5 ms·

Woah, you've gone pretty far off the deep end. You'd do well to remember there are two sides to any conflict (as my parents drilled into us whenever my brother

by eloff 5y ago

Woah, you've gone pretty far off the deep end. You'd do well to remember there are two sides to any conflict (as my parents drilled into us whenever my brother and I would blame each other). In my opinion you can see Israel exercising serious restraint, evacuating people from a target first when possible, firing warning shots before the real attack. Hamas on the other hand is indiscriminately firing over 3000 rockets at Israel civilians. That's like what the Nazis did to London with their V2 rockets. Now there is a big power imbalance here, and I feel for the Palestinians, but they're hardly the good guys here. That's terrorism, plain and simple. No country would tolerate that.

cutemonster 5y ago
> the Palestinians, but they're hardly the good guys Do you need to write "the Palestinians"? Sounds as if everyone were to blame for the rockets, but less than 1% of the people in Gaza, are in Hamas military wing. Would it be weird to write "Hamas" instead about those who fire rockets? Or "terrorists in Hamas". (but please don't blame everyone for what a few are doing) And in the same way, I wouldn't say that the Israelis are taking land from Palestinians on the west bank -- instead I'd write "the state and the settlers" take land. And that's also a small percentage of everyone, .. hmm seems it's somewhere between 5 and 10%, so more than 90% never did that
- eloff 5y ago
  No. I feel for the plight of the Palestinian people. I don't give a rat's ass for Hamas. Don't forget Hamas is the legitimate elected government in Gaza, you cannot just say they're a fringe group not supported by the people of Gaza. Now Palestinians also encompass the West Bank where Hamas is not the government. But part of the reason for these rocket attacks is Hamas trying to demonstrate that they're the representatives of all Palestinians in a bid to rule both Gaza and the West Bank. Regardless of their actual chances of pulling that off, it does seem to be part of the calculus here.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    > Don't forget Hamas is the legitimate elected government What do you think is the background for that? I had a look at Wikipedia about Hamas, look how they grew more popular and became more violent: > ... Jewish settler in military fatigues, massacred 29 Muslims at prayer in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron [year 1994] in the West Bank during the month of Ramadan. An additional 19 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in the ensuing riots > ... Hebron massacre had a profound effect on Hamas' militancy. For its first seven years, it attacked only what it saw as "legitimate military targets," Israeli soldiers and military installations.[77] But following the massacre, it felt that it no longer had to distinguish between military and civilian targets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Origins Seems to me it's a spiral of dislike and violence, driven by a few violent people among both groups. Then, about the elections: (same Wikipedia page) > ... Hamas ran on a platform of clean government, a thorough overhaul of the corrupt administrative system, and the issue of rampant lawlessness.[190][191] The PA, notoriously riddled with corruption ... Does it sound as if the voters voted for rocket attacks? Or did they vote for stopping corruption (and then, years later, turns out Hamas is equally (or more) corrupted and worse in so many other ways)
    - eloff 5y ago
      I'm not saying they're aren't two sides to this. But acting like Hamas and Israel are equally bad here is a stretch of the imagination. One side cares about preventing civilian casualties, the other does not. It's like comparing Isis and the US military. Very different approach and rules of engagement. > Does it sound as if the voters voted for rocket attacks? In 2007 not rockets, but they knew Hamas had a history of attacking civilian targets. I suppose they can't very well be blamed for what it became. I don't doubt s lot of the locals support Hamas, but many are likely caught between the two sides and want no part of it. They're about as guilty as the Germans were for Hitler and the Nazis. They voted them in to begin with and didn't resist when they saw the monster they'd created. Seems like a very similar situation.
      - cutemonster 5y ago
markdown 5y ago
> You'd do well to remember there are two sides to any conflict (as my parents drilled into us whenever my brother and I would blame each other). What if the entire world was watching while you shaved your brothers head? Your lies would be pointless, because the entire world has seen what you were doing. > In my opinion you can see Israel exercising serious restraint Almost 200 dead in days. If you call that restraint, I think it's you who's gone off the deep end. Restraint would be doing nothing because barely anything has been done to you. Or shooting 10 Palestinian freedom fighters. That would be restraint. Firing missiles into a populated city isn't restraint. > Hamas on the other hand is indiscriminately firing over 3000 rockets at Israel civilians. Surely you jest. Those fireworks do almost nothing. A single Israeli missile is more deadly than 3000 Hamas rockets, so you have it backwards. > Now there is a big power imbalance here, and I feel for the Palestinians No you don't. Quit the propaganda. > but they're hardly the good guys here. That's terrorism, plain and simple. How is defending yourself terrorism? They're slowly been driven off the map. They should be firing 3000 rockets every day, and the world should be sending them more so they can fight for their families. Next you'll tell me that the Jews who fought back against Hitler were terrorists.
- eloff 5y ago
  > Almost 200 dead in days. If you call that restraint, I think it's you who's gone off the deep end. Restraint would be doing nothing because barely anything has been done to you. Or shooting 10 Palestinian freedom fighters. That would be restraint. Firing missiles into a populated city isn't restraint. It's totally reasonable to attack your enemy with the intent of crippling their capabilities of harming you. Standard fare in any conflict. Doing that when the enemy is using their own population as a human shield and only having 200 casualties is an achievement of sorts. > Surely you jest. Those fireworks do almost nothing. A single Israeli missile is more deadly than 3000 Hamas rockets, so you have it backwards. Thank God they only have rockets and not the military power of the IDF. I'm pretty sure they'd use those nukes if they had them. As I said there's a big power imbalance here. But it's not the effectiveness of the attacks that determine their morality. > No you don't. Quit the propaganda. I don't appreciate you calling my feelings propaganda or claiming to understand my state of mind better than me. Both ridiculous claims. > How is defending yourself terrorism? The IDF only attacked them after they fired 500 rockets at Israeli cities, an act of terror in every sense of the definition. That's not defending yourself. What the Israelis are doing, that is defending yourself. > Next you'll tell me that the Jews who fought back against Hitler were terrorists. If they were attacking civilian targets with the intent of causing innocent casualties - sure, that'd be terrorism. I'm unaware of any instances of that happening, but I don't claim to know everything.

by eloff 5y ago

cutemonster 5y ago

> the Palestinians, but they're hardly the good guys Do you need to write "the Palestinians"? Sounds as if everyone were to blame for the rockets, but less than 1% of the people in Gaza, are in Hamas military wing. Would it be weird to write "Hamas" instead about those who fire rockets? Or "terrorists in Hamas". (but please don't blame everyone for what a few are doing) And in the same way, I wouldn't say that the Israelis are taking land from Palestinians on the west bank -- instead I'd write "the state and the settlers" take land. And that's also a small percentage of everyone, .. hmm seems it's somewhere between 5 and 10%, so more than 90% never did that

eloff 5y ago
No. I feel for the plight of the Palestinian people. I don't give a rat's ass for Hamas. Don't forget Hamas is the legitimate elected government in Gaza, you cannot just say they're a fringe group not supported by the people of Gaza. Now Palestinians also encompass the West Bank where Hamas is not the government. But part of the reason for these rocket attacks is Hamas trying to demonstrate that they're the representatives of all Palestinians in a bid to rule both Gaza and the West Bank. Regardless of their actual chances of pulling that off, it does seem to be part of the calculus here.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  > Don't forget Hamas is the legitimate elected government What do you think is the background for that? I had a look at Wikipedia about Hamas, look how they grew more popular and became more violent: > ... Jewish settler in military fatigues, massacred 29 Muslims at prayer in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron [year 1994] in the West Bank during the month of Ramadan. An additional 19 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in the ensuing riots > ... Hebron massacre had a profound effect on Hamas' militancy. For its first seven years, it attacked only what it saw as "legitimate military targets," Israeli soldiers and military installations.[77] But following the massacre, it felt that it no longer had to distinguish between military and civilian targets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Origins Seems to me it's a spiral of dislike and violence, driven by a few violent people among both groups. Then, about the elections: (same Wikipedia page) > ... Hamas ran on a platform of clean government, a thorough overhaul of the corrupt administrative system, and the issue of rampant lawlessness.[190][191] The PA, notoriously riddled with corruption ... Does it sound as if the voters voted for rocket attacks? Or did they vote for stopping corruption (and then, years later, turns out Hamas is equally (or more) corrupted and worse in so many other ways)
  - eloff 5y ago
    I'm not saying they're aren't two sides to this. But acting like Hamas and Israel are equally bad here is a stretch of the imagination. One side cares about preventing civilian casualties, the other does not. It's like comparing Isis and the US military. Very different approach and rules of engagement. > Does it sound as if the voters voted for rocket attacks? In 2007 not rockets, but they knew Hamas had a history of attacking civilian targets. I suppose they can't very well be blamed for what it became. I don't doubt s lot of the locals support Hamas, but many are likely caught between the two sides and want no part of it. They're about as guilty as the Germans were for Hitler and the Nazis. They voted them in to begin with and didn't resist when they saw the monster they'd created. Seems like a very similar situation.
    - cutemonster 5y ago

markdown 5y ago

> You'd do well to remember there are two sides to any conflict (as my parents drilled into us whenever my brother and I would blame each other). What if the entire world was watching while you shaved your brothers head? Your lies would be pointless, because the entire world has seen what you were doing. > In my opinion you can see Israel exercising serious restraint Almost 200 dead in days. If you call that restraint, I think it's you who's gone off the deep end. Restraint would be doing nothing because barely anything has been done to you. Or shooting 10 Palestinian freedom fighters. That would be restraint. Firing missiles into a populated city isn't restraint. > Hamas on the other hand is indiscriminately firing over 3000 rockets at Israel civilians. Surely you jest. Those fireworks do almost nothing. A single Israeli missile is more deadly than 3000 Hamas rockets, so you have it backwards. > Now there is a big power imbalance here, and I feel for the Palestinians No you don't. Quit the propaganda. > but they're hardly the good guys here. That's terrorism, plain and simple. How is defending yourself terrorism? They're slowly been driven off the map. They should be firing 3000 rockets every day, and the world should be sending them more so they can fight for their families. Next you'll tell me that the Jews who fought back against Hitler were terrorists.

eloff 5y ago
> Almost 200 dead in days. If you call that restraint, I think it's you who's gone off the deep end. Restraint would be doing nothing because barely anything has been done to you. Or shooting 10 Palestinian freedom fighters. That would be restraint. Firing missiles into a populated city isn't restraint. It's totally reasonable to attack your enemy with the intent of crippling their capabilities of harming you. Standard fare in any conflict. Doing that when the enemy is using their own population as a human shield and only having 200 casualties is an achievement of sorts. > Surely you jest. Those fireworks do almost nothing. A single Israeli missile is more deadly than 3000 Hamas rockets, so you have it backwards. Thank God they only have rockets and not the military power of the IDF. I'm pretty sure they'd use those nukes if they had them. As I said there's a big power imbalance here. But it's not the effectiveness of the attacks that determine their morality. > No you don't. Quit the propaganda. I don't appreciate you calling my feelings propaganda or claiming to understand my state of mind better than me. Both ridiculous claims. > How is defending yourself terrorism? The IDF only attacked them after they fired 500 rockets at Israeli cities, an act of terror in every sense of the definition. That's not defending yourself. What the Israelis are doing, that is defending yourself. > Next you'll tell me that the Jews who fought back against Hitler were terrorists. If they were attacking civilian targets with the intent of causing innocent casualties - sure, that'd be terrorism. I'm unaware of any instances of that happening, but I don't claim to know everything.