|
Your claim is based on assertions. The fact remains that there was a massive increase in rocket attacks and this man was the head of Hamas militants. If the talks were serious why would there be a sudden surge in attacks from gaza if they were interested in peace?
And as i said dozens of times, there is no land dispute around gaza and before the second intifada the situation was much better. Israel has nothing to gain from fighting but Hamas and its supporters (Iran, Syria) do.
|
On November 20 2012 00:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 00:10 fluidin wrote:On November 19 2012 23:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 19 2012 23:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2012 23:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 19 2012 23:50 Sermokala wrote:
The source that the wikepedia use's (lol at using wiki as a credible source for your argument) are cearly just hearsay and nothing more then that. Cold war was a crazy place for intelligence operatives and it should point more to that the saudies were the ones that paid for the hit. Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as long as you check the sources that are presented. The idea that we should laugh off wikipedia sources if a falsehood in itself. What you should laugh off is that the sources are pure hearsay as the most credible of sources for that the cia doing the bombing. The guy who posted it in most cases and in probably in this case didn't read the sources and just considered wikipedia to be credible for this. The fact is that the pages sources aren't credible and should be laughed at. I actually just looked there for confirmation of what i already knew. This made worldwide news, with the CIA being labelled as the culprits even by the American media. Do you want me to go back in time and gather some forensic evidence for you? Or is the media not reliable as a source of information? If not then you can't make any judgements about Hamas or anything that you haven't seen with your own 2 eyes. Eh. I would think CIA, as the world's premier intelligence organization, would render any sensational mainstream news on it suspicious. The same cannot be said of Hamas. But this is really quite off-topic. there is no genuine controversy as to the brutality of cia funded or supported operations. some people are just ignorantly blissful of the facts.
=/ I don't doubt they have participated in brutal operations, but like I said, I wouldn't trust any sensational mainstream news regarding it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not sure why your skepticism about news media is relevant when it is well documented by the public record. the news media isn't the main source for information on cia behavior. see e.g. contra affair
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 20 2012 00:15 Goozen wrote:Your claim is based on assertions. The fact remains that there was a massive increase in rocket attacks and this man was the head of Hamas militants. If the talks were serious why would there be a sudden surge in attacks from gaza if they were interested in peace? And as i said dozens of times, there is no land dispute around gaza and before the second intifada the situation was much better. Israel has nothing to gain from fighting but Hamas and its supporters (Iran, Syria) do.
correct me if wrong, but is it not a fact that there is an election in israel coming up and the government faction would benefit from an escalation of the conflict
|
On November 19 2012 23:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 23:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2012 23:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 19 2012 23:50 Sermokala wrote:
The source that the wikepedia use's (lol at using wiki as a credible source for your argument) are cearly just hearsay and nothing more then that. Cold war was a crazy place for intelligence operatives and it should point more to that the saudies were the ones that paid for the hit. Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as long as you check the sources that are presented. The idea that we should laugh off wikipedia sources if a falsehood in itself. What you should laugh off is that the sources are pure hearsay as the most credible of sources for that the cia doing the bombing. The guy who posted it in most cases and in probably in this case didn't read the sources and just considered wikipedia to be credible for this. The fact is that the pages sources aren't credible and should be laughed at. I actually just looked there for confirmation of what i already knew. This made worldwide news, with the CIA being labelled as the culprits even by the American media. Do you want me to go back in time and gather some forensic evidence for you? Or is the media not reliable as a source of information? If not then you can't make any judgements about Hamas or anything that you haven't seen with your own 2 eyes.
It was reported on and blamed on the cia on the basis of hearsay of the former cia director saying it to a reporter on his deathbed. Do you take all media reports as 100% accurate and let yourself get brainwashed by anyone with a newspaper or a television program?
there isn't a genuine controversy with it because the CIA wouldn't confirm or deny their actions while hamas would advertise that they did what they did. I don't see any solid evidence on them doing it but I don't see any solid evidence on them not doing it. Should I automatically assume that they did it because of a rumor?
Stop being blindingly hostile tword people you don't agree with. Just because you'd put at in foil hat on me doesn't mean that I wear one.
On November 20 2012 00:18 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 00:15 Goozen wrote:Your claim is based on assertions. The fact remains that there was a massive increase in rocket attacks and this man was the head of Hamas militants. If the talks were serious why would there be a sudden surge in attacks from gaza if they were interested in peace? And as i said dozens of times, there is no land dispute around gaza and before the second intifada the situation was much better. Israel has nothing to gain from fighting but Hamas and its supporters (Iran, Syria) do. correct me if wrong, but is it not a fact that there is an election in israel coming up and the government faction would benefit from an escalation of the conflict
Isreal stands to gain from the end to the fighting which is why they are launching air strikes on Hamas's missiles. They want to invade gaza so that hamas will be thrown out of power and the whole situation ends itself while they work on one that doesn't threaten the lives of their civilians.
|
On November 20 2012 00:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 23:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 19 2012 23:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2012 23:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 19 2012 23:50 Sermokala wrote:
The source that the wikepedia use's (lol at using wiki as a credible source for your argument) are cearly just hearsay and nothing more then that. Cold war was a crazy place for intelligence operatives and it should point more to that the saudies were the ones that paid for the hit. Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as long as you check the sources that are presented. The idea that we should laugh off wikipedia sources if a falsehood in itself. What you should laugh off is that the sources are pure hearsay as the most credible of sources for that the cia doing the bombing. The guy who posted it in most cases and in probably in this case didn't read the sources and just considered wikipedia to be credible for this. The fact is that the pages sources aren't credible and should be laughed at. I actually just looked there for confirmation of what i already knew. This made worldwide news, with the CIA being labelled as the culprits even by the American media. Do you want me to go back in time and gather some forensic evidence for you? Or is the media not reliable as a source of information? If not then you can't make any judgements about Hamas or anything that you haven't seen with your own 2 eyes. It was reported on and blamed on the cia on the basis of hearsay of the former cia director saying it to a reporter on his deathbed. Do you take all media reports as 100% accurate and let yourself get brainwashed by anyone with a newspaper or a television program? there isn't a genuine controversy with it because the CIA wouldn't confirm or deny their actions while hamas would advertise that they did what they did. I don't see any solid evidence on them doing it but I don't see any solid evidence on them not doing it. Should I automatically assume that they did it because of a rumor? Stop being blindingly hostile tword people you don't agree with. Just because you'd put at in foil hat on me doesn't mean that I wear one. Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 00:18 oneofthem wrote:On November 20 2012 00:15 Goozen wrote:Your claim is based on assertions. The fact remains that there was a massive increase in rocket attacks and this man was the head of Hamas militants. If the talks were serious why would there be a sudden surge in attacks from gaza if they were interested in peace? And as i said dozens of times, there is no land dispute around gaza and before the second intifada the situation was much better. Israel has nothing to gain from fighting but Hamas and its supporters (Iran, Syria) do. correct me if wrong, but is it not a fact that there is an election in israel coming up and the government faction would benefit from an escalation of the conflict Isreal stands to gain from the end to the fighting which is why they are launching air strikes on Hamas's missiles. They want to invade gaza so that hamas will be thrown out of power and the whole situation ends itself while they work on one that doesn't threaten the lives of their civilians.
The problem is Hamas sets itself up so it's entwined in the civilian population. Any retaliation by Israel will invariably cause collateral damage which will then be used against it in the media.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
suppose hamas fired missiles into israel to surgically kill extremist elements that have called for attacks on itself or palestinian civilians. seems like a straightforward result that israel will produce even more such extremist elements and hamas would probably get attacked even more.
|
I'm not being hostile (?) i am making a point. If you don't trust the media as your source of information then how can you make judgements on the Israel crisis. Pretty much all mainstream media seems to biased one way or the other...
The off topic incident i was alluding was reported AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT as being manufactured by the CIA. The guy who admitted it afterwards had nothing to do with it.
There is no hostility from me at all here. I just have a different point of view to you. I never mentioned tin foil hats (although i do LOVE that phrase).
Anyway your mind is made up on the subject, as is mine, so lets end this now for everyone else's sake.
|
On November 20 2012 00:24 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 00:19 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2012 23:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 19 2012 23:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2012 23:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 19 2012 23:50 Sermokala wrote:
The source that the wikepedia use's (lol at using wiki as a credible source for your argument) are cearly just hearsay and nothing more then that. Cold war was a crazy place for intelligence operatives and it should point more to that the saudies were the ones that paid for the hit. Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as long as you check the sources that are presented. The idea that we should laugh off wikipedia sources if a falsehood in itself. What you should laugh off is that the sources are pure hearsay as the most credible of sources for that the cia doing the bombing. The guy who posted it in most cases and in probably in this case didn't read the sources and just considered wikipedia to be credible for this. The fact is that the pages sources aren't credible and should be laughed at. I actually just looked there for confirmation of what i already knew. This made worldwide news, with the CIA being labelled as the culprits even by the American media. Do you want me to go back in time and gather some forensic evidence for you? Or is the media not reliable as a source of information? If not then you can't make any judgements about Hamas or anything that you haven't seen with your own 2 eyes. It was reported on and blamed on the cia on the basis of hearsay of the former cia director saying it to a reporter on his deathbed. Do you take all media reports as 100% accurate and let yourself get brainwashed by anyone with a newspaper or a television program? there isn't a genuine controversy with it because the CIA wouldn't confirm or deny their actions while hamas would advertise that they did what they did. I don't see any solid evidence on them doing it but I don't see any solid evidence on them not doing it. Should I automatically assume that they did it because of a rumor? Stop being blindingly hostile tword people you don't agree with. Just because you'd put at in foil hat on me doesn't mean that I wear one. On November 20 2012 00:18 oneofthem wrote:On November 20 2012 00:15 Goozen wrote:Your claim is based on assertions. The fact remains that there was a massive increase in rocket attacks and this man was the head of Hamas militants. If the talks were serious why would there be a sudden surge in attacks from gaza if they were interested in peace? And as i said dozens of times, there is no land dispute around gaza and before the second intifada the situation was much better. Israel has nothing to gain from fighting but Hamas and its supporters (Iran, Syria) do. correct me if wrong, but is it not a fact that there is an election in israel coming up and the government faction would benefit from an escalation of the conflict Isreal stands to gain from the end to the fighting which is why they are launching air strikes on Hamas's missiles. They want to invade gaza so that hamas will be thrown out of power and the whole situation ends itself while they work on one that doesn't threaten the lives of their civilians. The problem is Hamas sets itself up so it's entwined in the civilian population. Any retaliation by Israel will invariably cause collateral damage which will then be used against it in the media.
So then they must either launch a full scale invasion of the gaza strip to stop hamas or stand by and let their people be killed until a war mongering faction comes along and invades the gaza strip.
So what would people have isreal do in this situation?
|
United States41973 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
