|
On November 18 2012 20:01 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 19:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 19:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2012 18:50 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 18:36 Adreme wrote:
I dont like how Hamas is fighting against Israel but I sort of understand why they are doing it. There is no possible way for them to go head to head with a modern military so if they want to resist having Israel stealing there land (which they are by any persons view) they have to fight this way. The fundamental problem is that Jerusalem is a holy city for both sides and niether side can handle giving an edge so they just fight like this and nothing gets accomplished. No, they aren't. How are some people so close minded they can't even see the other side's point of view. That's beyond being biased, that's being an idiot. Ignorance is bliss I guess. The UN thinks they are - and the fact that the annexation of the Golan Heights as well as East Jerusalem has been recognized by zero other countries also kind of says they are. EDIT: In fact even Israel itself recognizes that it is currently occupying pieces of land to which it does not consider part of its territory. Everyone knows Israel is occupying pieces of land that's not part of it's territory. How does that Constitute "stealing"? Having lived on a piece of land does not constitute land ownership. You don't see the Germans telling everyone to give back their land crying about how they were stolen from. If you initiate a war and end up losing land and can't get it back, too bad so sad. What about the settlements then? Or is your position that it's not Israel that's stealing the land but the settlers do it and Israel just tolerates this? Actually there are Germans who do exactly that. But I really don't want to compare those guys to Palestinians because they now have a proper country to live in. In other news Israel is being surgical again. Yeah let me guess Hamas must have hidden in the building, there is no reason for the IDF to hinder reporting from within Gaza, IDF wouldn't bomb journalists because the outcry would be too great or in a war shit happens (but we are still on moral high ground), right? And again this is only to help you see why the IDF's actions are not perceived as simple defense and in no way does it validate action from Hamas against civilians (this needs to be written out in every post because otherwise the response appears to be "you say Israel is evil and Hamas is good!!!!!" even if that is nowhere implied). Btw it is my believe that the moral value of criticizing your enemy is almost nothing compared to the moral value of criticizing yourself. Start on your side (where you can actually change stuff) and only then look at the others. And it's bit late but as a response to Goozen from yesterday: It's very disheartening that all of Israels main parties have the same approach to this conflict, I didn't know that 
Are these the same sources that reported that the Israeli Parliament was hit, that people were injured in Tel-aviv and downed a f-16? There is a reason lot of main news outlets have stopped posting Palestinian claims without verification first. Not to mention we dont know what was in the basement of that building and , and i will wait till i hear this from a trustworthy source. if it was targeted im sure there was a reason, and it wants the media there. There are tons of live feeds going on, and if Israel wanted to they could power and net access to all of gaza so dont be foolish and make baseless claims.
We do check ourselves all the tine, if you look for Noams post (around page 50) you will see the discussion from the UN with a senior U.N commander talking how Israel is more cautious then any other modern army.
This is fighting with a enemy who is fine with letting its own civilians die as a PR tool and not only takes no steps to defend them but even puts them at greater risk.
|
On November 18 2012 16:21 ErAsc2 wrote:
As long as there's muslims, there will be war. When they're saying "God is greater" while executing fellow humans, I think it's safe to say that as long as islam exists, there wont be peace on earth. When a religion promotes murder and torture and war as long as you say "allahu akbar", you know there's no peace in sight.
I have nothing against peaceful muslims (read; majority of muslims) but the way koran promotes woman discrimination and violence is wrong in my opinion, should be re-written by some christian peaceful dude or smth.
Wait what? Islam promotes murder and torture and war? I would have you know christianity aren't all roses and flowers
DO NOT READ THIS PART IF YOUR GOING TO BE OFFENDED BY MY PERSONAL OPINION. Just expressing it.
+ Show Spoiler +read your bible for the source of my statement, i can easily find tons of parts of the bible being barbaric & just plain horrible.fyi, i would know because im a aethist. I think all religion are a plague on humanity. Both islam & christianity have tons of horrible parts in their holy book, they are very similar
On topic:-
This issue is not going to be solved. The major contention of this issue is Religion. Unless they change their faith as a whole, or this situation will never be solved by any other methods. Violence does nothing here. Lets say Isreal destroy Palestine as a state altogether. This will only fuel the religious anger and cause the entire area to now be a hotspot for terrorism(aka guerilla tactics if you ask some)
How is this ever going to be resolved? IMO: Both sides need to get the hardliners out of the government(impossible because Isreal feels it has to be hardline to survive being surrounded by enemies, the government of Palestine is Hamas, a hardline religion based party)
However if and when the hardliners are removed, then perhaps an agreement to live as neighbours can be created and maintained. Until then? This violence will never stop regardless of what UN/US or whoever tries to do.
|
On November 18 2012 19:09 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 19:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2012 18:50 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 18:36 Adreme wrote:
I dont like how Hamas is fighting against Israel but I sort of understand why they are doing it. There is no possible way for them to go head to head with a modern military so if they want to resist having Israel stealing there land (which they are by any persons view) they have to fight this way. The fundamental problem is that Jerusalem is a holy city for both sides and niether side can handle giving an edge so they just fight like this and nothing gets accomplished. No, they aren't. How are some people so close minded they can't even see the other side's point of view. That's beyond being biased, that's being an idiot. Ignorance is bliss I guess. The UN thinks they are - and the fact that the annexation of the Golan Heights as well as East Jerusalem has been recognized by zero other countries also kind of says they are. The settlements are ridiculous and I don't understand Israel's motivation; but do you honestly believe that is the barrier to peace? There was conflict before the settlements and there will be conflict after the settlements. Ceding land to the Palesitnians only led to more violence (Gaza.) There needs to be a bilateral agreement that guarantees safety
The conflict to peace is both sides feel they have a religious right to Jerusalem basically. The last time they were close to having peace that was what stopped it and the next time they are close it will stop it again because they both have religious ties to that city.
|
On November 18 2012 20:01 silynxer wrote:In other news Israel is being surgical again. Yeah let me guess Hamas must have hidden in the building, there is no reason for the IDF to hinder reporting from within Gaza, IDF wouldn't bomb journalists because the outcry would be too great or in a war shit happens (but we are still on moral high ground), right?
Well, Al-Jazeera quotes the Hamas spokesman that says that 6 journalists where lightly wounded. IDF says there were no wounded journalists. It will be interesting to wait and see who lied and who spoke the truth. Hamas has a really bad track at it...
|
n November 8th, the Washington Post reported:
The Palestinians took the first step toward raising their status at the United Nations from an observer to a nonmember observer state Thursday by circulating a draft resolution to the 193 U.N. member states and asking for their support.
***
There are no vetoes in the General Assembly and the resolution is almost certain to be approved by the world body which is dominated by countries sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Approval of the resolution would elevate the Palestinians to the same status as the Vatican. The draft resolution states that to date, 132 nations have recognized “the State of Palestine.”
***
The upgraded status would add weight to Palestinian claims for a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
The Palestinians also hope to use their upgraded status to join additional U.N. bodies, such as the International Criminal Court, where they could attempt to prosecute Israel.
At the same time, they have expressed fear of financial and diplomatic retaliation.
Following last year’s move by the Palestinians to join the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, the United States withheld funds from the organization, which amount to 22 percent of its budget.
The U.S. also withheld money to the Palestinians, and the U.S. Congress has threatened similar sanctions if the Palestinians proceed to improve their status at the U.N. again.
Israel also retaliated by accelerating settlement construction and withholding funds from the Palestinian government.
|
On November 18 2012 20:01 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 19:39 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 19:04 Ghostcom wrote:On November 18 2012 18:50 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 18:36 Adreme wrote:
I dont like how Hamas is fighting against Israel but I sort of understand why they are doing it. There is no possible way for them to go head to head with a modern military so if they want to resist having Israel stealing there land (which they are by any persons view) they have to fight this way. The fundamental problem is that Jerusalem is a holy city for both sides and niether side can handle giving an edge so they just fight like this and nothing gets accomplished. No, they aren't. How are some people so close minded they can't even see the other side's point of view. That's beyond being biased, that's being an idiot. Ignorance is bliss I guess. The UN thinks they are - and the fact that the annexation of the Golan Heights as well as East Jerusalem has been recognized by zero other countries also kind of says they are. EDIT: In fact even Israel itself recognizes that it is currently occupying pieces of land to which it does not consider part of its territory. Everyone knows Israel is occupying pieces of land that's not part of it's territory. How does that Constitute "stealing"? Having lived on a piece of land does not constitute land ownership. You don't see the Germans telling everyone to give back their land crying about how they were stolen from. If you initiate a war and end up losing land and can't get it back, too bad so sad. What about the settlements then? Or is your position that it's not Israel that's stealing the land but the settlers do it and Israel just tolerates this? Actually there are Germans who do exactly that. But I really don't want to compare those guys to Palestinians because they now have a proper country to live in. In other news Israel is being surgical again. Yeah let me guess Hamas must have hidden in the building, there is no reason for the IDF to hinder reporting from within Gaza, IDF wouldn't bomb journalists because the outcry would be too great or in a war shit happens (but we are still on moral high ground), right? And again this is only to help you see why the IDF's actions are not perceived as simple defense and in no way does it validate action from Hamas against civilians (this needs to be written out in every post because otherwise the response appears to be "you say Israel is evil and Hamas is good!!!!!" even if that is nowhere implied). Btw it is my believe that the moral value of criticizing your enemy is almost nothing compared to the moral value of criticizing yourself. Start on your side (where you can actually change stuff) and only then look at the others. And it's bit late but as a response to Goozen from yesterday: It's very disheartening that all of Israels main parties have the same approach to this conflict, I didn't know that
If you and I agree that you'll give me 5 dollars in exchange for me not punching you, and then I punch you, do I still get 5 dollars?
Why should the IDF's actions BE "simple defense"? Do you call America invading Iraq and Afghanistan "simple defense"?Israel has every right to do what they deem necessary for their security. The end goal of the Arabs is to destroy the state of Israel, the end goal of Israel of peace. As has been said many times and not once refuted, if Israel dropped their arms there would be a genocide, if the Arabs dropped their arms there would be peace. Based on that, Israel occupies the moral high ground no matter what they do, short of slaughtering the entire Palestinian population.
|
IDF confirmed that every so often it takes control of Hamas radio waves to warn people to avoid certain areas among other things. (source)
|
good to see most people voted neither.
Both parties are equally wrong and neither of them is really looking for solutions.
If I imagine the idea of all the countries around the Netherlands wanting to wipe us of the Earth, then I tend to favor Israel.
But when I see those fundamentalistic idiots with their silly hats and dreadlocks trying to expand their settlements, knowing the consequences, I tend to favor the Palestines.
But then I see those fundamentalistic idiots with their silly beards on the other side, sending rockets to schools every now and then and my opinion swaps again.
.. not really possible to choose sides here if you try to be objective imo.
Fundamentalists with too much power, on both sides, that's the problem.
|
On November 18 2012 20:20 bonse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 20:01 silynxer wrote:In other news Israel is being surgical again. Yeah let me guess Hamas must have hidden in the building, there is no reason for the IDF to hinder reporting from within Gaza, IDF wouldn't bomb journalists because the outcry would be too great or in a war shit happens (but we are still on moral high ground), right? Well, Al-Jazeera quotes the Hamas spokesman that says that 6 journalists where lightly wounded. IDF says there were no wounded journalists. It will be interesting to wait and see who lied and who spoke the truth. Hamas has a really bad track at it...
To Goozen as well: Apparently a person named Khader Zahar lost his leg, not really lightly wounded but that's not the point. You also don't disregard Hamas rocket attacks when they don't kill anyone. It's alright to not trust sources, actually I would be interested in cases where Palestinian medical sources provably lied (though to Goozen I highly doubt medical sources lied about anything you mentioned). But will you really change your opinion when this turns out to be true? I doubt it.
If your approach is to believe every report of the IDF and no report from within Gaza, then I can actually understand how you arrived at your opinions (I don't think that's a balanced approach). Basically you always give the IDF the benefit of the doubt.
And even you need to understand why the Hamas is not parading out in the open to be killed by Israel without doing anything. That doesn't make their tactic moral but it is the only viable tactic for armed opposition (of course you disagree with armed opposition only that Israel does a poor job at offering other options).
To Feartheguru:
What about the settlements?
Do you imply America invading Iraq was rightful (about Afghanistan we can at least discuss)? What? Why would you write that sentence? Yeah perhaps I shouldn't have written "simple defense" but rather "why they are not perceived as the nice and moral ones".
It's funny I have argued multiple times in this thread why peace must start with Israel and was also never refuted. To paraphrase my earlier arguments: Israel has all the cards in their hand. They can give some concessions (like easing the blockade, giving them access to their water again or even a two-state solution of whatever form) to the Palestinians and if Hamas fucks up they can take everything away again without problem (and Hamas would know this).
There have been prolonged ceasefires for example in 2008. Hamas did hold their part of the bargain but Israel did not ease the blockade although that was part of the agreement. Hamas can do nothing in these situations to bring Israel to hold their agreement (well they can fire rockets but that's not an effective strategy as we all know) and that is why Hamas cannot be the one to start giving trust. The situation is inherently asymmetrical in the cost of trust.
|
On November 18 2012 20:50 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 20:20 bonse wrote:On November 18 2012 20:01 silynxer wrote:In other news Israel is being surgical again. Yeah let me guess Hamas must have hidden in the building, there is no reason for the IDF to hinder reporting from within Gaza, IDF wouldn't bomb journalists because the outcry would be too great or in a war shit happens (but we are still on moral high ground), right? Well, Al-Jazeera quotes the Hamas spokesman that says that 6 journalists where lightly wounded. IDF says there were no wounded journalists. It will be interesting to wait and see who lied and who spoke the truth. Hamas has a really bad track at it... To Goozen as well: Apparently a person named Khader Zahar lost his leg, not really lightly wounded but that's not the point. You also don't disregard Hamas rocket attacks when they don't kill anyone. It's alright to not trust sources, actually I would be interested in cases where Palestinian medical sources provably lied (though to Goozen I highly doubt medical sources lied about anything you mentioned). But will you really change your opinion when this turns out to be true? I doubt it. If your approach is to believe every report of the IDF and no report from within Gaza, then I can actually understand how you arrived at your opinions (I don't think that's a balanced approach). Basically you always give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. And even you need to understand why the Hamas is not parading out in the open to be killed by Israel without doing anything. That doesn't make their tactic moral but it is the only viable tactic for armed opposition (of course you disagree with armed opposition only that Israel does a poor job at offering other options). To Feartheguru: What about the settlements? Do you imply America invading Iraq was rightful (about Afghanistan we can at least discuss)? What? Why would you write that sentence? Yeah perhaps I shouldn't have written "simple defense" but rather "why they are not perceived as the nice and moral ones". It's funny I have argued multiple times in this thread why peace must start with Israel and was also never refuted. To paraphrase my earlier arguments: Israel has all the cards in their hand. They can give some concessions (like easing the blockade, giving them access to their water again or even a two-state solution of whatever form) to the Palestinians and if Hamas fucks up they can take everything away again without problem (and Hamas would know this). There have been prolonged ceasefires for example in 2008. Hamas did hold their part of the bargain but Israel did not ease the blockade although that was part of the agreement. Hamas can do nothing in these situations to bring Israel to hold their agreement (well they can fire rockets but that's not an effective strategy as we all know) and that is why Hamas cannot be the one to start giving trust. The situation is inherently asymmetrical in the cost of trust.
Well i can actually update you, the building bombed was Hamas's offical Television station ![[image loading]](http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2012/11/18/4277744/REUTERS0GZA03_PALESTINIANS-ISRAEL-_1118_11392608_wa.jpg) And was disabled, not destroyed by any means. Note how it is a
official branch of Hamas and not a independent media station. I give the IDF the benefit of the doubt as they are held accountable to the government and the Israeli public, unlike hamas. The armed opposition they use of targeting civilians will never gain them anything other then PR and popular Muslim support and if despite your "no other options" claim pre second intifida Gaza was in a much better state. When things turn out true i have no problem correcting myself but certain sources are rubbish and even if telling the truth, they lie so much that they are not trustworthy.
Edit: notice how Al Jazeera mentioned al-Quds TV office while not mentioning the Al-Aqsa office that its the official Hamas television station.
|
Hamas-friendly is not the same as "official hamas television station".
Feel free to link a reliable source where it is described as such, because everything i read (reuters, dpa etc) calls it just hamas friendly. And that would not justify bombing it.
|
On November 18 2012 21:05 m4inbrain wrote:
Hamas-friendly is not the same as "official hamas television station".
Feel free to link a reliable source where it is described as such, because everything i read (reuters, dpa etc) calls it just hamas friendly. And that would not justify bombing it.
3 seconds on google: http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/article/1711967?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
The strikes on the media centers hit two high-rise buildings, damaging the top floor offices of the Hamas TV station, Al Aqsa, and a Lebanese-based broadcaster, Al Quds TV, seen as sympathetic to the Islamists.
RT, Reuters, BBC, CNN etc are fine, and if Israel wanted to silence the media, they could quite easily provide a media blackout over gaza.
|
Funny enough, took me 3 seconds as well to see that this building also had the ARD (german TV channel) in it, as well as Sky News and other international sources.
So again. Feel free to show me a source that this is the building of a hamas mediacenter, and not a mediacenter which has a hamas-friendly (even described so in your source) tv-channel in it.
So, no. IDF was wrong to bomb a building with international TV channels all over it. Even IF there is a hamas-friendly tv channel in it. Lets wait and see if the germans, brits etc were warned beforehand, that they are targets now as well.
Edit:
An IDF report described the target of the attack as “a communications antenna used by Hamas to carry out terror activity against the State of Israel.” Israel sees al-Quds TV as a Hamas propaganda branch.
Later Israeli military told BBC they knew there was foreign media staff at least in one of the buildings they bombed beforehand. However those journalists were not the targets of the attack, they stressed.
(source)
Well. Glad to see that Israel knew and accept losses in foreign journalists. Also somewhat funny, that it's seemingly not an "official hamas channel" as you make it sound, but Israel "feels" like it is a propaganda branch. Theres a difference.
|
Do you have examples where Aljazeera was rubbish? The Israeli public is very forgiving to IDF actions, unlike some UN reports (Goldstone for example), so that isn't all that good of a reason to trust them. I don't think because something is an official branch of Hamas Israel gets the automatic right to destroy or disable it (why disable a TV station?).
The armed opposition of Hamas in form of rockets does not really target anything because they lack the technology to target, I'm sure if Israel would provide them with better rockets Hamas would target more valid stuff as argued before (but would you really like"surgical" strikes from Hamas more than these unaimed attacks?). And before you misunderstand of course this is ridiculous as a proposition, I only say this so that you can try to compare Qassam rockets to targeted assassinations.
|
On November 18 2012 21:13 m4inbrain wrote:Funny enough, took me 3 seconds as well to see that this building also had the ARD (german TV channel) in it, as well as Sky News and other international sources. So again. Feel free to show me a source that this is the building of a hamas mediacenter, and not a mediacenter which has a hamas-friendly (even described so in your source) tv-channel in it. So, no. IDF was wrong to bomb a building with international TV channels all over it. Even IF there is a hamas-friendly tv channel in it. Lets wait and see if the germans, brits etc were warned beforehand, that they are targets now as well.
Nice to see how you ignored that the article mentions Specifically that the offical Hamas station was targeted. Then you accuse my lack of sources without linking yours. Following this i have yet to see a single source saying any of the other offices were damaged.
Edit: more sources http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/18/israeli-air-strikes-media-centres-gaza
...office of al-Aqsa TV, which is affiliated with Hamas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_TVAl-Aqsa TV (Arabic: شبكـة الأقصـى) is the official Hamas-run television channel.[1] Its programming includes news talk, children's shows (such as Tomorrow's Pioneers, which allegedly promotes violence and antisemitism[2]), and religiously inspired entertainment.[3] It is currently directed by Palestinian Legislative Council member Fathi Ahmad Hammad.[4]
|
On November 18 2012 21:21 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:13 m4inbrain wrote:On November 18 2012 21:08 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 21:05 m4inbrain wrote:
Hamas-friendly is not the same as "official hamas television station".
Feel free to link a reliable source where it is described as such, because everything i read (reuters, dpa etc) calls it just hamas friendly. And that would not justify bombing it.
3 seconds on google: http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/article/1711967?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s Funny enough, took me 3 seconds as well to see that this building also had the ARD (german TV channel) in it, as well as Sky News and other international sources. So again. Feel free to show me a source that this is the building of a hamas mediacenter, and not a mediacenter which has a hamas-friendly (even described so in your source) tv-channel in it. So, no. IDF was wrong to bomb a building with international TV channels all over it. Even IF there is a hamas-friendly tv channel in it. Lets wait and see if the germans, brits etc were warned beforehand, that they are targets now as well. Nice to see how you ignored that the article mentions Specifically that the offical Hamas station was targeted. Then you accuse my lack of sources without linking yours. Following this i have yet to see a single source saying any of the other offices were damaged.
Read again.
Edit: oh and no. There is STILL a difference between "official hamas tv station" and "Israel feels like this is the propaganda branch". Or was it called "Hamas TV News" and i just missed it?
|
On November 18 2012 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:21 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 21:13 m4inbrain wrote:On November 18 2012 21:08 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 21:05 m4inbrain wrote:
Hamas-friendly is not the same as "official hamas television station".
Feel free to link a reliable source where it is described as such, because everything i read (reuters, dpa etc) calls it just hamas friendly. And that would not justify bombing it.
3 seconds on google: http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/article/1711967?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s Funny enough, took me 3 seconds as well to see that this building also had the ARD (german TV channel) in it, as well as Sky News and other international sources. So again. Feel free to show me a source that this is the building of a hamas mediacenter, and not a mediacenter which has a hamas-friendly (even described so in your source) tv-channel in it. So, no. IDF was wrong to bomb a building with international TV channels all over it. Even IF there is a hamas-friendly tv channel in it. Lets wait and see if the germans, brits etc were warned beforehand, that they are targets now as well. Nice to see how you ignored that the article mentions Specifically that the offical Hamas station was targeted. Then you accuse my lack of sources without linking yours. Following this i have yet to see a single source saying any of the other offices were damaged. Read again. Edit: oh and no. There is STILL a difference between "official hamas tv station" and "Israel feels like this is the propaganda branch". Or was it called "Hamas TV News" and i just missed it?
Read my edit
|
So you moved your position from "they probably didn't do this" to "it's ok because they were Hamas journalists"? Targeting journalists because they publish stuff that you see as propaganda is now alright?
|
On November 18 2012 21:25 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:On November 18 2012 21:21 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 21:13 m4inbrain wrote:On November 18 2012 21:08 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 21:05 m4inbrain wrote:
Hamas-friendly is not the same as "official hamas television station".
Feel free to link a reliable source where it is described as such, because everything i read (reuters, dpa etc) calls it just hamas friendly. And that would not justify bombing it.
3 seconds on google: http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/article/1711967?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s Funny enough, took me 3 seconds as well to see that this building also had the ARD (german TV channel) in it, as well as Sky News and other international sources. So again. Feel free to show me a source that this is the building of a hamas mediacenter, and not a mediacenter which has a hamas-friendly (even described so in your source) tv-channel in it. So, no. IDF was wrong to bomb a building with international TV channels all over it. Even IF there is a hamas-friendly tv channel in it. Lets wait and see if the germans, brits etc were warned beforehand, that they are targets now as well. Nice to see how you ignored that the article mentions Specifically that the offical Hamas station was targeted. Then you accuse my lack of sources without linking yours. Following this i have yet to see a single source saying any of the other offices were damaged. Read again. Edit: oh and no. There is STILL a difference between "official hamas tv station" and "Israel feels like this is the propaganda branch". Or was it called "Hamas TV News" and i just missed it? Read my edit
I did, and i will give you that. Al'Aqsa (or what it was called) may be not independent. Explain to me why Al'Quds was hit.
Edit: not to mention the fact that journalists are still journalists, even if they don't promote what you want them to do. Look at Fox and CNN, hardly unbiased as well.
|
On November 18 2012 21:16 silynxer wrote:
Do you have examples where Aljazeera was rubbish? The Israeli public is very forgiving to IDF actions, unlike some UN reports (Goldstone for example), so that isn't all that good of a reason to trust them. I don't think because something is an official branch of Hamas Israel gets the automatic right to destroy or disable it (why disable a TV station?).
The armed opposition of Hamas in form of rockets does not really target anything because they lack the technology to target, I'm sure if Israel would provide them with better rockets Hamas would target more valid stuff as argued before (but would you really like"surgical" strikes from Hamas more than these unaimed attacks?). And before you misunderstand of course this is ridiculous as a proposition, I only say this so that you can try to compare Qassam rockets to targeted assassinations.
First of all the rockets Hamas fires are accurate to a few hundred meters and there are no lack of army bases nearby that they could aim for and yet the aim at civilian population centers. Their intentions are crystal clear.
As far as Al Jazeera, they quoted a source thats not trust worthy and there are plenty of cases where they have had 1 sided coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
