7 ms·

Nor is the oppressor the side with fewer casualties. Germany lost far more soldiers and civilians in the Second World War, yet that racist regime were clealy th

by judah 12y ago

Nor is the oppressor the side with fewer casualties. Germany lost far more soldiers and civilians in the Second World War, yet that racist regime were clealy the oppressors, whose end came only by force. So it is with Hamas.

rlucas 12y ago
Check your historical figures. There's no possible definition X of the major Allies (hint: USSR) for which you can support your claim that "Germany lost far more soldiers [or] civilians" than X. You're smoking crack by like an order of magnitude.
justin66 12y ago
> Germany lost far more soldiers and civilians in the Second World War Not more than the Russians...
stronglikedan 12y ago
You spelled "Israel" wrong.
lostlogin 12y ago
It's annoying when people we don't like win elections isn't it? EDIT: Which countries weren't racist in the second world war? All the allied countries I know anything about certainly were.
- EGreg 12y ago
  It's more than annoying when said people proceed to summarily exterminate and/or expel all members of the democratically elected government belonging to the rival party, and bring about a quasi-religious violent regime which kills its own people for ideological ends. Also, it is not ok to use your own civilian population as human shields, raise a generation of kids to become violent martyrs for your cause, and sacrifice their lives for your ideological war, which include things like the "elimination of a Jewish state in Israel". Hamas killing Palestinians living in Gaza who are having a wedding, which wasn't Islamic enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEud-cEjwQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEud-cEjwQU Indoctrinating children to hate and "kill Jews" to "liberate Palestine": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow's_Pioneers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow's_Pioneers By the way, in Hamas' view, "liberate Palestine" means to rid it of a Jewish state completely. If they took all that money to actually improve the education and quality of life of their citizens (which is what they are, essentially), they could be a legitimate government of a legitimate state. They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip. But their leaders would prefer to fight their ideological war and sacrifice their own people for it. As often is the case, it's the leaders of the people with their ideological ideas who are most responsible for the deaths of their own population.
  - justin66 12y ago
    > They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip. I don't understand why anyone would say that. The things that differentiate Gaza and the west bank from a sovereign state are precisely the basis for the horrible conflict happening there.
    - EGreg 12y ago
      Hardly. The goal of Hamas "armed resistance" as they call it is a united Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, no land swaps etc. This is an ideological position with zero compromise. Hamas' understanding of "occupation" is exactly that Jews have a state in the area. Gaza could become a sovereign Palestinian state, it doesnt need a military to do so. No one is occupying it or attacking it, and it receives tons of American money. The problem is that their leaders are ideological crackpots, and many are corrupt on top of that, and they havent built up their economy, infrastructure, education etc in 7-8 years they controlled it. Instead they spent all their efforts on violent methods to advance an ideological agenda, and used their own people as human shields and used "state" funded TV and social centers to teach their kids to hate.
      - justin66 12y ago
        > Gaza could become a sovereign Palestinian state, it doesnt need a military to do so. A state with entirely benign neighbors could, theoretically, endure without a military (not that such a state really exists... even Monaco has a few soldiers). Not being permitted to have a military does preclude a state from being considered sovereign. In any case, you said "They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip." That's silly on a few levels, independent of the politics. > No one is occupying it or attacking it I know little about the conflict but I'm quite certain the people living there consider the blockade an aggressive act. I certainly would. > The problem is that their leaders are ideological crackpots, and many are corrupt on top of that, and they havent built up their economy, infrastructure, education etc in 7-8 years they controlled it. Gazans are definitely very badly served by the homicidal lunatics they've voted into office. I'd say the problem is a lot bigger than that. The lunatics are exploiting the situation but the conflict is a lot older than they are.

by judah 12y ago

rlucas 12y ago

Check your historical figures. There's no possible definition X of the major Allies (hint: USSR) for which you can support your claim that "Germany lost far more soldiers [or] civilians" than X. You're smoking crack by like an order of magnitude.

justin66 12y ago

> Germany lost far more soldiers and civilians in the Second World War Not more than the Russians...

stronglikedan 12y ago

You spelled "Israel" wrong.

lostlogin 12y ago

It's annoying when people we don't like win elections isn't it? EDIT: Which countries weren't racist in the second world war? All the allied countries I know anything about certainly were.

EGreg 12y ago
It's more than annoying when said people proceed to summarily exterminate and/or expel all members of the democratically elected government belonging to the rival party, and bring about a quasi-religious violent regime which kills its own people for ideological ends. Also, it is not ok to use your own civilian population as human shields, raise a generation of kids to become violent martyrs for your cause, and sacrifice their lives for your ideological war, which include things like the "elimination of a Jewish state in Israel". Hamas killing Palestinians living in Gaza who are having a wedding, which wasn't Islamic enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEud-cEjwQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEud-cEjwQU Indoctrinating children to hate and "kill Jews" to "liberate Palestine": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow's_Pioneers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow's_Pioneers By the way, in Hamas' view, "liberate Palestine" means to rid it of a Jewish state completely. If they took all that money to actually improve the education and quality of life of their citizens (which is what they are, essentially), they could be a legitimate government of a legitimate state. They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip. But their leaders would prefer to fight their ideological war and sacrifice their own people for it. As often is the case, it's the leaders of the people with their ideological ideas who are most responsible for the deaths of their own population.
- justin66 12y ago
  > They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip. I don't understand why anyone would say that. The things that differentiate Gaza and the west bank from a sovereign state are precisely the basis for the horrible conflict happening there.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    Hardly. The goal of Hamas "armed resistance" as they call it is a united Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, no land swaps etc. This is an ideological position with zero compromise. Hamas' understanding of "occupation" is exactly that Jews have a state in the area. Gaza could become a sovereign Palestinian state, it doesnt need a military to do so. No one is occupying it or attacking it, and it receives tons of American money. The problem is that their leaders are ideological crackpots, and many are corrupt on top of that, and they havent built up their economy, infrastructure, education etc in 7-8 years they controlled it. Instead they spent all their efforts on violent methods to advance an ideological agenda, and used their own people as human shields and used "state" funded TV and social centers to teach their kids to hate.
    - justin66 12y ago
      > Gaza could become a sovereign Palestinian state, it doesnt need a military to do so. A state with entirely benign neighbors could, theoretically, endure without a military (not that such a state really exists... even Monaco has a few soldiers). Not being permitted to have a military does preclude a state from being considered sovereign. In any case, you said "They already effectively have a state in the Gaza Strip." That's silly on a few levels, independent of the politics. > No one is occupying it or attacking it I know little about the conflict but I'm quite certain the people living there consider the blockade an aggressive act. I certainly would. > The problem is that their leaders are ideological crackpots, and many are corrupt on top of that, and they havent built up their economy, infrastructure, education etc in 7-8 years they controlled it. Gazans are definitely very badly served by the homicidal lunatics they've voted into office. I'd say the problem is a lot bigger than that. The lunatics are exploiting the situation but the conflict is a lot older than they are.