On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
You are so wise that even your wisdom blinded you . Stop seeing it like "a drone can kill a nexus" , yes, there are many military targets available, but, are they able to attack them? If so, that would imply that IDF are the most stupid ppl around to let their assets vulnerable which is not the case. Also why the hell are they keeping civilians in areas that are "hot" ? Is that a "meat shield" tactic/reason justify their belligerency ? Nor Palestine neither Israel are saints in this story.
Conspiracy theories. Believing Israel and Palestine would let their citizens die. Lol.
On a unrelated note. Do you know anything about balkan history?
On December 01 2012 07:32 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote:
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:
On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
If put in the same position, yes, most people would probably not care. Does it matter? Fuck no. If I was abused by my mother, I would probably be blowing heads off of people in the Appalachian Mountains with a sniper rifle right about now. Doesn't make it any more right, though. Going after civilian targets over military targets makes you A: an asshole and B: a terrorist (pretty much by definition). I don't care what happened to you when you were a kid, or how brutal the war's been, or what your history is between you and the enemy, once you actively seek out civilian targets over military ones, you don't have a single ounce of morals left in you, or your cause. The best anyone can ever say of you is that the other side is just as bad (which it is NOT, in this case. Israel has been prioritizing military targets). Sure, Israel has done a LOT of bad things, and so has Hamas, but Hamas' actions are unjustifiable. By the way, you know those rockets Hamas was launching at civilian targets? A fair amount were being shot from places like neighborhoods. They were using their own people as a shield.
That's funny because, according to Chomsky, the deliberated strategy of some Israelis generals (and he quote them) was to "kill as many civilian as they can".
Israel is a nuclear state and the Palestinian civilian population is growing at an exponential rate. It has doubled in the last two decades. Chomsky can, and indeed does, say what he likes but the evidence for an IDF policy of killing civilians simply isn't there.
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
Please stop confusing acts of terrorism with acts of revolutionaries. Their actions are to be condemned because they are terrorist actions. Launching rockets at random is not an act of revolution. It is an act of terrorism. You could make the case that they were revolutionaries if they were attacking israeli military, police, or other government targets. They aren't.
You say that they have no other choice. I disagree. 1. They can accept the fact that Israel is their neighbor. Palestinians live, Israelis live. This has a minimal chance of increasing their sovereignty. 2. They can blow up random shit in Israel. Palestinians and Israelis die. This has no chance of increasing their sovereignty, but it does help fuel their propaganda machine. 3. They can wage war on Israel. Palestinians die. This has no chance of increasing their sovereignty.
That can be said about IDF(Israel) too, even when they kill innocent ppl, that isn't regarded as an act of terrorism (I wonder why?) You might say that's a clash between David and Goliath, tho, David doesn't have a slingshot, what else he can do ? as an answer. 1,2&3 are moot, it's in fact Israel who's playing the bad neighbor role, getting his courtyard bigger and bigger over the imposed limits (not speaking about now but in the past)
Because they wear uniform when they do it. This is why it's so frustrating engaging with you, you have no idea what the words you are using mean. When a soldier targets civilians it is a war crime, when an NGO does so it is terrorism. Now you know why it's not terrorism when they do it. You think you're making rational points but you're not, you're just being educated by showing the gaps in your knowledge.
On December 01 2012 07:32 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On December 01 2012 07:06 blinken wrote:
On December 01 2012 06:55 KwarK wrote:
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote:
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote:
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote:
On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
If put in the same position, yes, most people would probably not care. Does it matter? Fuck no. If I was abused by my mother, I would probably be blowing heads off of people in the Appalachian Mountains with a sniper rifle right about now. Doesn't make it any more right, though. Going after civilian targets over military targets makes you A: an asshole and B: a terrorist (pretty much by definition). I don't care what happened to you when you were a kid, or how brutal the war's been, or what your history is between you and the enemy, once you actively seek out civilian targets over military ones, you don't have a single ounce of morals left in you, or your cause. The best anyone can ever say of you is that the other side is just as bad (which it is NOT, in this case. Israel has been prioritizing military targets). Sure, Israel has done a LOT of bad things, and so has Hamas, but Hamas' actions are unjustifiable. By the way, you know those rockets Hamas was launching at civilian targets? A fair amount were being shot from places like neighborhoods. They were using their own people as a shield.
That's funny because, according to Chomsky, the deliberated strategy of some Israelis generals (and he quote them) was to "kill as many civilian as they can".
Israel is a nuclear state and the Palestinian civilian population is growing at an exponential rate. It has doubled in the last two decades. Chomsky can, and indeed does, say what he likes but the evidence for an IDF policy of killing civilians simply isn't there.
What does "Israel is a nuclear state and the Palestinian civilian population is growing at an exponential rate" has anything to do with Chomsky's claim ? He never said they wanted a genocide, he said they were targetting civilians for strategic reasons. Also, he is backing his claim with facts.
I'm just pointing out that it is not sure at all that the Palestinians makes the most inhumane decision in this conflict, not at all.
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
If Hamas fires rockets at Israel with the purpose to kill innocent civilians and to kill indiscriminately, that is terrorism. Israel targets those who are responsible for these kind of actions and of course, these people hide among crowds and use others as human shields. As a result, IDF kills some bystanders, it is collateral damage. It is extremely unfortunate but you can only blame those terrorists, they even terrorize their own people.
I am not saying what Israel is doing is right, if they can resolve this dispute with Palestinians without military action, then that's even better. However, Palestine and Hamas should resort to other forms of negotiations and peaceful demonstrations like hunger strike if they really want to gather world support. The more you fire rockets at innocent Israelis, the more people gonna hate you and ignore you. In the end Israel is just gonna use that excuse to completely flatten out Palestine slowly over time.
Yes, weaker countries have shit power when it comes to the bargaining table, but that does not mean one should start terrorism and violence against the stronger country. If Hamas stops firing rockets and other terrorist actions, Israel won't have any excuses to attack Palestine. If Israel attacks, Hamas wins. This struggle can only be won by persistent struggle through peaceful demonstrations and negotiations. Nobody can challenge Israel's military in the middle east, so do something more productive instead of self destructive.
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
The french resistance is completly different from the Palestinian situation for obvious reasons I don't even understand why comparing the two.
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote: That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
On December 01 2012 07:52 Franthier wrote: If Hamas fires rockets at Israel with the purpose to kill innocent civilians and to kill indiscriminately, that is terrorism. Israel targets those who are responsible for these kind of actions and of course, these people hide among crowds and use others as human shields. As a result, IDF kills some bystanders, it is collateral damage. It is extremely unfortunate but you can only blame those terrorists, they even terrorize their own people.
I am not saying what Israel is doing is right, if they can resolve this dispute with Palestinians without military action, then that's even better. However, Palestine and Hamas should resort to other forms of negotiations and peaceful demonstrations like hunger strike if they really want to gather world support. The more you fire rockets at innocent Israelis, the more people gonna hate you and ignore you. In the end Israel is just gonna use that excuse to completely flatten out Palestine slowly over time.
Yes, weaker countries have shit power when it comes to the bargaining table, but that does not mean one should start terrorism and violence against the stronger country. If Hamas stops firing rockets and other terrorist actions, Israel won't have any excuses to attack Palestine. If Israel attacks, Hamas wins. This struggle can only be won by persistent struggle through peaceful demonstrations and negotiations. Nobody can challenge Israel's military in the middle east, so do something more productive instead of self destructive.
Easy to talk the talk. I know what people should be doing, but you have to put yourself in their place. First walk in their shoes and then comment.
On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote: [quote]
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote: [quote]
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Nobody is denying Dresden killed civilians. I characterised it as a war crime. But is not and never will be terrorism because it was done by a state during a war.
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote: [quote]
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
I think you should be more amazed at why you are having to educate so many people to your line of logic. Could it be perhaps that that is what is flawed to begin with?
I am honestly amazed that someone as apparently well educated as yourself can't understand why Hamas is following the policy it is.
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote: [quote]
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
You make big claims. Are there any facts that Hamas fighters simply do not want to wear uniforms. And this hiding between civilians thing is somewhat overblown. As far as I can see the only sources for that claim are Netanyahu and Dershowitz with his pseudo analysis. Both of them are Jews so you can't expect otherwise. And even if Hamas was hiding among the civilians, the willingness of IDF to kill a fighter along with a dozen civilians doesn't make Israel any better and their 'surgical operations' theory therefore do not hold the water.
On December 01 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote: [quote]
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Again, explain why the hypothetical actions of an english resistance would differ from the already known actions of all the other european resistance movements. Specifically, explain your insinuation that they would become actual terrorist cell.
Explain to me how every Israeli is contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people. Is it because every citizen is a potential soldier? By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
On December 01 2012 05:33 NicolBolas wrote: [quote]
Of course they're a "terrorist organization." They're fighting an asymmetric war; that's what the side on the small end of the asymmetry has to be in order to effectively fight.
What Israel wants is for it to be a war between soldiers. Well, that's not going to happen because that's effectively Palestine losing, since they don't have as many and the ones they do have aren't as well funded or backed by a superpower.
Demonizing Hamas for fighting back in the only way that they can is politics, nothing more. It's setting up a rules system so that your enemy can't win, then saying that they're cheating when they break the rules. Do you get pissed off when someone all-ins you because they wouldn't win a macro-game?
You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Again, explain why the hypothetical actions of an english resistance would differ from the already known actions of all the other european resistance movements. Specifically, explain your insinuation that they would become actual terrorist cell.
Explain to me how every Israeli is contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people. Is it because every citizen is a potential soldier? By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
First, I won't explain again. Read more carefully.
Second, could it be because the civilian population of Israel are the ones electing a government which continues to expand settlements?
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
I think you should be more amazed at why you are having to educate so many people to your line of logic. Could it be perhaps that that is what is flawed to begin with?
I am honestly amazed that someone as apparently well educated as yourself can't understand why Hamas is following the policy it is.
So many people? I can count three, maybe four people in this thread that he might be educating. We could raise the number to 6 or 7 if the hardline neo nazis from the nazi uprising thread show up. Interesting company to keep, but hey, that's your choice of camp.
That last personal jab is as amusing as it is erroneous. If you could read (specifically the last line of his main paragraph) you would realize that Kwark described exactly why Hamas is doing what it is doing. That doesn't mean he can't condemn it for the fact that it is not based in reality, is unethical, and has no chance of doing anything other than escalating the conflict.
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
You make big claims. Are there any facts that Hamas fighters simply do not want to wear uniforms. And this hiding between civilians thing is somewhat overblown. As far as I can see the only sources for that claim are Netanyahu and Dershowitz with his pseudo analysis. Both of them are Jews so you can't expect otherwise. And even if Hamas was hiding among the civilians, the willingness of IDF to kill a fighter along with a dozen civilians doesn't make Israel any better and their 'surgical operations' theory therefore do not hold the water.
Hamas intentionally fights in the middle of the city near important civilian buildings...They could easily remove civlians or warn them what they are doing, they simply want media attention.
Israel has shown so much footage, do we really have to show it again so people like you can ignore it and start the same nonsense again?
Shooting rockets from 5 meters from a Mosque. israel attacks the site and the Palestinians will go emo about it. Its sickening and time to wake up. Israel must act far far harder on Islamic Jihad.
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Again, explain why the hypothetical actions of an english resistance would differ from the already known actions of all the other european resistance movements. Specifically, explain your insinuation that they would become actual terrorist cell.
Explain to me how every Israeli is contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people. Is it because every citizen is a potential soldier? By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
First, I won't explain again. Read more carefully.
Second, could it be because the civilian population of Israel are the ones electing a government which continues to expand settlements?
First, It's OK, sometimes I choose arguments that don't have any merit either.
Second, you've provided an even worse justification for targeting Israeli civilians than I did. With your example, my statement that:
On December 01 2012 08:12 Jormundr wrote: By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
On December 01 2012 05:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] You can say that Hamas has to avoid wearing uniform to avoid simply being targeted and killed due to the superior Israeli arsenal and you can say that Israel is seeking to demonise them and both of those statements are true. And then Hamas fires a rocket into a civilian area hoping for indiscriminate Israeli deaths and the argument falls apart. They're terrorists. There is a line, they crossed it.
Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Why does it have to be England? Would their resistance act any differently than every other resistance in Europe? If you wish you disprove my claim, you have to actually argue against it instead of covering your ears and saying you don't care.
Explain to me how the bombing of Dresden is relevant in terms of resistance? It was US + UK vs Germany in openly declared war. The objective was, as stated, to destroy 100+ armament factories and to kill the 50,000 people who worked in those factories. You could argue that it was unethical, but it was not an act of terrorism.
My point was a hypothetical which involved the occupation of England by German civilians as well as soldiers. Thanks.
Dresden caused the death of 25000 civilians. I don't care what else you want to say about it, that's the fact. You can justify it by saying those people were contributing to the Nazi war effort. While I still maintain that civilian targeting is wrong, from a certain point of view you could see how these civilians of Israel are contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Again, explain why the hypothetical actions of an english resistance would differ from the already known actions of all the other european resistance movements. Specifically, explain your insinuation that they would become actual terrorist cell.
Explain to me how every Israeli is contributing to the degradation of the Palestinian people. Is it because every citizen is a potential soldier? By that logic Israel would be justified in wiping out the entire population of Palestine. That doesn't sound like a very good point of view, and it is a degree removed from the view put forth in the Dresden case.
First, I won't explain again. Read more carefully.
Second, could it be because the civilian population of Israel are the ones electing a government which continues to expand settlements?
Note that when Israel removed settlements ( gaza) violence increased. Israel has shown plenty of goodwill with the arabs. They gave back the Sinai for peace ( which they honored ) and offered the same deal on many occasions to Syria. They removed the Gaza settlement for talks, and received nothing but more Jihad.
EPT
. Stop seeing it like "a drone can kill a nexus" , yes, there are many military targets available, but, are they able to attack them? If so, that would imply that IDF are the most stupid ppl around to let their assets vulnerable which is not the case. Also why the hell are they keeping civilians in areas that are "hot" ? Is that a "meat shield" tactic/reason justify their belligerency ? Nor Palestine neither Israel are saints in this story.
