Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

901 to 950 of 1,056 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
The Exchange

I think the palistinian state's worst idea is having 2 separate masses of land that are not connected.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:


Hamas cannot provide any guarantees.
What would hamas need to be in a position to guarantee an end to the rocket fire? (or at least to keep it to a dull roar)

The thing is, Hamas has been capable of keeping it to a dull roar. From the 2012 truce to the current conflict, that's what they've delivered.

As you say, they can't guarantee no rockets fired at all, but the contrast between Hamas observing a truce and Hamas attacking is orders of magnitude.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scroll up. You're also allowing people access to food, housing, construction, and an economy so that they might not WANT to fire rockets at Israel as badly.

And that's pretty much it. Eventually this conflict ends in one of two ways: A peace that allows Palestinians a sovereign state or the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first has some risks and will take time and a lot of willingness on both sides to overlook provocations. The second will be an atrocity and leave Israel in a permanent conflict with the Muslim world.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest?
Is that the ONLY factor in a decision? Whats good for Israel? What about people?

Do you not believe governments should have their citizens well being as their first and foremost concern?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest?
Is that the ONLY factor in a decision? Whats good for Israel? What about people?
Do you not believe governments should have their citizens well being as their first and foremost concern?

History has repeatedly shown us that oppressing people is NOT conducive to the best long-term interest of the citizens of the oppressive country. Sadly, History has also shown us repeatedly that every country in such a situation ardently believes that it is the one exception to this :-(

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Speaking of which, it will come as no surprise to anybody that I am against Obama's bombing of ISIS.

Iraq in Flames--Legacy of American Occupation

U.S. Imperialism--World's Biggest Terrorists!

It would be nice to get the Shias to accept a moderate government but these these people were violently oppressing their rivals twenty years ago, it's not surprising to see them getting behind this ISIS group that are murdering non-Shia Muslims. A lot of this does go back to the initial stages of the war where the Bath party were basically disbanded and forced out of any and all offices they held. Now that the US forces are gone you have genuine civil war.

However, do you let a group you basically created just starve a whole group of people on top of a mountain to death? I have a hard time disagreeing with Obama's choice this time.


Guy Humual wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Speaking of which, it will come as no surprise to anybody that I am against Obama's bombing of ISIS.

Iraq in Flames--Legacy of American Occupation

U.S. Imperialism--World's Biggest Terrorists!

It would be nice to get the Shias to accept a moderate government but these these people were violently oppressing their rivals twenty years ago, it's not surprising to see them getting behind this ISIS group that are murdering non-Shia Muslims. A lot of this does go back to the initial stages of the war where the Bath party were basically disbanded and forced out of any and all offices they held. Now that the US forces are gone you have genuine civil war.

However, do you let a group you basically created just starve a whole group of people on top of a mountain to death? I have a hard time disagreeing with Obama's choice this time.

Backwards: ISIS is Sunni. Iran and Iraq's president are Shia.

It's not even clear how much the Sunni Iraqis are behind ISIS and how much they're just not willing to stand up and get killed. There are definitely some former Baathist army types, but it may still be more of a foreign invasion than a civil war.
If the US helps with the "defeat/degrade the army that's actually taking territory" part, but doesn't get into the "try to root them out when they turn into an underground resistance movement" part, this might work out better than the alternative.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I keep telling you its not possible. I keep telling you WHY its not possible and you keep going back to nike's "Just do it". Reality doesn't work like that.

I agree with you that it's not currently possible. I've laid out why it's not currently possible.

Your response is "Israel should do it anyways."


thejeff wrote:

And that's pretty much it. Eventually this conflict ends in one of two ways: A peace that allows Palestinians a sovereign state or the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first has some risks and will take time and a lot of willingness on both sides to overlook provocations. The second will be an atrocity and leave Israel in a permanent conflict with the Muslim world.

There's a third option. There are already a good number of Muslims living in Israel. Peaceful, productive citizens. Of course, that means giving up the quest to destroy Israel.


Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And that's pretty much it. Eventually this conflict ends in one of two ways: A peace that allows Palestinians a sovereign state or the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first has some risks and will take time and a lot of willingness on both sides to overlook provocations. The second will be an atrocity and leave Israel in a permanent conflict with the Muslim world.

There's a third option. There are already a good number of Muslims living in Israel. Peaceful, productive citizens. Of course, that means giving up the quest to destroy Israel.

What's the option?

Edit: To expand
If it's for the Palestinians to be peaceful and productive while living as stateless refugees in occupied territories, that's not going to happen, especially if Israel continues to expand Israeli settlements in those territories.

If it's for Israel to annex the territories and accept the Palestinians as Israeli citizens, that's not going to happen. Even if they became peaceful and productive overnight, Israel would no longer be a Jewish state and there is no way they will accept that.

So I repeat: What's that third option?


Doug's Workshop wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And that's pretty much it. Eventually this conflict ends in one of two ways: A peace that allows Palestinians a sovereign state or the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first has some risks and will take time and a lot of willingness on both sides to overlook provocations. The second will be an atrocity and leave Israel in a permanent conflict with the Muslim world.

There's a third option. There are already a good number of Muslims living in Israel. Peaceful, productive citizens. Of course, that means giving up the quest to destroy Israel.

Right, because they're not being oppressed deprived and bombed. But, even if you could somehow make the Palestinian Muslims as pro peace as their Israel proper counter parts the answer isn't acceptable to Israel. Israel demands a Jewish Israel, not just Israel. The Palestinians in the west bank, Gaza, and already in Israel proper could vote Jewish Israel out of existence in a few years if they were assimilated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I keep telling you its not possible. I keep telling you WHY its not possible and you keep going back to nike's "Just do it". Reality doesn't work like that.

I agree with you that it's not currently possible. I've laid out why it's not currently possible.

Your response is "Israel should do it anyways."

I'm not sure if this is an error but you've changed "its."

It is not possible for Hamas to police the west bank and gaza, at all, given the Israeli restrictions. This does not prevent israel from negotiating with them anyway

It will never be possible for Hamas to police the west bank and gaza to absolute zero levels of rocket fire for the forseeable future. THis does not stop Israel from accepting their best effort and helping them reach it.

Everything I've said is impossible is impossible on the Palestinian= side. I've only said "this will have negative consequences in the short term" on the Isreali side. That is far, far , FAR from being impossible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest?
Is that the ONLY factor in a decision? Whats good for Israel? What about people?
Do you not believe governments should have their citizens well being as their first and foremost concern?

If what is best for your citizens is deplorable and despicable I expect the country not to do it *cough cough iraq invasion*

Well, i expect them to do it, but I'll uselessly shake my finger at them and vote for the other guy if possible.


Statement from Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting (twittered out by his account):
Operation Protective Edge is continuing. At no stage did we declare its conclusion. The operation will continue until its goal is met: restoring quiet for a long period. I said at its outset that it'll take time & patience. Israel will not negotiate under fire and will continue to take action to change the current reality and bring quiet to all of its citizens. We will stand together, untited and determined, until we complete the work.

Also - from the IDF twitter account:
Since July 8, Hamas has fired 3,488 rockets at Israel. Retweet if you think more people should be aware of this fact

What it doesn't highlight is that from January to June this year only 181 rockets were fired (for one death (Islamic Jihad militant) and seven injuries.

Interestingly though - Gaza isn't the source of 'most' of the terror attacks (as classified by Israel Security agency) in June (latest report on the site). Instead, of the 136 attacks, only 36 were from Gaza. 89 were in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and 11 were in Jerusalem.
May showed an even more marked difference - only 9 attacks from Gaza, compared to 107 in the West Bank and Jerusalem (majority firebombs).
I'll note that the Israel Security Agency does not track any figures for Israel strikes, or Palestinian injury / death.

I can only guess that the West Bank firebombs / stone throwing doesn't get airtime because it's constant, ineffective and isn't driven by Hamas?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I'm not sure if this is an error but you've changed "its."

It is not possible for Hamas to police the west bank and gaza, at all, given the Israeli restrictions. This does not prevent israel from negotiating with them anyway

It will never be possible for Hamas to police the west bank and gaza to absolute zero levels of rocket fire for the forseeable future. THis does not stop Israel from accepting their best effort and helping them reach it.

Everything I've said is impossible is impossible on the Palestinian= side. I've only said "this will have negative consequences in the short term" on the Isreali side. That is far, far , FAR from being impossible.

I can negotiate the price of my next car with my water company, but I'm pretty sure the car dealership won't care.

As for your comment about "its" . . . I left your comment in place. I thought about putting a 'sic' in your quote, but I don't like messing with other people's posts.


Doug's Workshop wrote:


I can negotiate the price of my next car with my water company, but I'm pretty sure the car dealership won't care.

There IS no car dealership. The analogy doesn't work.

Quote:
As for your comment about "its" . . . I left your comment in place. I thought about putting a 'sic' in your quote, but I don't like messing with other people's posts.

I don't care for anything as inconsequential as spelling. You changed the idea. You said i wanted Israel to do something impossible. That is not the case, unless (as you seem to be arguing) you consider not being a despotic conqueror or acting in longer term interests to be impossible.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't care for anything as inconsequential as spelling. You changed the idea. You said i wanted Israel to do something impossible. That is not the case, unless (as you seem to be arguing) you consider not being a despotic conqueror or acting in longer term interests to be impossible.

A despotic conqueror? Really? Last time I checked, Israel was a democracy, and had ceded control of Gaza to Hamas. Hamas has been singularly inefficient in providing relief to Gazans, while building up their weapon inventory.

I'm sure Israel would like to act on longer term interests. But stopping its citizens from being killed takes precedence. If Hamas really cared about the Palestinians, that would be their first care as well.

"Its" was confusing. Had no idea what you were talking about. The only thing I could think of was punctuation. For future reference, "You've changed 'its'" isn't clear enough.

It is impossible for me to negotiate the price of a new car when the organization responsible for selling the car is not involved. It is likewise impossible for Israel to negotiate with Hamas about stopping rocket attacks when, as you point out, Hamas isn't carrying out those rocket attacks. Israel can talk to Hamas about it, but Hamas can't do anything. There is no negotiating.


Doug's Workshop wrote:


A despotic conqueror? Really? Last time I checked, Israel was a democracy, and had ceded control of Gaza to Hamas.

Like control over its own borders? Leadership? Ability to issue passports? Over its ports? Airspace? Over something as basic as the ability to fish? Water? electricity?

In what way was control ceded?

And what about the west bank? Where Israeli has settlements, controls the water supply, has Israeli only roads, check points...

Quote:
Hamas has been singularly inefficient in providing relief to Gazans, while building up their weapon inventory.

Israeli scholar Reuven Paz estimates that 90% of Hamas activities revolve around "social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities". Social services include running relief programs and funding schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues.[65] Linky

Its illogical to assume that because someone buys weapons that that's all they're doing, or that the amount they spend on weapons would solve all of their other problems: It wouldn't. Those rockets are cheap.

You can turn that around: if Israel cut half of their defense budget as a welfare check to the Palestinians and let them leave on a jet plane would they still be as angry...

Quote:
I'm sure Israel would like to act on longer term interests. But stopping its citizens from being killed takes precedence.

No, acting like you're stopping your people from being killed takes precedence. HUGE difference. The bombs look awfully effective to the people voting you into office but they're not actually doing anything to stop the deaths. Heck, even if you somehow consider soldiers lives worthless these operations are exacerbating Israeli deaths.

If the current blockades aren't stopping the rockets from getting in and being made you have two options for dropping the deaths even further: Kill them all or have fewer people so mad at you that they're willing to risk taking a helicopter missile to the face.

Quote:
If Hamas really cared about the Palestinians, that would be their first care as well.

Some things are worth dying for. I think there's a good argument to be made that things have gotten that bad in gaza.

Quote:
It is impossible for me to negotiate the price of a new car when the organization responsible for selling the car is not involved.

You cannot simultaneously argue that you need to speak with someone with sole ownership of the car, and then freeze someone's assets to prevent them from taking sole ownership of the car.

Quote:
It is likewise impossible for Israel to negotiate with Hamas about stopping rocket attacks when, as you point out, Hamas isn't carrying out those rocket attacks. Israel can talk to Hamas about it, but Hamas can't do anything. There is no negotiating.

Then Israel needs to accept the reality that they own the Palestinian territories. Israel broke em, Israel bought em. They are effectively a part of Israel where people don't have rights.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Then Israel needs to accept the reality that they own the Palestinian territories. Israel broke em, Israel bought em. They are effectively a part of Israel where people don't have rights.

hm.

thoughts, lord snow?

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Backwards: ISIS is Sunni. Iran and Iraq's president are Shia.

It's not even clear how much the Sunni Iraqis are behind ISIS and how much they're just not willing to stand up and get killed. There are definitely some former Baathist army types, but it may still be more of a foreign invasion than a civil war.
If the US helps with the "defeat/degrade the army that's actually taking territory" part, but doesn't get into the "try to root them out when they turn into an underground resistance movement" part, this might work out better than the alternative.

Brain fart, I knew the Shia were the ones that claimed that their leaders were direct decedents of Mohammad, and I also remembered Sadam (after the first golf war) "finding" religion and claiming that he was one of these direct decedents of Mohammad. Seems like an even odder claim now as it wouldn't have endeared him to the Sunni.

However while I'm sure there's a lot of foreign fighters I believe that there's at least one former Baathist at or near the head of the Iraqi wing of ISIS, and they're undoubtedly getting aide some someone in the area. Bombing ISIS isn't likely going to dislodge them from the region because they have at the very least some support. Bombing them is more likely going to send more to their side. Also keeping them from spreading might be near impossible at this point without a ground force and the Iraq army is not up to the task.

Best thing they can do at this point is get people to the negotiating table and draw new borders for three new countries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In your analogy, Israel is NEVER getting the entire car. Thats not an option. Someone will swallow the sparkplugs if they have to, and there's no way to stop them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
In your analogy, Israel is NEVER getting the entire car. Thats not an option. Someone will swallow the sparkplugs if they have to, and there's no way to stop them.

I don't know. Israel seems to be planning on getting the whole car. If they have to shoot the car dealer and blow up the rest of the dealership in order to get it.

Or is this a different analogy?


I don't think either analogy is right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
In your analogy, Israel is NEVER getting the entire car. Thats not an option. Someone will swallow the sparkplugs if they have to, and there's no way to stop them.

I don't know. Israel seems to be planning on getting the whole car. If they have to shoot the car dealer and blow up the rest of the dealership in order to get it.

Or is this a different analogy?

They have to know that its not a possibility, which makes me think getting the entire card/having zero rocket fire a canard, a talking point, and a distraction from the actual issues.


Well, the other sectarian commies have been outmanuvering us on the left--

--but, thankfully, Ambassador Dermer might restore our leftist credentials:

Ambassador of Israel to US says Seattle's Kshama Sawant will have to retract statements


And, in other Middle East news, my new favorite Vice News piece:

Istanbul's Gentrification Wars


thejeff wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Never give an order you know is going to be disobeyed.

especially when most of your power is illusory

You've said this, but then insist that Israel negotiate with Hamas.

Hamas cannot provide any guarantees. If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest? "But democratically elected!" doesn't cut it. A faithful negotiating partner can and will act on promises made. "But good!" doesn't cut it, because civilians will be the expressed targets of those weapons, and Israel would have to repeat its actions again, leading to even more death.

So please explain why Israel should allow the groups that want to destroy it access to the weapons that will allow even more death to occur.

Because those groups can't destroy Israel. No amount of weapon smuggling can change that. Unless they start smuggling in tank brigades and a modern airforce.

Because in the long run, a prosperous Palestine that isn't under constant attack from Israel (either military raids or loss of territory to settlements) is the best way to reduce the threat and to reduce Palestinian support for radicals who want to destroy Israel.

Of course, all of that assumes that the Israeli government wants peace with a Palestinian state. If they don't, their actions become clearer.

I think it's become fundamentally clear that the ascendant Right Wing in Israel is unwilling to ever accept a Palestinian State. Netanyahu follows a principle of never surrendering land. The Right Wing Hawks consider the West Bank specifically and Gaza and the Golan Heights to now be Israeli land.

Certainly there are more moderate viewpoints in Israel, but they seem to be fewer and less relevant to the government's power structure with each year.

Quote:
And that's pretty much it. Eventually this conflict ends in one of two ways: A peace that allows Palestinians a sovereign state or the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first has some risks and will take time and a lot of willingness on both sides to overlook provocations. The second will be an atrocity and leave Israel in a permanent conflict with the Muslim world.

It's sad, but this is the reality of their world. It's also ours. Unless the Western Governments push for an independent Palestinian State we will inherit the genocide in Palestine.

From what I've seen the Westerners that have come out and said that an Independent Palestine is a goal; has only served to quicken the ascendancy of the Israeli Right Wing.

That so many groups in the region deny the Israeli state the right to even exist only exacerbates the issue. ISIS has suddenly risen up and poses a threat to not only Israel but potentially Jordan and Egypt, countries that are economically tied to Israel.

There really is no solution here.


zagnabbit wrote:
That so many groups in the region deny the Israeli state the right to even exist only exacerbates the issue. ISIS has suddenly risen up and poses a threat to not only Israel but potentially Jordan and Egypt, countries that are economically tied to Israel.

Well, ISIS poses a threat to pretty much everyone in the area, regardless of ties to Israel or elsewhere. Ideologically, as the Caliphate reborn, they need to reunite the Muslim world and then sweep across the rest of the planet.

Obviously, they won't get that far and they'll start with targets of opportunity, places with weak governments or populations who might support them. They might try for Israel at some point because it would be a popular move and bring them more support, but at this stage they'd be slaughtered. They'll have more luck in countries where they can get support from the local population.

I don't really expect them to be able to get much farther than they are now or even be able to hold their current territory.


The US will annihilate ISIS.
They have no other choice. Otherwise it's another decade of ground war in the middle East; we can't afford that. That ISIS is a threat to every regime in the middle east means that not one of them will so much as hiccup at the idea.
The guy in Turkey may say he backs them philosophically but he won't stop the US airstrikes and is unlikely to prevent the US using NATO airbases on Turkish soil to stage the strikes.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, the other sectarian commies have been outmanuvering us on the left--

** spoiler omitted **

--but, thankfully, Ambassador Dermer might restore our leftist credentials:

Ambassador of Israel to US says Seattle's Kshama Sawant will have to retract statements

I misinterpreted that title, I thought he was demanding a retraction, he actually meant that she would be proven wrong and would then need to retract.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
Tens of thousands of Israelis have fled their homes in communities along the border with the Gaza Strip...

Story here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since they're being killed at about 500 times the rate, thousands of palastinians are also flee.. oh wait they can't!

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Since they're being killed at about 500 times the rate, thousands of palastinians are also flee.. oh wait they can't!

Bet they wish they'd use those building materials building bunkers rather than tunnels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Since they're being killed at about 500 times the rate, thousands of palastinians are also flee.. oh wait they can't!
Bet they wish they'd use those building materials building bunkers rather than tunnels.

The building materials used for the attack tunnels wouldn't shelter a fraction of the Palestinian population.

And they wouldn't be needed if Israel wouldn't bomb clearly identified UN shelters.

Of course that's OK because rockets were found in some other UN facilities that weren't being used as shelters and besides some suspected militants were riding by on a motorcycle.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Since they're being killed at about 500 times the rate, thousands of palastinians are also flee.. oh wait they can't!
Bet they wish they'd use those building materials building bunkers rather than tunnels.

This is like saying that homeless guy should have bought a house instead of that soda.

Liberty's Edge

And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.

Hamas can do no thing would just about cover it.


Israel takes more land.

Its somehow connected to the killings of three kids. Because.. reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.

I know you like to talk about how evil Hamas is, but remember that Israel has an effective blockade set up and an admitted policy of only letting enough food and supplies in so that the population of Gaza is always on the edge of starvation.

Maybe tunnels so you can sneak in contraband (i.e. food) is also important.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Israel takes more land.

Its somehow connected to the killings of three kids. Because.. reasons.

Yeah, that's what happens.

The palestinians don't try to defend themselves - Israel grabs more and more land.
Then as soon as a tiny little rocket is shot at the occupying force, they're all terrorist and all the women should be killed because they'll be having more terrorist babies and so on and so on.

Israel likes to talk about Hamas using civilians as shields, well, Israel moves thousands of israeli civilians into palestinian lands and then cries terrorism when they're hurt. They're not only human shields, but live bait as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Israel takes more land.

Its somehow connected to the killings of three kids. Because.. reasons.

Yeah, that's what happens.

The palestinians don't try to defend themselves - Israel grabs more and more land.
Then as soon as a tiny little rocket is shot at the occupying force, they're all terrorist and all the women should be killed because they'll be having more terrorist babies and so on and so on.

Israel likes to talk about Hamas using civilians as shields, well, Israel moves thousands of israeli civilians into palestinian lands and then cries terrorism when they're hurt. They're not only human shields, but live bait as well.

Under most circumstances it would be perfectly legal for any government to threaten or even use lethal force against any foreign nationals who come in, evict their citizens from their homes and take the land for themselves.


thejeff wrote:

Under most circumstances it would be perfectly legal for any government to threaten or even use lethal force against any foreign nationals who come in, evict their citizens from their homes and take the land for themselves.

Only if the government is richer and/or whiter than those of the invading state.

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.

I know you like to talk about how evil Hamas is, but remember that Israel has an effective blockade set up and an admitted policy of only letting enough food and supplies in so that the population of Gaza is always on the edge of starvation.

Maybe tunnels so you can sneak in contraband (i.e. food) is also important.

I'm sure that's what the tunnels were for, sneaking food into the country. Right. . . If you believe that I've got some ocean side property I'll sell you on the cheap.

Beyond that, I wonder, was the gain worth provoking Israel and forcing their hand and the thousands of people who have died from such?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.

I know you like to talk about how evil Hamas is, but remember that Israel has an effective blockade set up and an admitted policy of only letting enough food and supplies in so that the population of Gaza is always on the edge of starvation.

Maybe tunnels so you can sneak in contraband (i.e. food) is also important.

I'm sure that's what the tunnels were for, sneaking food into the country. Right. . . If you believe that I've got some ocean side property I'll sell you on the cheap.

Beyond that, I wonder, was the gain worth provoking Israel and forcing their hand and the thousands of people who have died from such?

Most of the tunnels were. Food and other supplies. Including military equipment of course.

Some were for attacks on Israel. Judging by past practice with the tunnels, not for attacks on Israeli civilians, but on soldiers. Gilad Shalit, for example, was captured in a raid through a previous tunnel.

Whether it was worth it or not depends partly on what you think Israel would have done if Hamas hadn't been rearming and digging tunnels. If you think Israel is simply being provoked into defending itself, then it seems obvious that it wasn't worth it. If you think Israel isn't quite so pure in it's motives, it's hard to fault a group under its thumb for trying to arm itself and prepare ways to strike back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.

I know you like to talk about how evil Hamas is, but remember that Israel has an effective blockade set up and an admitted policy of only letting enough food and supplies in so that the population of Gaza is always on the edge of starvation.

Maybe tunnels so you can sneak in contraband (i.e. food) is also important.

I'm sure that's what the tunnels were for, sneaking food into the country. Right. . . If you believe that I've got some ocean side property I'll sell you on the cheap.

Beyond that, I wonder, was the gain worth provoking Israel and forcing their hand and the thousands of people who have died from such?

"Oh I'm just like SOOOO sure" doesn't approach the level of discourse I expect from adults, let alone count as evidence to the contrary.

Please try again, this time with less personal attacks.

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.

I know you like to talk about how evil Hamas is, but remember that Israel has an effective blockade set up and an admitted policy of only letting enough food and supplies in so that the population of Gaza is always on the edge of starvation.

Maybe tunnels so you can sneak in contraband (i.e. food) is also important.

I'm sure that's what the tunnels were for, sneaking food into the country. Right. . . If you believe that I've got some ocean side property I'll sell you on the cheap.

Beyond that, I wonder, was the gain worth provoking Israel and forcing their hand and the thousands of people who have died from such?

"Oh I'm just like SOOOO sure" doesn't approach the level of discourse I expect from adults, let alone count as evidence to the contrary.

Please try again, this time with less personal attacks.

You're the one making the claim that the terrorist organization that was using the illegal tunnels into enemy territory for humanitarian purposes, the onus to provide proof is on you. I don't have to disprove anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with contraband and smuggling is that it's rarely used for any one thing. It's used for EVERYTHING.


The things brought in through these tunnels is neither contraband nor done through smuggling. The tunnels themselves are not illegal.

The tunnels do not lead from Gaza to enemy territory. The lead from Gaza to Palestinian lands that were stolen from them at gunpoint and now occupied by Israelis.

Hamas is only a "terrorist organization" because that is what they are labeled by those who wish to vilify their efforts in defending their lands from occupiers who are stealing the lands at gunpoint.

Sovereign Court

Pink Dragon wrote:

The things brought in through these tunnels is neither contraband nor done through smuggling. The tunnels themselves are not illegal.

The tunnels do not lead from Gaza to enemy territory. The lead from Gaza to Palestinian lands that were stolen from them at gunpoint and now occupied by Israelis.

Hamas is only a "terrorist organization" because that is what they are labeled by those who wish to vilify their efforts in defending their lands from occupiers who are stealing the lands at gunpoint.

No, I'm pretty sure Hamas is a terrorist organization, the question is would they exist if Israel hadn't been so aggressive in it's seizure of land and restrictive control of imports and exports?


Guy Humual wrote:


No, I'm pretty sure Hamas is a terrorist organization, the question is would they exist if Israel hadn't been so aggressive in it's seizure of land and restrictive control of imports and exports?

Why are you so sure that Hamas is a terrorist organization? They don't seem to be behaving any differently than the Israeli government and most people don't call the Israeli government a terrorist organization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:

The things brought in through these tunnels is neither contraband nor done through smuggling. The tunnels themselves are not illegal.

The tunnels do not lead from Gaza to enemy territory. The lead from Gaza to Palestinian lands that were stolen from them at gunpoint and now occupied by Israelis.

Hamas is only a "terrorist organization" because that is what they are labeled by those who wish to vilify their efforts in defending their lands from occupiers who are stealing the lands at gunpoint.

No, I'm pretty sure Hamas is a terrorist organization, the question is would they exist if Israel hadn't been so aggressive in it's seizure of land and restrictive control of imports and exports?

And even more would they be able to evolve into something other than a terrorist organization, like so many other terrorist organizations* have done in the past, had Israel and the United States been willing to work towards that end.

*:
Such as Sinn Fein, the PLO, Irgun, etc

1 to 50 of 1,056 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.