don’t have any issue with posting pictures of children killed in Gaza along with pictures of children killed in Poland in 1942, I assume?

You’re really on a roll.
Try to figure out why a comparison of one girl under threat of death by a genocidal group would be comparable to another girl under thread of death by a genocidal group. Try to figure out what the victims of one civilian-targeted campaign might have in common with the victims of another civilian-targeted campaign, even if those carrying out the civilian-targeted campaigns were different. Try to understand why, if you tried to murder a young girl with a knife that she’d be entitled to the exact same reaction as if Zombie Hitler tried to murder her with a knife.

But I know. Very awful girl. She wanted the people who were trying to kill her to be stopped. Next thing you know, she’ll start having opinions and feelings of her own.

@Kobal2

So the plight is equal… but not the cause for the plight ? And I’m the absurd one ?

Your argument is absurd. And yes, if you don’t realize that, for instance, someone dying of cancer and someone dying of old age and someone dying of a gunshot wound all have the same thoughts and fears about mortality without having to say that gunshot wounds are cancer are a natural process that everybody goes through? Well…

@Kobal2

persecution or injustice is OK, so long as there’s no bodily harm or risk of death involved ?

Again, you seem determined to make your argument as distorted as possible while refusing to address what I’m actually saying. Nowhere have I said any such thing. In fact, that you’d equate an onging threat against life with an already completed threat against property is even stranger.

@Kobal2

A missile is a self-propelled projectile. Guidance or lack thereof doesn’t come into the definition, which is why there is a distinction made between “guided missiles” and “ballistic missiles”.

And this is why it’s taking longer than we thought.

Ballistic missiles, for instance, are indeed guided so that once they finish their burn, they enter a ballistic trajectory designed to hit a specific target. That’s why we talk about a ballistic missile’s designated trajectory rather. This is basic.
Rockets are not guided or targeted, they are simply fired in a rough direction.
RPG’s are not anti-tank missiles. They’re rockets. There’s a reason that one of the categories of missile is anti-tank missle, or more properly ATGM.
RPG’s are not a class of missile. They’re a class of rocket.
There’s a reason why the M-72 LAW is classified as an anti-tank rocket while the Javelin is classified as an anti-tank missile.

Your argument is now like Creationists who argue that since a theory is any wild guess. It’s actually a pretty equivalent position to ignoring precise military terminology to claim that any projectile is a missile. Yes, under layman’s terms if I throw my toaster at someone, that too is a missile. I’d hope that even your argument wouldn’t stretch to the point of claiming that if I throw my toaster at a tank, it becomes an anti-tank missile.

@Kobal2

All facts which were made abundantly clear in your cite, of course.

Nope, like I said I’d assumed you might have some sort of passing awareness of the situation, and that a quick reminder might jog your memory. Don’t come to a debate, totally ignorant of the facts, and then get upset at me for not spoonfeeding you facts which you’re determined to argue about anyways whether or not you’ve already read up on the subject.

I should have known what you were up to when one of your very first claims was a fiction about WP being highly toxic if inhaled. And that you still didn’t understand why it was a problem that you’d apparently gotten such a bit of fictional non-truth, repeated it, and hadn’t done the research to verify your claims until after someone else had to specifically point out your willful ignorance. If you don’t have even the baseline knowledge to argue something, don’t argue it.

I know that lots of people are very fond of their ability to have opinions.
But opinions based on ignorance are simply worthless at best or real negative at worst.

@Kobal2

That’s a novel way of fighting ignorance, I’ll grant you that.

Despite your deceptive gloss of my actual position, I am here to fight ignorance, not cater to willful ignorance. If you enter an argument without even the basic, baseline, prerequisite level of knowledge to talk about it in an informed manner, than your argument is simply dedicated to being contrarian based on no knowledge of the situation and only a goal to argue about it. And I am under no obligation to take such bait.

And I’ve been foolish for allowing you to continually distort my position and argue from a position of ignorance while I responded as if this was an honest debate. Ah well. Won’t happen again.

[straight_man]

A link to the picture. It shows a preteen girl writing “[name] with love”. How is that not spiteful? The defense may be justified — in fact, I think it was — but when a child has been trained to want political action in the form of killing people instead of merely being kept safe, how is that not creepy?

BTW, by “bombing” I meant the rocket-fire. I apologize for the error of terms, as it made my argument and intent far less clear. I still think you’re shooting yourself in the foot on this one, but you should understand that I don’t think the picture is like the Holocaust any more than you do.

[clairobscur]

@FinnAgain

You’re really on a roll.

Can you reformulate that? I don’t understand what it means, even though I suppose it’s some of accusation of something.

Try to figure out why a comparison of one girl under threat of death by a genocidal group would be comparable to another girl under thread of death by a genocidal group. Try to figure out what the victims of one civilian-targeted campaign might have in common with the victims of another civilian-targeted campaign, even if those carrying out the civilian-targeted campaigns were different. Try to understand why, if you tried to murder a young girl with a knife that she’d be entitled to the exact same reaction as if Zombie Hitler tried to murder her with a knife.

But I know. Very awful girl. She wanted the people who were trying to kill her to be stopped. Next thing you know, she’ll start having opinions and feelings of her own.

This “answer” not only doesn’t address my post but also doesn’t make much sense.

It certainly doesn’t explain why it’s OK for you to compare Israeli children writing on bombs with victims of the nazis, but not OK for others to compare dead Palestinian children with victims of the nazis.

I know, I know, that’s just not the same. This girl you know nothing about despite explaining in length her plight, woes and feelings is Israeli, hence by definition exactly the same as a kid in an extermination camp. While those other children are Palestinians, hence just collateral damages, as explained in other threads.

I note that you didn’t withdraw your comparison. That’s telling enough for me, even if I had still doubts about your mindset.

[straight_man]

Incidentally, I really want a cite as to Anne Frank talking about wanting all the Nazis/Germans/whatever killed. It’s been a fabulously long time since I read her diary (eighth grade, IIRC), but I do seem to recall her famous quote that she still believes in the goodness of people.

[FinnAgain]

@straight_man

A link to the picture. It shows a preteen girl writing “[name] with love”. How is that not spiteful? The defense may be justified — in fact, I think it was — but when a child has been trained to want political action in the form of killing people instead of merely being kept safe, how is that not creepy?

First, the picture does not define their ages. I’m not sure that the original article did either. The girls certainly look much older than 10 or 11, that’s for sure. (Not that it matters much, even a 10 year old is capable of feeling fear and terror and wanting someone to end it).

And the point is that without killing/stopping Hezbollah, she could not be kept safe. She could be kept terrorized and living in a bomb shelter, but that’s not exactly the kind of life anybody would want.

It may not be your intention, but more than a few folks use pictures like this to demonize even the desire of children to have someone defend them against constant rocket attacks as “hateful” or “spiteful” or “brainwashed”, it’s just another nail in the argument that Israeli self defense is somehow inherently wrong. There is a qualitative and quantitative set of differences between a child being taught to kill innocent civilians in revenge, and a child who supports military action to stop people launching rockets at her. Same deal for a child raised on an ideology of conquest and genocide, like the Hitler Youth, and a child who simply wants people to be stopped from lobbing rockets at her.

It’s a false dichotomy. Either she must wish for an end to all war and be content to stay in a bomb shelter virtually continuously as long as Hezbollah fires rockets without wishing for their death via military action, or she has shockingly lost her innocence and is spiteful and full of hate.
The third, and I’d argue most rational option is that she’s been terrorized and hiding in a bomb shelter, she wants to be defended against those rocket attacks, and she made a gesture to that effect in support of the bombs which were planned on being used to silence the rocket launchers.

Again, I’d readily if they weren’t under attack, and weren’t supporting the very counter-attack that was designed to protect them. If Israeli girls went out and signed bombs “To the Palestinian children: ha ha!” But these were specifically directed at Hezbollah during a defensive campaign.

I think that some people are having an emotional kneejerk response to the image without considering its context. Supporting the people who are trying to defend you from lethal force is not only a totally natural response, it’s completely in keeping with adolescent developmental psychology.
The emotional response seems to be “Oh my! It’s a kid! And a girl none the less! And she’s supporting war!” But it ignores the entire context and reasons behind her support for a specific military action.

And to a degree we feteshize youth itself. Pre-teens, teens, whatever. They will, all on their own, come up with strikingly powerful ideas, worldviews, emotions, etc… In fact, the young teen developmental stage is exactly when we’d expect concepts on the role of war, politics and conflict resolution to begin becoming part of a child’s intellectual landscape.

I’d be willing to bet money that if you went to virtually any 7th grade class in the nation and assigned groups to have a debate on various sub-topics having to do with war, that you’d find they already have their own ideas on the matter and would argue quite forcefully for them.

@straight_man

BTW, by “bombing” I meant the rocket-fire. I apologize for the error of terms, as it made my argument and intent far less clear. .

Fair enough, no harm done.

@straight_man

I still think you’re shooting yourself in the foot on this one, but you should understand that I don’t think the picture is like the Holocaust any more than you do

Oh, I grok that, no worries.
I just object to the view that there was anything wrong going on, at all. I see no reason to be shocked that a young girl supported the military action designed to get people to stop trying to kill her.

Oh, and Clair? Try to figure out why I am (again) trying to force you to put forward an honest argument that admits that in a clear case of self defense, supporting the war is valid. That I’m not saying Hezbollah are Nazis, but that if you can support a child’s wish for the demise of those trying to kill her because they’re Nazis, it’s intellectually dishonest of you to oppose that same wish if the people trying to kill her aren’t Nazis.
Or just keep on trucking. Since I’m here with my evil mindset of allowing self defense, I’m sure you can get quite upset at me if you’d like.

[FinnAgain]

@straight_man

Incidentally, I really want a cite as to Anne Frank talking about wanting all the Nazis/Germans/whatever killed. It’s been a fabulously long time since I read her diary (eighth grade, IIRC), but I do seem to recall her famous quote that she still believes in the goodness of people.

Sorry, missed this on preview.
I’d add that this is also part of my point. Children around that age are expected to have strong, ambivalent feelings/actions on a whole range of topics. It’s the age when we expect them to be supremely interested in, say, environmentalism while they still litter.

I provided the quote up above, but I’ll requote it.

I’m finally getting optimistic. Now, at last, things are going well! They really are! Great news! An assassination attempt has been made on Hitler’s life, and for once not by Jewish Communists or English capitalists, but by a German general who’s not only a count, but young as well. The Fuhrer owes his life to “Divine Providence”: he escaped,unfortunately, with only a few minor burns and scratches. A number of the officers and generals who were nearby were killed or wounded. The head of the conspiracy has been shot.

This is the best proof we’ve had so far that many officers and generals are fed up with the war and would like to see Hitler sink into a bottomless pit, so they can establish a miltary dictatorship, make peace with the Allies, rearm themselves and, after a few decades, start a new war. Perhaps
Providence is deliberately biding its time getting rid of Hider, since it’s much easier, and cheaper, for the Allies to let the impeccable Germans kill each other off. It’s less work for the Russians and the British, and it allows them to start rebuilding their own cities all that much sooner. But we haven’t reached that point yet, and I’d hate to anticipate the glorious event.

It’s perfectly natural for children, even ‘innocent’ cute girls, to wish that the people trying to hurt them would be stopped, violently if necessary. The point is not that Hezbollah are Nazis (although their genocidal ideology does have distributing parallels), but that most people would agree that Anne wasn’t doing anything shocking or unexpected by wishing that the people who were trying to kill her would, themselves, be killed.
And that, since most people would admit that Anne wasn’t doing anything shocking or tragic by wishing for the deaths of those trying to kill her, that other children who are under threat of murder also aren’t doing anything wrong or shocking.

Because, after all, if we lament the loss of ‘innocence’ of children, then we should realize that’s a bit of a moot point once a child has to live in existential fear due to murder attempts.

The point of my using the example of Anne Frank is not to draw a 1:1 parallel between Hezbollah and the Nazis, but to provide a ‘bright line example’ of a case in which most of us would be totally understanding of a young girl’s desire for someone to be killed.

[Grumman]

@clairobscur

It certainly doesn’t explain why it’s OK for you to compare Israeli children writing on bombs with victims of the nazis, but not OK for others to compare dead Palestinian children with victims of the nazis.

Presumably because Hamas are the ones who are deliberately using tactics that maximise civilian casualties on both sides.

[FinnAgain]

@Grumman

Presumably because Hamas are the ones who are deliberately using tactics that maximise civilian casualties on both sides.

Yep, there’s that too.

Hezbollah and Hamas act with deliberate purpose to maximize civilian casualties for both sides of the conflict, and deliberately target civilians with no pretense of aiming at a valid military target. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are, by their own explicit statements, totally uninterested in negotiation, compromise or for that matter, peace and coexistence. The point is that, in certain situations, the desire for violent self defense is a purely rational and totally expectable response, even in young children.

The IDF, on the other hand, is not waging a deliberate war of extermination against the Palestinians. They’re not targeting civilians.

One analogy serves a basic purpose while another is obfuscatory precisely because one analogy is designed to point out that even civilized people accept that in cases of self-defense one can use lethal force and that if one has already accepted that a girl targeted for murder by the Nazis can wish for the Nazis to be killed that it intellectual honesty demands that a another girl under threat of murder can also wish for her would-be killers to be stopped by lethal force… while the second analogy attempts to equate the Nazi policy of genocide with the IDF’s policy of hitting valid military targets.

[Kobal2]

@FinnAgain

So what if it’s only a symbolic gesture? People make symbolic gestures all the time, and it’s not creepy. In fact, when someone is powerless to effect their own defense, symbolic gestures are all that’s available.

Syllogism. People do ethically defendable symbolic gestures, this is a symbolic gesture ergo it’s ethically defendable.

[QUOTE]
Because it would be creepy if in response to people trying to kill her, her response was to want her protectors to stop trying to defend her.

Was Ghandi creepy ? :dubious: Hell, was Jesus creepy ?

And at what arbitrary cutoff point are we saying that human beings are creepy for wanting self-defense?

I dunno. When they are kids dragged into a futile and abohrrent adult problem ? Don’t you take issue against children soldiers either, as long as they’re “fighting the good fight” ?

Why wouldn’t they? It’s almost definitely certain that the bomb was not armed at that point, so the risk was pretty much nil.

Hey kids, want to play with AK-47s? Let’s play cowboys and indians ! It’s OK, they’re not really loaded !

Again, you seem determined to make your argument as distorted as possible while refusing to address what I’m actually saying. Nowhere have I said any such thing. In fact, that you’d equate an onging threat against life with an already completed threat against property is even stranger.

Oh. I do apologize for my strangeness. Obviously, if the injustice is already done and over, feeling raw about it is irrational and aborrent.
You know what ? Fuck it. Let’s run you through your own absurd gauntlet : explain why it would be wrong and repulsive for a palestinian girl to write anti-IDF messages on an IED. Since your first reaction to my assertion that you *would *find it repulsive was “it’s so not the same thing !”, I assume you would find it repulsive for good reasons.

And this is why it’s taking longer than we thought.

Ballistic missiles, for instance, are indeed guided so that once they finish their burn, they enter a ballistic trajectory designed to hit a specific target. That’s why we talk about a ballistic missile’s designated trajectory rather. This is basic.
Rockets are not guided or targeted, they are simply fired in a rough direction.

A rocket *is *a ballistic missile, again, by any definition of “missile”, or even “ballistic missile” you wish to put forward. Just because in normal, short range usage it follows a flat ballistic trajectory is irrelevant.

RPG’s are not anti-tank missiles. They’re rockets. There’s a reason that one of the categories of missile is anti-tank missle, or more properly ATGM.

ATGM. Anti Tank Guided Missiles. Gee, why did we need that G, when unguided missiles aren’t really missiles ?

RPG’s are not a class of missile. They’re a class of rocket.
There’s a reason why the M-72 LAW is classified as an anti-tank rocket while the Javelin is classified as an anti-tank missile.

It’s classified that way by military personnel. Would every journalist make the distinction ? Couldn’t a disingenuous IDF source fallaciously tell a journalist “they fired missiles”, then finnagle exactly the way I am right now if called up on it ?

Nope, like I said I’d assumed you might have some sort of passing awareness of the situation, and that a quick reminder might jog your memory. Don’t come to a debate, totally ignorant of the facts, and then get upset at me for not spoonfeeding you facts which you’re determined to argue about anyways whether or not you’ve already read up on the subject.

And yet you persist.
You stated that the UN has a demonstrable bias against Israel like it’s common knowledge. Quite apparently, it isn’t to everyone. Provide a cite or demonstration, or STFU. It’s that simple.

[clairobscur]

@FinnAgain

Oh, and Clair? Try to figure out why I am (again) trying to force you to put forward an honest argument that admits that in a clear case of self defense, supporting the war is valid.

Interesting that you never actually respond to what I post, but consistently discuss something else. Where did I say even one word about the validity of supporting a war in self defence…Checking…hmmm… No… I was talking about your comparison between a random Israeli girl an a victim of the Holocaust.

That I’m not saying Hezbollah are Nazis, but that if you can support a child’s wish for the demise of those trying to kill her because they’re Nazis, it’s intellectually dishonest of you to oppose that same wish if the people trying to kill her aren’t Nazis.

Since I said that it wasn’t understandable that she could wish harm to…wait a minute…did I say that? Checking…Hmmm…no. I wrote exactly the contrary some posts ago. Nice try, but I tend to remember my own posts.

I understand that your comparison with the nazis was perfectly random, in the same way the comparison made on the site the OP linked to was perfectly random. Wait…Do I believe that for an instant?

Or just keep on trucking. Since I’m here with my evil mindset of allowing self defense, I’m sure you can get quite upset at me if you’d like.

Yes, I really don’t like you for supporting self-def…Huh? Where did I mention self-defense, again? I thought my post was about comparisons between children in Palestine and Israel and victims of the nazis? Reading again, that’s indeed what my posts were very clearly about.

But you’re welcome to keep dismissing my posts on the basis that you disagree with what I didn’t write, and didn’t even mention.

[FinnAgain]

I really am not going to play games here, but I will continue to point out counter-factual statements.

@Kobal2

A rocket *is *a ballistic missile, again, re by any definition of “missile”, or even “ballistic missile” you wish to put forward.

This really is like arguing with a creationist who demands that since ‘theory’ means ‘guess’ in layman’s terms, that ‘theory’ also means ‘guess’ in scientific terms.

Ballistic missiles are distinguished, in part, by their guidance system. A rocket is simply aimed and fired.
Ballistic missiles are guided so that when they cese their burn, they are on a specific trajectory. Could’ve sworn I already said that.
This page has a lot of information on how ballistic missiles are guided. You can contrast that to a rocket which is simply pointed in a rough directed and propelled along it with (rough) stabilization.

Or we could go to aerospaceweb.org.

[

We have received a number of questions from those who find the distinction between a rocket and a missile confusing, and there are many different types of bombs. The three key elements that distinguish one type of weapon from another are the warhead, the means of propulsion, and the presence of a guidance system. In this explanation, we will generally follow the conventions used by the US military in its missile and munitions designation systems.
[…]
Rockets are typically classified by the maximum diameter of the body tube. A particularly common type in the US military is the 2.75-inch (70-mm) rocket, also known as the Hydra 70. The US military also designates rockets with the term RLU for Live Rocket Unit, or RBU for Rocket and Launcher Unit. These rockets are often carried on attack helicopters like the AH-64 Apache and AH-1 Cobra. Larger types of rockets have also been frequently used on both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Among these are the 5-inch (127-mm) Zuni rocket developed by the US while Russian attack helicopters like the Mi-24 often carry 57-mm, 80-mm, 160-mm, 210-mm, or 240-mm rockets. The Su-17 attack fighter has even been known to carry rockets up to 370-mm (14.5-in) in diameter.

If we take this unguided rocket and now add a guidance system, the result is a missile. A missile contains all three of the elements we have discussed–a warhead, a propulsion system, and some form of guidance

](Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Bombs, Rockets & Missiles)

Anti-tank missiles are a totally different beast from anti-tank rockets. Largely because, with sufficient technology, certain missiles like the Javlin can actually plot a course such that they hit the top armor of the tank and/or home in on the tank’s thermal signature.

[Gaudere]

** Kobal2**

Oh, fuck off, will you ?[…] Provide a cite or demonstration, or STFU.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Kobal2, personal insults are NOT allowed in this forum. If you must insult someone, do it in the BBQ pit, not here. This is an official warning.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Kobal2]

Look, I know what an antitank missile is. I know all there is to know about the different ways to guide them, from wires to exhaust homing, from pop-up attacks to anti-jamming tools, directionnal thrust, ablative shielding, angle of penetration, the works. Ironically enough, though I’m a die hard, hardcore pacifist, I find warfare tools and tactics fascinating (in an abstract sense).

Your average journalist reporting an army statement might, or might not know the difference. An IDF spokesman might or might not take advantage of that. It’s quite silly to argue over the exact terms employed in a particular bits of news. Now, if you have sources giving precise missile types and so on, then let’s have at them. As it is, your “ha HA !” piece wasn’t much of a gotcha, was my point.
And, at the risk of repeating myself, IT’S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. You claimed the IDF absolutely needed smoke covers during its operations, in part because of IR missile threat. I said “meh. Don’t really buy that, but even if we admit it, why would WP smoke be the only one to do the trick, exactly ?”. You still haven’t adressed that question. Alessan, an Israeli and former IDF soldier himself admitted that maybe it had been a mistake to use WP shells in the first place. You still haven’t acknowledged the possibility.

[Kobal2]

@Gaudere

** Kobal2**[Moderator Hat ON]

Kobal2, personal insults are NOT allowed in this forum. If you must insult someone, do it in the BBQ pit, not here. This is an official warning.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

While I’d argue that neither constitute personnal insults, the point and warning is taken.

[FinnAgain]

And just so that there’s no confusion, Clair:

@clairobscur

Where did I say even one word about the validity of supporting a war in self defence

Check harder. It’d be where you said that there was something wrong with a girl even envisioning Hezbollah being bombed for trying to kill her.
You may now weasel, if you really want, and claim that someone can support a specific means of prosecuting a war without envisioning it.
Good luck.

@clairobscur

Since I said that it wasn’t understandable that she could wish harm to…wait a minute…did I say that?

Again, check harder. You were the one who said “There’s something very sick with letting them even envision such a thing,” And that in direct response to a quote of mine, not about writing on a bomb, but asking you “to explain what exactly is wrong with girls who’ve been hiding in bomb shelters, wishing for the people who’ve been bombarding their homes to be bombed, themselves.”

Funny that you deny it.
Well, not funny, exactly.

@clairobscur

I understand that your comparison with the nazis was perfectly random, in the same way the comparison made on the site the OP linked to was perfectly random.

Yet again, I used it to try to force your argument into intellectually honest territory. I failed. It seems that I’d require much stronger stuff than reason or logic to compel that sort of sea change.
It’s like what you do when you pretend that land which wasn’t owned was someone’s who didn’t own it. Normally I’d forgive that in a non-native English speaker, but you don’t evince the ignorance that would require. It’s simply the fallacy of equivocation where you try to equate the ‘my’ in “my home town” with the 'my" in “My car. My computer. My land. My property.” Or where you demand that Palestinains had a right to stay but were forced out by war, and then only focus on Israel fighting the war and not their own leadership for allying with the Nazis and trying to commit genocide, which necessitated the war. Or when it’s pointed out that numerous factors have kept people in camps, and yet you repeat endlessly that you’re only concerned with Israel.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

And when your double standards and myopic biases are pointed out, you do your best to immediately create false equivalences and tu quoque fallacies so you can try to shift the topic of discussion. Exactly like you did the last time I cited the record of UN deception, coverups and agenda-driven demonization of Israel, and you responded by implying that if I didn’t believe proven liars with an agenda, that I must uncritically believe anything that an Israeli source says.

With this most recent absurdity, you actually became upset and asked how dare I demonstrate that people support one girl under mortal-threat in wishing that those who’d kill her would themselves be killed, but get all up in arms about an Israeli girl doing the exact same thing. It was a bit funny that while in the business of arguing in favor of a double standard, you fallaciously accused me of having one. When, of course, in fact both Anne Frank and Israelis were/are civilians deliberately targeted for death, while you grasped at straws and tried to obfuscate by bringing up Palstinan civilians who were not the target of attacks.

What you ignore, repeatedly of course, is that if Israel was trying to exterminate the Palestinians, then the comparisons made between Nazi death camps and Israeli checkpoints/barriers would have been valid. In at least that respect. It would still not have meant that Israel=Nazis, and since the Nazis had the government direct business, that the Isrelis must do so in the same way. But it would have shown that in that one respect, they behaved in the same manner. That’s the same reason that showing Serbian death camps and Nazi death camps would be an accurate comparision, even if Serbs=/= Nazis.

Likewise, showing that Hezbollah and the Nazis both deliberately targeted civilians and that those civilians were perfectly justified in wishing (or even ~gasp!!!~ ‘envisioning’ :rolleyes:) an armed response against them. And that, as a result, in that detail, they was an accurate parallel. And to deny it was to have an argument which was intellectually dishonest. Not that Hezbollah =/= Nazis, but that both Hezbollah and the Nazis deliberately tried to kill civilians and those civilians, even young girls, were perfectly justified in wishing a military response against those groups.

Of course, I never claimed the comparison was random and I’ve gone to great length to point out exactly why I used such a bright line example in order to point out the intellectual dishonesty of an argument that is okay with Anne Frank ‘envisioning’ Hitler being assassinated but argues for it being horrible when an Israeli girl ‘envisioned’ Hezbollah being bombed so they’d stop firing rockets at her.

You must have missed that the same way you’ve missed the content of your own posts.

@clairobscur

Yes, I really don’t like you for supporting self-def…Huh? Where did I mention self-defense, again?

Yet again:

@you

@me

And, you’re still unable to explain what exactly is wrong with girls who’ve been hiding in bomb shelters, wishing for the people who’ve been bombarding their homes to be bombed, themselves. Evidently what they should have been “doing with their time” is sitting scared in bomb shelters and not being pissed off and wanting the people who were targeting civilians to be dealt with.

There’s nothing surprising in little girls being enthralled at the prospect. There’s something very sick with letting them even envision such a thing, let alone actually letting them do so.

But of course, right after that, you followed up with the traditional Rallying Cry of Conceding That One Aint Got Nuthin by inventing an alternate reality in which I not only never criticize Israel, but I never even “allow” others to.

[clairobscur]

I’m going to respond in several parts, since I’m obligated to check back and forth to quote.

@FinnAgain

And just so that there’s no confusion, Clair:
Check harder. It’d be where you said that there was something wrong with a girl even envisioning Hezbollah being bombed for trying to kill her.
You may now weasel, if you really want, and claim that someone can support a specific means of prosecuting a war without envisioning it.
Good luck.

I never wrote that, nor mentioned the Hezbollah. Here’s my entire post :

@clairobscur

She didn’t looked like a teenager on the picture.

Of their own free will? How often do you let your kids, or kids in general, around bombs? Even if I had wanted to write messages on bombs when I was a kid, I don’t think I’d have been allowed anywhere near them, nor by my parents, nor by the army.

There’s nothing surprising in little girls being enthralled at the prospect. There’s something very sick with letting them even envision such a thing, let alone actually letting them do so.

There’s really never anything done by an Israeli, whatever it could be, that you allow people to criticize.

I wouldn’t have allowed Anne Frank near a bomb, either. And I’d rather you not comparing her with an Israeli kid. They aren’t even remotely in the same situation.

My post is about a girl writing on a bomb, since you found that to be a perfectly reasonable situation. There’s exactly one sentence referring to the girl’s feeling, and this sentence says : “There’s nothing surprising in little girls being enthralled at the prospect.”, which is exactly the contrary of what you’re saying I wrote.

You should stop weaselling and making up statements I didn’t make.

[clairobscur]

@FinnAgain

Again, check harder. You were the one who said “There’s something very sick with letting them even envision such a thing,” And that in direct response to a quote of mine, not about writing on a bomb, but asking you “to explain what exactly is wrong with girls who’ve been hiding in bomb shelters, wishing for the people who’ve been bombarding their homes to be bombed, themselves.”

Funny that you deny it.
Well, not funny, exactly.

What is not funny is your insistence in making me say what I didn’t say .

Now, I see what argument you’re trying to make. That you somehow didn’t understand that, in a post entirely devoted to the issue of whether or not it’s right to let a girl write on a bomb, the sentence “There’s something very sick with letting them even envision such a thing, let alone actually letting them do so.” referred to the topic of my post, that is, writing on a bomb, but instead somehow understood it referred to the girl’s desire for revenge.

You’re playing semantic games. I don’t buy it.

[clairobscur]

@FinnAgain

Yet again, I used it to try to force your argument into intellectually honest territory. I failed. It seems that I’d require much stronger stuff than reason or logic to compel that sort of sea change.

Intellectual honesty??? You’ve been trying to weasel out at every turn and avoided to answer my posts by switching the topic and deviating to something else. That, when you didn’t respond to statements I had not made, instead of the statements I had actually made.

And here again, you quote me but don’t say anything relevant to the quote. Instead, you launch accusations about my lack of intellectual honesty and reason.

What about actually addressing my point, for once? What about explaining why you jumped at the first chance of comparing this Israeli girl to a victim of the nazis in a thread where you state that Palestinian kids shouldn’t be compared with victims of the nazis?

It’s like what you do when you pretend that land which wasn’t owned was someone’s who didn’t own it. Normally I’d forgive that in a non-native English speaker, but you don’t evince the ignorance that would require. It’s simply the fallacy of equivocation where you try to equate the ‘my’ in “my home town” with the 'my" in “My car. My computer. My land. My property.”

Totally irrelevant to the quote, or even to the thread. Yet another example of you deviating to something else in order to avoid addressing my questions.

And to answer this : in the thread you’re referring to here, I kept stating “They were living in what is now Israel It was their land, they had every right to live there”, something that no one knowing that we’re talking about Palestine would understand as meaning “they were landowners with a title”. But somehow, you thought that it was entirely about land property, you made comparisons with renters, and wrote entire paragraph devoted to the legal status of the pieces of land, like it was somehow relevant and the thread was about real estate.

Or where you demand that Palestinains had a right to stay but were forced out by war, and then only focus on Israel fighting the war and not their own leadership for allying with the Nazis and trying to commit genocide, which necessitated the war. Or when it’s pointed out that numerous factors have kept people in camps, and yet you repeat endlessly that you’re only concerned with Israel.

Absolutely. If you want to bring in the nazis (again, the nazis? What a surprise!!), why don’t you bring in Zionist terrorism at the same time, since you were feeling like introducing the mandate period in a discussion about the 1948 war?

And I keep my stance : regardless of what happened later, it’s Israel who didn’t let them back. That is the reason why they’re are in camps. Israel caused the situation, it’s its responsibility to indemnify these people. But of course, once again, it’s more convenient to focus on something else like what happened after or before.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

As you said. And so on, and so on, and so on…