Senate Israel/Palestine

I'm not sure why you want our opinion on the HAMAS article, Ender. As mentioned, criticising actions by the Israeli government does not make one a cheerleader for HAMAS. But since you insist, for my part, I thought it was heavily implied in my previous post that I don't think very highly of them. Though I can sympathise with the Palestinians for turning to them, for reasons you put very eloquently in your own most recent post. I feel very confident in assuming the same to be the case with the others you tagged as well. I would be VERY surprised if there were any actual supporters of HAMAS posting here, and this includes even wannasee.

It's also worth mentioning that I haven't really commented on Israel's conduct per se in my recent postings. My one criticism was of an article that I thought had a faulty perspective on the media attention. My knowledge is limited, so I prefer to read more than I post.

It's a paradoxical and amusing phenomenon that for all our government's preoccupation with this issue, whenever the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is brought up is usually when Iranians tune out and turn to Angry Birds.

 

Oh look, the article isn't heavy handed on HAMAS - it does highlight how the corruption easily took hold as a result of the tunnel economies, but that's about it. It is however a really good insight into the benefits and shortcomings of the tunnel as a de facto import regime. I thought it was interest from an apolitical standpoint, and not because it condemns anyone (and, if it must be said to be critical of anyone, it's Israel first and foremost).

I learned a lot from it, and was keen to hear your thoughts too. If anything, it made me oddly sympathetic towards the tunnels...

 

As much as I don't like the Young Turks, he makes good points.

 

I supposed it was because he was Jewish because that's the simplest reason one could have for not criticizing Israel, and because the reasons he actually gave were piss-poor and unbelievable.

Any oppressor could be justified using his reasoning.

What you quoted doesn't back up your statement. That is to say, in the quote there is nothing whatsoever about liberal values.

it's just another example of the "we are human beings while they are animals" type of thinking.

but lol @ israel being more compassionate and caring when they are occupiers and murder civilians at a rate many times that of the "evil" Muslims.

 

You're trolling, wannasee. **** off.

 

For Ender (not accurate, but funny):



"You know nothing, John Kerry."

 

You can read Hebrew? Nice going, man!

 

Are you insane? Hamas has fired more than 2400 rockets this year alone, many (most?) specifically at civilian populations. They broke 5 cease-fire agreements.

And they hide their arms among civilians as human shields. Are they fooling you into thinking that Israel is targeting civilians and not the military targets that are intentionally hidden there? You should be pointing at Hamas for hiding among innocents. But I suspect you aren't that sophisticated.

 

j-rod read the thread. i mean, not all of it obvi but like the last few pages at least

edit: you know what nevermind its wannasee vs j-rod

 

Yeah J-Rod, ignore wannasee. He's trolling, and in a sense a lot like the JC's own version of Elliott Rodger.

The human shield element is a valid one, but it's one that both sides need to account for. It's incomprehensible to us, but a tactic Islamic extremists favour, that one should use women and children as something to hide behind. But, if I do the policy equivalent of windmilling my arms and saying "look, woman and children, I'm going after the HAMAS guy behind your back, and if I happen to strike you with these arms it wasn't intentional ok?" - it doesn't really do much to resolve the matter does it?

I mean, yes, they give notice of their intent to bomb an area but Israel is and I think remains undeterred by the notion of collateral damage for anyone who didn't heed the warnings or who gets caught up in the conflagration as they strike targets. The nuance is subtle, and for many that's an excuse to erroneously shout "TARGETING CIVILIANS OMG" but I don't think that's accurate. I think Israel is single minded in its pursuit of military objectives and it will not be deterred by civilians if they don't evacuate as directed.

 

They hit something in particular that caused that one?

 

Power plant.

 

On the up-side, it is the perfect setting to go HALO down and meet Godzilla face to face....

 

ok, and how many people have they killed?

bwhahahahah you believe that stuff about the human shields?

you are the one being fooled, my friend.

 

The human shield stuff is not disputed, wannabee.

 

the wiki article on human shields says it is.

 

The wiki article on MH-17 says Russian-backed rebels had nothing to do with it -- or did until they realised a Russian government source was changing the page. Do try harder for sources, darling.

 

Yeah, if you weren't trolling and had an interest proper discussion, wannasee (note; for the avoidance of doubt, I would say you are and don't, respectively) you would see by the "Talk" page that the article's under review due to failure to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Meaning the rabid pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli edit group and pro-Palestinian, radical Islamic types have come to blows in Wikipedia, which is serious business.

Amnesty notes that in the past HAMAS have done this, but cannot verify the use in the current conflict.

 

I wish these govnements wouldt bomb each other.... to much sadness within the deathtol

 

yep, and hardly a military target.

 

Indeed. It's a terrible and depressing situation.

 

Sssh ssshhhhh drunky.

nope.

 

Wikipedia is a better source than Ender's bare assertion... because it's actually a source, with links to other sources.

Meaning that the veracity of the human shield stuff is, in fact, disputed?