Pages: 1 … 46 47 48 49 50 … 64

 

2009-01-07 12:16:32
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

GraphicArtist J wrote:

LOL at the anti-Jew in this thread, I had a long conversation with my dad about it and he broke pretty much every argument I made for the Palestinians. Have you noticed that no country wants them? Have you noticed that they bring violence to pretty much every nation they are in?

They caused the Lebanese civil war, caused major fighting in Jordan(and if not for Israel helping Jordan it would have escalated into a war between Syria and Jordan), there's a reason why Egypt would go to war before it took Gaza back. Violence begets violence but with that logic a lot murders should be vindicated because they they are a product of the violence done onto them, the world doesn't work that way, and we pay for own actions.

It's true the Palestinians are living in shit conditions and I'm positive that plays a big role in their violent behavior but that hardly excuses it and that hardly changes the fact that if they chose to live in peace their lives would be a hell of a lot better.

I have a responsibility to take care of my child and raise them to the best of my ability, if i were put in the same situation, my child would not be out there throwing rocks at armed soldiers when i know who the real enemy is. I blame the parents and grandparents for these childerens lives.. This forced martyrdom and sympathy grab, rinse and repeat is a flatout self destruction of a society. At WHAT point, does one lay some responsibility on those raising their childeren to hate, and pray and fight to wipe out a whole peoples?

When Hamas comes to a civilian house and demands to put a rocket launcher in your yard, do you welcome them with open arms? Are they afraid Hamas will destroy your family? Knowing that the rocket is headed for Israel and could kill a child just like their own little child, at what F'N point do these people become accountable????
Looking at how your post is clearly pro isreal , i highly doubt you made any arguments with your dad, let alone your dad breaking them. Also why do you try to hide the fact that your are pro isreal ? by the end of your post, anyone with half a brain can tell.

Can't comment on the first paragraph.

Shit conditions ? is that how you would describe it ? shit fukin conditions ? wow. I am not sure if you know this but there is a shortage of food/water/fual etc, many aid agencies have called it a humanitarian disaster. There are over 1.4 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi … erritories) in the Gaza strip, its a fukin sardine can.  No one can live in peace when your gettin fuked day in day out.

FTR nearly half of Gaza's population are children  (44.7). Instead of throwing rocks, what will your child be doing ? sitting at home ? (if you have a home that is ?) going school ? (lol, these people hardly have food/water/fuel and your talking about education ? making them work ? (last i heard, nearly half of the population was unemployed) . If you bought up your children to not fight for what they believe in, then your full of shit. In an ideal situation, i would agree with raising children without spreading hate,without passing down resentment BUT this situation is a million miles from ideal.


Why don't you tell us who the real enemy is  ?


Don't give a shit about Hamas so wont comment on the last paragraph. As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
2009-01-07 12:20:38
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6769|Global Command

mafia996630 wrote:

As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
2009-01-07 12:23:06
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
That makes is ok to kill inoocent people does it ? i guess Hamas are then fully in their right to kill innocent people in isreal considering the isreali government was also elected ?

Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-01-07 12:24:20)

2009-01-07 12:28:05
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6769|Global Command

mafia996630 wrote:

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
That makes is ok to kill inoocent people does it ? i guess Hamas are then fully in their right to kill innocent people in isreal considering the isreali government was also elected ?
Which obviously they have chose to do, so yes, if that is their perogative.

But war is hell. Even in this hell there are rules. You can't use suicide bombers. You can't intentionally target civillians. Colateral damage happens when fighting occurs in urban areas. youda thunk they would have figured this out by now.

Hamas declared an end to a cease fire and...opened fire.
Too complicated, er wat?
2009-01-07 12:28:54
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6727|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

mafia996630 wrote:

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
That makes is ok to kill inoocent people does it ? i guess Hamas are then fully in their right to kill innocent people in isreal considering the isreali government was also elected ?
The problem we are running into here is that hamas is showing no regard for the people of Gaza. They build a school, but then turn it into a ammo dump. They fire rockets from CROWDED neighborhoods knowing full well Israel is going to fire back.
2009-01-07 12:36:43
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6782|Texas - Bigger than France
Holy Crap - Joe the Plumber is going to be covering the Gaza war.

Therefore, peace in the Middle East is possible.
2009-01-07 12:41:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
They were elected after the executed the opposition.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-01-07 12:43:44
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

ATG wrote:


You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
That makes is ok to kill inoocent people does it ? i guess Hamas are then fully in their right to kill innocent people in isreal considering the isreali government was also elected ?
Which obviously they have chose to do, so yes, if that is their perogative.

But war is hell. Even in this hell there are rules. You can't use suicide bombers. You can't intentionally target civillians. Colateral damage happens when fighting occurs in urban areas. youda thunk they would have figured this out by now.

Hamas declared an end to a cease fire and...opened fire.
Too complicated, er wat?
Lets not start attaching conditions to your original statement,your saying its was fair play that the Taliban did 9/11 ?
Colateral damage happens when fighting occurs in urban areas. youda thunk they would have figured this out by now.
you call the amount of innocent people killed so far collateral damage ? yes you are. Ok let say they are 100 innocent people + 1 Hamas foot soldier in a house ? Would you blow that house up and say it was collateral damage  or would you say that one man is not worth all them innocent people dieing ?  isreal approach to innocent life is worrying to say the least, did you know that  Livni even said there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051909.html) .

Refer to video below to see who broke the cease fire.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXF … 6&p=46
2009-01-07 12:44:48
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

As for holding the people responsible for the actions of Hamas ? ARE YOU FUKING SHITTING ME ?
You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
They were elected after the executed the opposition.
I never said they were not elected. hold fire.
2009-01-07 12:46:38
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

mafia996630 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
They were elected after the executed the opposition.
I never said they were not elected. hold fire.
I quoted and was referring to ATG's comment. Come out from under the desk .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-01-07 12:48:00
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

Kmarion wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


They were elected after the executed the opposition.
I never said they were not elected. hold fire.
I quoted and was referring to ATG's comment. Come out from under the desk .
Thanks dude, thought i would be hiding there the whole night!
2009-01-07 12:52:17
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

SgtHeihn wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

ATG wrote:


You were good until right there. They were elected.

failsplat
That makes is ok to kill inoocent people does it ? i guess Hamas are then fully in their right to kill innocent people in isreal considering the isreali government was also elected ?
The problem we are running into here is that hamas is showing no regard for the people of Gaza. They build a school, but then turn it into a ammo dump. They fire rockets from CROWDED neighborhoods knowing full well Israel is going to fire back.
Ok, lets say Hamas shows no regard for innocent life. Does that mean isreal should also show no regard for innocent life?
2009-01-07 12:56:23
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6727|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

mafia996630 wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:


That makes is ok to kill inoocent people does it ? i guess Hamas are then fully in their right to kill innocent people in isreal considering the isreali government was also elected ?
The problem we are running into here is that hamas is showing no regard for the people of Gaza. They build a school, but then turn it into a ammo dump. They fire rockets from CROWDED neighborhoods knowing full well Israel is going to fire back.
Ok, lets say Hamas shows no regard for innocent life. Does that mean isreal should also show no regard for innocent life?
They show more regard than hamas, if they really wanted to go all out, they would just randomly drop bombs.

If Israel wasn't trying to limit civilian deaths, the toll would be 100x greater.
2009-01-07 13:08:47
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6769|Global Command

mafia996630 wrote:

Refer to video below to see who broke the cease fire.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXF … 6&p=46
Some guy on CNN refers to a palestinian as an authority on who broke the cease fire? lol, too rich.

failsplat
2009-01-07 13:59:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6822|SE London

usmarine wrote:

how is israel a mistake?  you can say that about tibet or kashmir also?
In many ways. It is the product of a Zionist aggression more than anything else. The state of Israel would never have come into existence (as is) were it not for the early Zionist terror groups and Jewish agency policies of economic deprivation of the indigenous Arab populous. One of the initial conditions, an extremely naive condition - but nevertheless, was that Jews should be allowed to immigrate and treat it as a homeland provided that did not prejudice the rights of the Arabs already resident there. This did not happen and the state was established in a despicable manner and has been the focal point for conflict in the Middle East for almost a century.

usmarine wrote:

you will NEVER have peace between the two and this will NEVER end.  get that thru yur skulls.  aint that hard to figure out.
Not through any military solution, no. But neither side is going to go away, so there must either be perpetual war or the sides must learn to get along. ANY Israeli military action is simply counterproductive and is simply done to boost the governments standings in the polls - which is why so many of Israels military incursions into the OTs have been in the run up to elections.

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

They don't even acknowledge this land is Palestinian.
because it isnt.  do you know how stupid you sound right now?
Much of it is. East Jerusalem ring any bells? Classed as being illegally occupied by Israel (the occupation would not be illegal, were it not for the fact that it is being used as a part of Israel, essentially annexing it - which is completely illegal under the Geneva Convention, which Israel is a signatory of). You may start banging on about 1967 borders or it being Israels anyway, but that's not the decision reached by the High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Convention in their binding declaration in 2001. Or do the explicit rules of the Geneva Convention not matter anymore?

Geneva Convention Declaration, 2001 wrote:

3. Taking into account art. 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and bearing in mind the United Nations' General Assembly Resolution ES-10/7, the participating High Contracting Parties reaffirm the applicability of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and reiterate the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory. Through the present Declaration, they recall in particular the respective obligations under the Convention of all High Contracting Parties (para 4-7), of the parties to the conflict (para 8-11) and of the State of Israel as the Occupying Power (para 12-15).

***********************************

12. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof. They recall the need to safeguard and guarantee the rights and access of all inhabitants to the Holy Places.
Considering that the Geneva Convention very specifically prohibits annexation of occupied territory by an occupying power, then the continued Israeli civilian presence in East Jerusalem is essentially a war crime (not that Hamas doesn't commit its fair share of war crimes).

usmarine wrote:

the UN, CIA, NATO, etc have the borders drawn and recognize israel.  what more do you need?  this 'anymore" crap is just plain retarded.
And Israel does not recognise those borders.

Nor do they recognise a multitude of other legal rights the Palestinians have - such as the right of return.

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

No I can not, not when Israel represents so little land in the ME and it is too much according to the region.
Your little house is pretty small compared to America, I guess if someone pulled a gun on you and kicked you out you'd just go find somewhere else to live.

Lowing wrote:

When has Israel launched attacks unprovoked
When their country was created and they booted the Palestinians out at gunpoint, or killed them.
Sorry, the Jews didn't pull a gun on anyone.
Didn't they? So the terror campaigns of the 30's, the King David Hotel bombing, the Deir Yassin massacre - none of that ever happened?

The formation of the actual state of Israel was UN sanctioned - but the state had been formed prior to that in all but name (by terrorists). The UN partition plan was trying to bring the original balance laid out by the League of Nations for the mandate and outlined in the Balfour declaration.

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

watched the news today and it was reported that the damn thing exploded when it was hit. Pretty much confirming it was more of a weapons storage facility as much as an "evacuation center"
Thats funny, not even Fox News are claiming that.
Please provide some evidence to back up your wild claims.
All reports say that mortar and rocket fire came from that area. The explosion part, I saw in an blip during an interview that the Today show was reporting on.
Israel say there were militants firing from the school. The UN, who were there and actually run the school and are impartial observers, say there were no militants (or military supplies) in the compound. Who is the more trustworthy? An impartial international body who had workers at the scene or a belligerent nation actively involved in the conflict with no eye witnesses? Could be the Israelis making more excuses after the fact.

Still, it is hard to say which view is closer to the truth, which almost certainly lies somewhere between the two. It is particularly difficult when there are no journalists allowed into Gaza to cover the conflict - despite the Israeli Supreme Court ruling granting limited numbers of journalists access - which shows that it's not only international law Israel persistently flouts, but their own laws as well.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-01-07 14:05:57)

2009-01-07 14:22:29
TSI
Cholera in the time of love
+247|6221|Toronto

Kmarion wrote:

TSI wrote:

Okay, so I have a couple questions:


1. I don't want to begin a debate about the historical relevance of Israel, but let us operate from the premise that the Palestinians (arab peoples) were living in the area far before the arrival of Zionists in 1896, and certainly far before the creation of the state of Israel.

2. From that premise, we can take into account the principles behind the creation of Israel. Now, building a nation for the Jewish people (mostly of Europe and Russia is a noble undertaking, to be sure, but I ask, why there? The concept of a "Holy Land" is valid to a certain extent only; Israel is too small for its population, and moreover is living in a most hostile milieu.

3. That hostile milieu is a large part of the problem; the arabic neighbours of the Zionist state do not support its creation; I think that opinion is fair, given the fact that they were almost completely ignored in the process. Some (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) have gone so far as to wipe Israel off the map. Why? Because they perceive Israel as a threat to the integrity of arab world (a valid observation given Israel's penchant for military exhibitionism), also because they believe the "Holy Land" is theirs.

4. The UN, in 1967, recognized this problem; hence, Resolution 242 was drafted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … lution_242, in order to establish a permanent dual-state solution, on the borders of the 1967 Six-Day War. This resolution called for mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel. Now, we must recognize that Israel at the time was genuinely threatened by its neighbours, especially Syria. In this way, Israel's demands for a security zone were well taken.

5. The Resolution, accepted by Israel, called for withdrawal from occupied territories. This has not been done. The wording itself: (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

6. The current situation is highly complex, but from a historical perspective, there is one problem that stands out: Israel refuses to recognize the (democratically) elected Hamas government, as it considers Hamas a terrorist organization (a valid claim). However, one can easily make the claim that Israel has pushed the Palestinians into an impasse. Much like Hizbullah, Hamas enjoys the support of ordiary arabs who believe it can represent their views in opposition of Israel's perceived aggression, more specifically its blockade of Gaza and its security barrier (both indubitably aggressive examples of bad faith in the negotiation process). Now, let us not forget the fact that Hamas is a political party, and it was elected by the people of Palestine. Israel is persisting in only dealing with the Fatah-led PA. This shows a blatant disregard for the concerns of ordinary Palestinians. Israel seems surprised that it is being attacked; this incredulity clearly cannot be taken seriously.

7. The real, immediate issue: why is Israel building settlements on land that isn't theirs (Oslo accords)? The Palestinians have complained bitterly about the problems caused by the settlements on a practical level, and also on a more symbolic level; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4141484.stm Israel had renounced its claim to the land, ceding control to the PLO, later the PA (currently governed by Mahmoud Abbas). Now, Israel does not own the land. It does not have any legal right to build those settlements. The Palestinians have complained, mostly violently. Israel sees this as a threat (valid), and as such attacks Gaza in order to stop incoming rocket fire.

8. Consider for a moment the interests of the Palestinians: defending THEIR land from Israeli settling, they have now been attacked (in direct violation of the Just War tenet of proportional retaliation). Will this stop the rockets? Temporarily, yes. In the longer term (after 2 months), it will anger the arab nations surrounding Israel. Then, the rockets will get deadlier. Counterproductive, methinks.

9. That leads to my ultimate question: what right does Israel have to build those settlements in the first place? And now, with this clearly illegal war undertaken (attacks on civilians, no adequate protection of human rights or basic measures for sanitary and medical relief, disproportionate retaliation), what is Israel hoping to achieve in the long run, apart from its oft-purported intent of conquering the Fertile Crescent's Nile-Euphrates axis?
Would you call the continuous barrage of rocket attack during an agreed upon truce illegal? When do you respond?.. after they've acquired better technology?

Hamas acquired their power originally under hostilities. They were negotiating a cease fire while at the same time plotting the execution of the opposition. It's position before submission. If that's democracy you can have it. Hitler and Mugabe gained power in a democratic system.

Israel has given up 90 percent of all the territories they captured defending themselves in 1967. In 2000 and 2001 Israel offered to remove their settlements and redeploy 95% of the west bank and 100% of Gaza. The remaining 5% was going to be a land exchange. Their offer was rejected by Arafat

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
  • Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip   
  • The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal   
  • The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control   
  • Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control   
  • Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City   
  • "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader's style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The settlements are not "illegal" as sometimes charged. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to settlements even though you will often hear the claim that it does. Israel took over the land in a defensive war in 1967 from rulers (Jordan, Egypt) who themselves had recently acquired control of the land by aggressive war. The only internationally recognized agreements are those of the Oslo process which do not in any sentence prohibit settlements. At some points in time Israel has voluntarily agreed to a temporary halt to new settlements in anticipation of negotiating breakthroughs. But the repeated reversion to terrorism by the Palestinian Arabs has ended such restraint. The endlessly repeated refrain about "occupied territories" is propaganda, since a) the territories never belonged to Palestinian Arabs, b) the Palestinian Authority was given control of the areas, and c) the only reason Israel continues to exert control is in reaction to Palestinian Arab violence.
You want resolutions 446, 452 and 465. But even those are non binding, they do not address the legality but rather they condemn them. I guess the constant launching of unguided missiles into Israeli civilian populations isn't worth the ink.
The United Nations has frequently addressed the question of Israel's policies and activity of Israelis in the territories, starting with Resolution 242, passed right after the 1967 war. That Resolution seeks a just resolution of the conflict and calls for withdrawal and mutual recognition, but it says nothing about legality. Resolution 338, passed after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, requires Israel and the Arabs to negotiate peace. By insisting that the Palestinians negotiate with Isreal, the Security Council Resolution implicitly agrees that the occupation itself does not violate international law. Later Security Council resolutions - numbered 446, 452 and 465 - do indeed condemn Israel's policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and declare that these settlements have "no legal validity." However, these are political statements reflecting the balance of power in the UN and not a reasoned legal analysis. The Resolutions are not binding on Israel and do not of themselves create illegality.
Disproportionate retaliation? If you want a chance at ending conflict it's the only way. You French have really got to learn that (jokes).

Israel isn't going anywhere. It's not just the US that helped build their arsenal. You Euro's assured a permanent state when you gave them the means to be Nuclear.
Thanks for the response, it's good to finally see some legitimate argument.

As to whether firing rockets into Israel during an agreed-upon truce: yes, that is illegal. I personally don't think Hamas should exist, but hey, we deal with what we have, yes? So, who's supplying the rockets? Syria, Iran, etc... Would it have the same effect if the rockets came in from those countries? No. Israel would not attack. Why? Because they know they'd suffer massively. Damascus and Teheran know this, they're using Hamas as a front, much like Hizbullah

And in the end, it's the civilians who suffer. Take today's attack on a UN school as an example.

About Arafat: I don't think he was a good leader--in fact, he openly supported terrorism. However, Israel hasn't been exactly upfront with their under-the-table actions either (nukes, deal with Black September, attacks on the Golan Heights and Sinai, to cite but a few). I'm against the rockets, but I think that Israel pushed the Palestinians to that. Their territorial integrity is no longer threatened, why do they need to launch a full-scale war?

Yes, say what you will about the French. I know it's in jest, but there is some truth to it. But then again, who's the guy calling for the ceasefire, which this afternoon was agreed to (reduced to 3 hours, but still something)? Oh right, the French President.

Now, who was the one who refused 3 days ago? Who was the one who refused to let aid through, to let foreigners out, and who continues to attack civilians?

Last edited by TSI (2009-01-07 17:15:41)

I like pie.
2009-01-07 14:37:29
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

ATG wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Refer to video below to see who broke the cease fire.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXF … 6&p=46
Some guy on CNN refers to a palestinian as an authority on who broke the cease fire? lol, too rich.

failsplat
ATG, your good at this 'failsplat' stuff and i reckon it will really get you far (see the irony because someone said that to me before!)

How about telling everyone if you think Taliban are within their right to do 9/11? because that what i concluded by you saying a the people are held fully accountable for their governments actions.

Also you have yet to reply to the following;

Ok let say they are 100 innocent people + 1 Hamas foot soldier in a house ? Would you blow that house up and say it was collateral damage  or would you say that one man is not worth all them innocent people dieing ?
2009-01-07 15:02:46
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d

SgtHeihn wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:


The problem we are running into here is that hamas is showing no regard for the people of Gaza. They build a school, but then turn it into a ammo dump. They fire rockets from CROWDED neighborhoods knowing full well Israel is going to fire back.
Ok, lets say Hamas shows no regard for innocent life. Does that mean isreal should also show no regard for innocent life?
They show more regard than hamas, if they really wanted to go all out, they would just randomly drop bombs.

If Israel wasn't trying to limit civilian deaths, the toll would be 100x greater.
I don't think you really read my post. Let me try again;

let ASSUME/SAY Hamas shows NO regard for innocent life. Does that mean isreal should also show NO regard for innocent life ?
2009-01-07 15:14:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

TSI wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Thanks for the response, it's good to finally see some legitimate argument.

As to whether firing rockets into Israel during an agreed-upon truce: yes, that is illegal. I personally don't think Hamas should exist, but hey, we deal with what we have, yes? So, who's supplying the rockets? Syria, Iran, etc... Would it have the same effect if the rockets came in from those countries? No. Israel would not attack. Why? Because they know they'd suffer massively. Damascus and Teheran know this, they're using Hamas as a front, much like Hizbullah

And in the end, it's the civilians who suffer. Take today's attack on a UN school as an example.

About Arafat: I don't think he was a good leader--in fact, he openly supported terrorism. However, Israel hasn't been exactly upfront with their under-the-table actions either (nukes, deal with Black September, attacks on the Golan Heights and Sinai, to cite but a few). I'm against the rockets, but I think that Israel pushed the Palestinians to that. Their territorial integrity is no longer threatened, why do they need to launch a full-scale war?

Yes, say what you will about the French. I know it's in jest, but there is some truth to it. But then again, who's the guy calling for the ceasefire, which this afternoon was agreed to (reduced to 3 hours, but still something)? Oh right, the French President.

Now, who was the one who refused 3 days ago? Who was the one who refused to let aid through, to let foreigners out, and who continues to attack civilians?
I can joke about the French, it's my ancestry . Israel has recently flown sorties into Syria to take out a suspected nuclear site. They are not restricted to defending themselves against the poorly armed militant wing of Hamas.

I must admit it's disappointing to see a school hit. But again you have to look deeper. Why was the school hit? Hamas was launching mortar rounds from that school. What sense does it make to shoot artillery at a school "just for giggles"?

AP wrote:

Two residents who spoke to an AP reporter by phone said the two brothers were known to be low-level Hamas militants. They said a group of militants — one of them said four — were firing mortar shells from near the school.

An Israeli shell targeted the men, but missed and they fled, the witnesses said, refusing to allow their names to be published because they feared for their safety. Then another three shells landed nearby, exploding among civilians, they said.

Palestinian militants have frequently fired from residential areas in the past.

Ging said the U.N. agency's staff work to prevent militants from entering the schools it has opened to shelter those at risk.
Shouldn't your outrage be at the very least equally directed towards the men who initiated the return fire?

This war will be decided by the ones who sends out the most effective propaganda. Yes, civilians suffer, and they will continue to suffer so long as Hamas continues to exploit them. They hide behind them with all intent to get them killed. They know they can not match Israel's strength, they need innocent casualties to win. Israel doesn't.

Israel must  go in on the ground because it is the only way to effectively eliminate the weapons cache Hamas has chosen to store among the civilian population (mosque, schools, and civilian centers).

Israel has let aid in. Israel has taken in the injured. It's been documented.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-01-07 15:27:00
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6733|N. Ireland
BBC News World Podcast today had a recording of what an Israeli Government spokesperson said with regards to loss of life. I can't remember the exact quote, however he essentially said that vastly more Hamas members had been killed than the news says. However seeing as exact figures are nion impossible I doubt it's possible to back that up.
2009-01-07 15:27:16
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7004|d
yea K us right bout SOME aid getting let in and some people taken out from the isreali and Egypt border. Not enough though!

Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-01-07 15:28:39)

2009-01-07 15:28:00
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6778|Long Island, New York
A good family friend of ours does work through Ben Gurion University in Negev. She said the colleagues who she's in contact with who are currently there say it's looking like Israel's in this for the long haul and it's not going to end soon. They're sick and tired of Hamas and they're going to do what's needed. If it means getting bad PR throughout the world because Hamas hides in civilian locations and their members have begun to wear civilian clothes, so be it. I'm pretty sure Israel's used to the world bitching at them constantly. They can take it. If people can't accept that civilian casualties (which are the fault of Hamas to begin with) are part of war, that's their prerogative. The people with this train of thought have to think WWII was unjustified and Nazi Germany was a victim too, yes? I mean shit, the Allied forces killed a shitload of civilians there... Doesn't make sense to me.

There was a segment of an article that either Reuters or AP put out where Gaza residents had reported seeing Hamas militants hiding out in civilian areas/housing and wearing civilian clothing, but I can't find it now. I read it on my phone. If I see it, I'll post it. Maybe Kmar can help me out.
2009-01-07 15:28:37
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6911|UK

kylef wrote:

BBC News World Podcast today had a recording of what an Israeli Government spokesperson said with regards to loss of life. I can't remember the exact quote, however he essentially said that vastly more Hamas members had been killed than the news says. However seeing as exact figures are nion impossible I doubt it's possible to back that up.
a 2 year old could have told you that.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2009-01-07 15:29:45
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6733|N. Ireland

m3thod wrote:

kylef wrote:

BBC News World Podcast today had a recording of what an Israeli Government spokesperson said with regards to loss of life. I can't remember the exact quote, however he essentially said that vastly more Hamas members had been killed than the news says. However seeing as exact figures are nion impossible I doubt it's possible to back that up.
a 2 year old could have told you that.
Just enlightening because the posts above are mentioning civilian:hamas death ratio.
2009-01-07 16:18:53
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6564|New Haven, CT
I believe I noticed a post somewhere that stated the hatred of the Jews didn't start until the late 1930's. Is Mein Kampf not an indication of how Hitler thought, nor the fact that he can to power by blaming the jews for Germany's economic struggles?

 

Pages: 1 … 46 47 48 49 50 … 64

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard