Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

israel / hamasFollow

#127 Jan 03 2009 at 9:49 PM Rating: Decent
Kavekk wrote:
I suppose this all comes down to whether you think it's OK to kill hundreds of innocent and hundreds more quasi-innocent civilians to get a few nutcases.

I assume those defending Israel as blameless also agree with the bombing of Dresden, as there were vital communications in the city? And the bombing of Hamburg was OK too, as there was vital industry in the city? I mean, really, the **** party was the largets in the reich, and putting all these military targets in their cities... why, they were asking for it!


In the same way that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a valid way to end the war with Japan, yes. War comes with a heavy price, often heaviest for those who initiate it.
#128 Jan 03 2009 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
I suppose this all comes down to whether you think it's OK to kill hundreds of innocent and hundreds more quasi-innocent civilians to get a few nutcases.
What "few nutcases"? Hamas is the elected government in Palestine and the only government in Gaza since they ejected Fatah at gunpoint.

As Kao said, this isn't some little radical group dodging their country's police and soldiers to launch an attack. Hamas is the police and soldiers. The Hamas government has launched attacks against the government of Israel. Let's not try to dominish it to "a few nutcases". It's a whole lot of nutcases.

Hey, maybe the people of Gaza should be upset that their elected government put them in this situation, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Jan 03 2009 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
I suppose this all comes down to whether you think it's OK to kill hundreds of innocent and hundreds more quasi-innocent civilians to get a few nutcases.

I assume those defending Israel as blameless also agree with the bombing of Dresden, as there were vital communications in the city? And the bombing of Hamburg was OK too, as there was vital industry in the city? I mean, really, the **** party was the largets in the reich, and putting all these military targets in their cities... why, they were asking for it!


In the same way that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a valid way to end the war with Japan, yes. War comes with a heavy price, often heaviest for those who initiate it.


The thing is, it's less defensible than any of these, as Palestine, simply put, is not much of a threat to Israel.

Quote:
What "few nutcases"? Hamas is the elected government in Palestine and the only government in Gaza since they ejected Fatah at gunpoint.


What are you talking about? Israel has made no attempt to topple Hamas - this is not about Hamas, in the main, but the people launching rockets, who are a small minority. It is them Israel is trying to deal with by rocket attack (although I am unconvinced it is not politically motivated).

Edited, Jan 4th 2009 1:07am by Kavekk
#130 Jan 03 2009 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
Kavekk wrote:
I suppose this all comes down to whether you think it's OK to kill hundreds of innocent and hundreds more quasi-innocent civilians to get a few nutcases.

I assume those defending Israel as blameless also agree with the bombing of Dresden, as there were vital communications in the city? And the bombing of Hamburg was OK too, as there was vital industry in the city? I mean, really, the **** party was the largets in the reich, and putting all these military targets in their cities... why, they were asking for it!


Regrettably, there are historical precedents. The logic behind the bombing of Hiroshima was that Allied soldiers were worth more than Japanese civilians whose government had refused to surrender.

The justification for the obscene civilian casualties in the cases you mentioned is that they were enemy civilians. It's really simple; Britain didn't have an obligation to protect German civilians during wartime, but it did have an obligation to use its troops wisely, so that they could in turn protect British civilians. Given that the ***** had shown no similar concern for human life, the bombing of Dresden was really the same matter. The same went for Hiroshima. Truman didn't really desire immense civilian casualties, but he judged it preferable to a protracted conflict with immense military casualties on his own side. He also believed, quite correctly, that the bombing would shock Japan into surrender and save their country from a lengthy and violent occupation and suppression.

It's really quite horribly naive to assume that wartime states are motivated by a concern for their enemy's civilians. They're not; their sole concern, when at war, is the protection of their own country and its population. If the best way to do that is to risk civilian casualties, that is tolerable.

The real issue with Israel is not that it has caused civilian casualties in its bombing campaign; it's that the bombing campaign will ultimately be ineffective because of the nature of the enemy. Hamas is not a state; it won't be intimidated by civilian casualties. Hamas is a bunch of psychopathic terrorists who deliberately target enemy civilians as a point of policy and who use their own civilians as body shields so that Israel cannot retaliate without the loss of innocent life. They are suicidal, irrational, and totally unfit for government in any capacity.

The point Jophiel is making is that blaming Israel for the conflict is useless. Hamas could end the war today, but they choose not to, because they're a bunch of psycho @#%^s who aren't fit to have a ****.

Edited, Jan 4th 2009 1:12am by zepoodle
#131 Jan 03 2009 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
Zepoodle wrote:
It's really quite horribly naive to assume that wartime states are motivated by a concern for their enemy's civilians. They're not; their sole concern, when at war, is the protection of their own country and its population. If the best way to do that is to risk civilian casualties, that is tolerable.


Because something is one way, that is the morally correct way to do things? I see. Nice argument, really.

P.S. It's horribly naive to call anyone a TERRORIST when supporting the actions of Truman, who murdered civilians to force acquiescence. Both are doing exactly the same thing.
#132 Jan 03 2009 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
What are you talking about? Israel has made no attempt to topple Hamas - this is not about Hamas, in the main, but the people launching rockets, who are a small minority.
You're aware that the people launching rockets are part of Hamas, right? I mean, hey, it's only a select group of Israeli Air Force pilots firing missiles into Gaza!

If Hamas was busy trying to find these "nutcases" and arrest them, you might have a point. They're not because it's the same entity.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Jan 03 2009 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Zepoodle wrote:
It's really quite horribly naive to assume that wartime states are motivated by a concern for their enemy's civilians. They're not; their sole concern, when at war, is the protection of their own country and its population. If the best way to do that is to risk civilian casualties, that is tolerable.


Because something is one way, that is the morally correct way to do things? I see. Nice argument, really.

P.S. It's horribly naive to call anyone a TERRORIST when supporting the actions of Truman, who murdered civilians to force acquiescence. Both are doing exactly the same thing.


I didn't say it was good. I didn't even say that I liked it. It's just the way it works.
#134 Jan 03 2009 at 10:30 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You're aware that the people launching rockets are part of Hamas, right? I mean, hey, it's only a select group of Israeli Air Force pilots firing missiles into Gaza!

If Hamas was busy trying to find these "nutcases" and arrest them, you might have a point. They're not because it's the same entity.


Yes, I'm aware of that their actions are sanctioned by Hamas, if they aren't part of the group themselves. The fact remains that it is only a few people launching rockets. I do not believe that your second paragraph is accurate; sure, it makes it harder for Israel to deal with them, but that doesn't meant the answer is to kill scores of innocent kids for each one guy they find.
#135 Jan 03 2009 at 10:31 PM Rating: Decent
zepoodle wrote:
I didn't say it was good. I didn't even say that I liked it. It's just the way it works.


I was quite obviously aware that that is the way it has worked in the past, though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
#136 Jan 03 2009 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of that their actions are sanctioned by Hamas, if they aren't part of the group themselves.
No, they are Hamas. Not "sanctioned by" -- these people launching the rockets are Hamas. And Hamas is the government in Gaza. There's no separation here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Jan 03 2009 at 10:40 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of that their actions are sanctioned by Hamas, if they aren't part of the group themselves.
No, they are Hamas. Not "sanctioned by" -- these people launching the rockets are Hamas. And Hamas is the government in Gaza. There's no separation here.


You don't have to be part of the military wing of Hamas to make explosives, Jophiel.
#138 Jan 03 2009 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You don't have to be a dinosaur, either.

WTF is your point? Tell you what, find me a cite stating that the guys launching the rockets aren't Hamas, ok? Because here's a crapload saying that they are.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#139 Jan 03 2009 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent
There was absolutely no point. It was agreeing with you by saying that it was Hamas launching rockets and if people other than Hamas blow people up, Hamas is all for that.
#140 Jan 03 2009 at 10:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You said it was not about Hamas but about the small minority of people launching rockets. Or, as you earlier put it, a "few nutcases". Which completely skipped the point that the "small minority" is composed of members of the ruling government. It's not a "few nutcases", it's a government action being taken by Hamas. Which makes the entire government culpable, not "a few nutcases".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 Jan 03 2009 at 11:15 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
You said it was not about Hamas but about the small minority of people launching rockets. Or, as you earlier put it, a "few nutcases". Which completely skipped the point that the "small minority" is composed of members of the ruling government. It's not a "few nutcases", it's a government action being taken by Hamas. Which makes the entire government culpable, not "a few nutcases".


Yes, but Israel is not TRYING to deal with the government as a whole through these air strikes, they are only trying to stop the few nutcases actually doing it.
#142 Jan 03 2009 at 11:18 PM Rating: Decent
I hope whoever wrote that Gaza was mostly innocent people just "sanctioned by hamas" realizes that the people you see on the news wailing over the destruction are just hamas members in civilian cloths. Dont be surprised if you see the same guy wearing a turban and hamas banner the next day.

Once again I stress the important factor of a lack of education in many muslim countries, including the gaza strip, which in my opinion would have helped the situation a lot more.

The best thing I can think of is that gaza calms the fack down and starts doing trade with Israel. Jordan started that a long time ago and they are doing great.
#143 Jan 03 2009 at 11:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, but Israel is not TRYING to deal with the government as a whole through these air strikes, they are only trying to stop the few nutcases actually doing it.
Says you
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Jan 03 2009 at 11:47 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, but Israel is not TRYING to deal with the government as a whole through these air strikes, they are only trying to stop the few nutcases actually doing it.
Says you


We'll see about that. It's all rather speculative at this point, and I remember people have been speculating about a fully fledged land invasion of Gaza pretty much as soon as Israel left in the first place.

I find your choice of article interesting, I must say.

Edited, Jan 4th 2009 2:48am by Kavekk
#145 Jan 04 2009 at 12:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
I find your choice of article interesting, I must say.
*Shrug* -- It contained direct quotes from Israeli government officials saying that Hamas had to be removed. The rest of it wasn't particularly relevant to my point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Jan 04 2009 at 5:09 AM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I haven´t had time to read all of the thread since my internet time is limited here, but I just wanna say that Israel´s actions are indefensible, barbaric, indiscrimnate and fundamentally counterproductive. I know Hamas are fundamentlist nut cases and pieces of sh*t, but Hamas is NOT the Palestinian people, even those in Gaza. I say all this as being a quater Jewish, and proud of it, but Israel´s actions would never ever be tolerated if it was any other state. It´s sickening, stupid, and they should really be ashamed of themselves and of their "collective punishment" doctrine, especially considering the Jewish people´s History.

It´s all extremely sad, and it bodes very badly for the future.


'Tolerated' is a vague word. The west has done nothing about the Russian invasion of Tsetjenie, nothing about Sudan, nothing about Rwanda, nothing about Eastern Congo (which is a much larger and lethal war than the Middle East, millions of dead, wounded and refugees).

About the only two conflicts I can recall when hard military action was taken in a fairly similar case like this, was the first Gulf War and Yougoslavia.

And even that was messed up and poorly done, Srebrenica comes to mind.


The only thing I hope for now, is that Israel does not stop untill Hamas is wrecked. At least then the deaths will have some meaning, however little. Yes the Palestinians and the Arab countries will hate Israel, as they already do, that means very little.

#147 Jan 04 2009 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
*
82 posts
Elinda wrote:
Im no military strategist, or diplomat. All's Im saying its there have got to be other options that kills and maims fewer people, civilians especially.


I'm sorry, but again you provide nothing helpful. If there was a simple solution it would have been done by now.

On the same notion, there MUST be a solution to the energy problem of the world that is cheap, clean, safe and reliable, right?
Wierd analogy, I know, but being a scientist (rather than politian) at heart this was the first thing I thought about.

Anyway, saying there ARE other options is too vague in my opinion.



P.S. Elinda, can you clarify this for me? I failed to understand what it was you were saying.

Quote:
Lol, sure, just cuz we fail at evacuating NO's doesn't mean it ca't be done.


You think evacuating such a large amount of the population, WHILE the police and military are very busy is doable? Or am I missreading your intent?

Have a nice day,
Yuval.

#148 Jan 04 2009 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
YuvalR wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Im no military strategist, or diplomat. All's Im saying its there have got to be other options that kills and maims fewer people, civilians especially.


I'm sorry, but again you provide nothing helpful. If there was a simple solution it would have been done by now.
Who said a peaceful solution was gonna be simple. The debate going on in this thread seemed to be all about justifying the carnage taking place against a largely civilian population in an effort to stop Hamas from launching missiles into Israel.

Do you think this is going to bring lasting peace to Israel?

Quote:

Anyway, saying there ARE other options is too vague in my opinion.
Sanctions, a more targeted forceful attack, negotiation, stopping the supply of missiles, other.



Quote:
P.S. Elinda, can you clarify this for me? I failed to understand what it was you were saying.

Quote:
Lol, sure, just cuz we fail at evacuating NO's doesn't mean it ca't be done.


You think evacuating such a large amount of the population, WHILE the police and military are very busy is doable? Or am I missreading your intent?

Have a nice day,
Yuval.
It was the first thing that came into my head in a response to something last night. Like I said, I honestly don't know, but if someone asks me how to minimize human loss from missiles falling in an particular area, I'd suggest moving the people out of the area. As it is the Israelis have a pretty dam good idea when and where these missiles are landing and ARE getting out warnings and people are taking cover, whether that be leaving the area or sheltering. Should they have to do this? - NO, of course not. Will their current actions help alleviate or lessen the potential of having to deal with violence to their citizens from this age old conflict into the future - probably not.

..and you have a nice day as well.




Edited, Jan 4th 2009 3:58pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#149 Jan 04 2009 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If that makes me some tool of the "military-industrial complex"


It doesn't. It does make you an ignorant American sucker who can't be bothered to educate himself about the entire situation. Hell, why bother, when you can just throw up your hands and say people deserve to die if they vote people into power who do stupid things.

I guess you deserved to lose civil liberties the last eight years. What's that you didn't vote for the people in power? Well, I'm sure the IDF bombs discriminate and don't kill Fatah voters, right?

It's rare to see you take such an unuanced and, frankly, childlike position on international events. What is it you think is really occurring here? The rest of the world really just secretly hates Jews and that's why then condemn the intentional creation of a humanitarian nightmare for no particular reason, or that the US is ludicrously partisan in media coverage and policy here?

Grow up. There's no "morality" in war, you're not that naive. If suicide bombers had been the only way to win WW2, we'd be watching movies about what noble heroes they were, deriding the cold heartless actions of those who attacked from a distance.

Israel kills Palestinians because they can, period. Because it sells and wins votes. That's the entire reason for this action. They know it won't stop the rocket attacks. They know it won't slow the flow of arms. They know where the rockets come from, EVERYONE knows where the rockets come from. Just like EVERYONE knows where the IDF jets come from and where the bombs that fall on Palestinian children come from. Without the constant backing of the US, Israel ceases to exist. In the Arab world, this is a US proxy war. If you thought Iraq was a recruiting poster for anti-American Islamic groups, this is a million dollar signing bonus.

You don't care about that, though, right? That doesn't matter, Israel has a right to "defend itself" from terrible rocket attacks that have killed or injured 1/1000th as many as have died from Israel's periodic military actions. Who cares how many Palestinians die, though, right? That's what they get for voting for Hamas. You don't care that Palestinians have very legitimate claims to self determination, because, hell, they use the tactics of the poor and outnumbered. That's an absolute, right? If you use suicide bombers as a tactic you're evil and the mass slaughter of people in the same geographic area is justified. By God, I suppose. You don't care that it's an incredibly complex situation, because that would be difficult to hold an opinion on. After all, the great White Father declared that area of land the Jewish Homeland, right? I mean what's all the fuss about?

It doesn't matter how many times Israel has destroyed civil infrastructure for no reason other than to explicitly punish the civilian population by starvation and disease. OMG, they use suicide bombers!!! Anything is justified. It doesn't matter that Israel actively sends Jewish settlers into Palestinian areas to provoke violence. Because they use suicide bombers!!! It's irrelevant that primary reason so many rockets get to Gaza now is that the Palestinians had to dig fucking tunnels to avoid starving death, allowing the free flow of arms from Egypt. They deserve to starve, they use suicide bombers.

When Israel decides they really want to do something about long term peace, I'll be all for it. Even if they decide they want to annex Lebanon, or something that would accomplish ANYTHING for them strategically, I'll understand it. THIS, however, is just killing for the sake of killing. Israel can't realistically hold Gaza City, they can't destroy Hamas, they can't even spend much time doing whatever is the **** they think they're doing now. Committing to an extended foray in Gaza weakens their Northern border and invites Hezbollah to wreak havoc, and be the conquering hero yet again.

In point of fact, this entire action has almost certainly been CLEARED BY ISRAEL with Hezbollah and Egypt in back channels. There's likely even an agreed upon time frame for the force withdrawal.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#150 Jan 04 2009 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's rare to see you take such an unuanced and, frankly, childlike position on international events.


I had wondered if someone else posted with his account as it simply does not read like the usual Jophiel.

My only comment on the entire thread is that talking with a friend we had wondered why peace was not sought on both sides. The Gaza strip could have been awash with tourism if open borders existed. Open borders could only exist if there was peace.

From an outsiders perspective it seem the ones who lose out the least by war and economic lockdown are Israel. Maybe its time to make it hurt as much for Israel then they would be serious about peace.

UK based protest

Alexei Sayle wrote:
"As a Jew, it's very moving to see so many people who are so outraged at Israel's actions," Sayle said. "Israel is a democratic country that is behaving like a terrorist organization."


Edited, Jan 4th 2009 10:59am by GwynapNud
#151 Jan 04 2009 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
I am sick of defending supposedly moderate people in this situations and watching them back the most fanatical and radical factions around.


Context. Please, put all of this in context. When Palestinians were given the choice in elections, they had to choose between a corrupt Fatah that had been in power for decades and which had achieved nothing, or choosing Hamas, which at the time posed as an anti-corrution resistance movement. Not only that, but Hamas was not just a terrorist group: It was heavily involved in civil things, like cleaning up the streets, charity work, providing jobs, etc... On the streets of the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas was more than just a military/terrorist group. Not saying that´s right, but that was the context on the ground. It was more complex that simply "We voted for the crazy f8ckers that wanna suice-bomb their way to peace."

Second, since when can the whole civilian population be held to account for the way a majority votes? Is this principle applicable everywhere, or only in Palestine? Because, correct me if I misundersand, you´re justfying the indiscriminate killing of civilians on the ground that a majority elected a certain political party. This is pretty insane. Does this mean, if we reverse the situation, that Iraqis would be justified in attacking American civilians in the US because they voted for the man that invaded and occupied their country? Does this mean that people in Gaza and the West Bank can legitimately attack Israeli civilians because they voted for the politicians who are currently destroying their homes and killing their family? Or is this principle only applicable to Palestinians?

The majority of people living in Palestine didn´t vote for Hamas. A majority of voters might have, but the majority of people living in Palestinine did not. And yet their death is justified?

Quote:
And, today, I'm supposed to be outraged when Israel launches attacks upon Hamas, after Hamas has been firing rockets at Israeli civilian centers, when Gaza civilians are killed?


You know how many Israelis have been killed by Hamas in 2008? 11. That´s how many. 11. Sorry, but that´s hardly the work of a tremendously dangerous terrorist groups. How many Palestinians have been killed ·in the last week· as a direct result of Israeli military action? Over 450. Of those, a quarter were women and children. That´s over a 100.

So yes, I think a little outrage as this disproportionality would be in order.

Quote:
Not even because Israel was targeting civilians in Hamas fashion but because Hamas is once again hiding behind skirts and swingsets?


Oh, that´s ******** and you know it. Am I supposed to believe that Israeli rockets fired from planes and helicopters magically avoid civilians? Do you know the density of the Gaza? Have you seen what this place looks like? They hit Mosques, they hit buildings, they hit roads, they hit everything. What were the Gaza civilians supposed to do? Run somewhere else? Oh, wait, they can´t, they live in a gigantic prison...

I agree with some of your arguments, really I do, but please do´t tell me that civilians in gaza die because "Hamas is hiding behind them". Civilians live in Gaza. 350 tons of rockets don´t discriminate. Give me a break.

Quote:
As I said years ago, the only way this changes is when the Muslim people who are getting fucked up the *** by these radical groups and their method finally say "getting fucked up the *** isn't a good idea any more."


Like the West Bankers who elected Fatah? You know, the Fatah that hasn´t done a single terrorist attack in Israel in years, the Fatah that is willing to discuss and negotiate with Israel, the Fatah of Abbas who is by all acounts a moderate? What have they gotten for it? Nothing. Except a few more illegal settlements on their land. I´m sorry, but if what you said was true, then Israel would have acted in the West Bank. They haven´t. Or rather, they have allowed the illegal settlements to continue without providing any hope of a solution. Nice example to set. Elect moderates you get f&ucked, elect extremists you get even more f&cked.

Quote:
Like, you know, not giving a bunch of sick child-targeting fucks the Keys to the Kingdom.


Right, because that´s what all of Gazans do? I don´t think you´re a tool of the military complex thing, whatever that might be, but I do think you´re a little one-sided on the issue. Israel is not blame-free by any standards. In terms of killing, they are far worse than the Palestinians. Look at the numbers. You can justify this any way you want, but Israel kills a hell of lot more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. The ratio is not far from 100-1. That´s one benchmark from which to judge the situation. It´s not the only one, for sure, but it is a pretty respectable one.

And even if you can´t be emotional about Palestinians getting killed, can you at least recognise the strategic stupidity of these actions?

What the hell are they going to achieve? What will be the positives from this war? Do you really think the rockets will stop? That Hamas will disappear? That people will think, "Hey, this is Hamas´s fault, let´s do like the West Bankers and elect some moderates so that Israel can keep on grabbing our land in peace?"

And what are the negatives from this action? The whole Arab world is even more pissed off with Israel. The Israeli-Syria talks are dead. The Egyptians, who ahve been trying to sort this **** out, are discredited. The Iranians are stronger, because there´s no way we´re isolating them now. The peace process in Israel is set-back by 5-10 years. The people of Gaza will hate Israel even more.

Death and destruction breeds hatred and extremism. The last 50 years of this region´s history shows it. And yet, simply because there´s an election coming up, Israel is ready to jeopardise the whole thing in order to appear "tough". They know bombing and killing is not a solution. Everyone knows that. It is f&ucked up.

And I´m not some crazy Anti-semite. I was planning to go to Israel in April to visit. I think Israel has a right to exist, in peace. I think they´ve done some admirable things in their own country. I think Hamas are crazy fundamentalist fanatics, and that their firing of rockets on Ashekton is wrong and ridiculously pointless. But for me, a teenager from Tel-Aviv is not worth more than a kid born in Gaza. A suicide-bombing in Israel is not worse than an Israeli rockets that hits a civilian house.

How long can they justify murdering Palestinian children because of the mistakes made by their parents? When I see **** like this, I wonder if Israel really wants peace. Because if they are, their strategist is one retarded motherf8cker.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 244 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (244)