Hammas Chief Assasinated!

13»

Comments

  • othellothell Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 4183Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    edited March 2004
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also realize that biases is just as likely to exist in the Israeli education system as it is in the Hamas education system (just like it exists to some degree in every education system in the world). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Somehow I highly doubt there is bias in Israeli textbooks on the level of that which is found in those distributed by Hamas. So there you go, once again trying to show how similar Hamas and Israel are... And once again you fail to realize that the differences between the two are dramatic and extremely important.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hamas wants to return to life as it was before the state of Israel was created; a return to when Palestinians weren't poor, surviving on the aid doled out to them. The way they are setting about this goal is wrong, and won't work, but no matter how twisted the means of achieving a Palestinian state they employ, the goal itself is not something so easily discounted. If Hamas were not an extremely violent group, then I would not have trouble sympathizing with them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Before Israel was created there were Jews and Arabs all thought of as Palestinians, so the Jews will not disappear if things were like the past... But that is not what Hamas wants. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill the Jews. So this is not wanting to make things like they were. It could actually be called genocide.

    Also, you should have no problems at the moment, NOT sympathizing with Hamas.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason why Hamas kills people is to destabilize Israel to the point where Israel as a coherent state is destroyed. Israel assassinates terrorist leaders to keep their organizations destabilized. In my opinion both groups are equally wrong. Both are killing eachother to get the upper hand. I don't think its possible to find one group's position more morally defensible than the other. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    So a group that targets civilians on purpose is just as bad as a group that only targets terrorrists? That's absurd. Once again you're trying to give legitimacy to an organization that should have none. The IDF is not out there killing civilians on purpose. This is a key difference that is far more important than you seem to realize.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is Israeli military action, responsible for thousands of deaths (like Hamas is) no less disgusting than terrorism? You think the practice of killing innocent people with suicide bombs instead of missiles and tanks is 'disgusting'. By this logic, if Hamas put together the funds to create a military who could take 'action', killing civilians by way of 'military action' would be as legitimate as you believe Israel's actions are. 'Military action' could then be used to justify any number of atrocities, including what you call 'terrorism'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    There you go again. There is no IDF "practive" of killing Palestinian civilians. Get that out of your head. There isn't. So the practice of targeting terrorrists is FAR less disgusting than the practice of targeting civilians.

    You are improperly defining military action and ignoring intent and context and stated objectives of both sides. You keep putting IDF and Hamas actions on the same level. They are not. The only similarities between the two are that people die. This is a fact in any armed engagment, but when it comes to the IDF they are not targeting civilians... Where as Hamas purposefully targets civilians. Stop pushing this fact off to the side and dismissing it.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hamas' use of violence deplorable, but Israel's reaction to that violence is just as bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Israel has no other choice. I do believe Hamas has stated and believes that no peace is possible as long as Israel exists. As such, whenever the peace process is started up Hamas and other organizations take that to mean more attacks on civilians. Against a foe that does not want peace but only your destruction, the only thing you can do is destroy him before he destroys you. Israel's only choice is to fight fire with fire when it comes to Hamas and similar ilk. Until the Palestinian authorities actually start to do what has been promised ( i.e. stop the terrorrist attacks against Israel ), then the Israelis have the right to protect themselves and go after those that seek to kill them.

    Any of Hamas... Including their leadership should be valid targets. Luckily, this is how Israel thinks at this time.
  • NurotNurot Join Date: 2003-12-04 Member: 23932Members, Constellation
    I would just like to point out that most often those "accidental" civilian casualties are the fault of the military not caring about whether or not they kill civilians in the process of killing just one man. When accidental deaths reach more than purposeful deaths then you know that it has become an act of terrorism itself. I belive Isreal stepped way over the line in killing the leader of hamas, any thing that happens now they've asked for. Ariel Sharone is in no way looking for peace, he just wants to continue the conflict until he can say hes won.
  • killswitchkillswitch Join Date: 2003-02-05 Member: 13141Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Mar 26 2004, 06:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Mar 26 2004, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would just like to point out that most often those "accidental" civilian casualties are the fault of the military not caring about whether or not they kill civilians in the process of killing just one man. When accidental deaths reach more than purposeful deaths then you know that it has become an act of terrorism itself. I belive Isreal stepped way over the line in killing the leader of hamas, any thing that happens now they've asked for. Ariel Sharone is in no way looking for peace, he just wants to continue the conflict until he can say hes won. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I don't doubt Israel isn't trying as hard as possible to minimize civilian casualities. That's wrong, and they should do whatever they can. However they never intentionally seek out civilian targets. Hamas does.
    It's questionable whether killing Yasim will increase terrorism one iota. They said 'the gates of hell are opened'. What, they were 'closed' before? However there is a good chance more people will be willing to blow themselves into pieces to slaughter civilians though.

    However I do have a major problem with your last point, that Ariel Sharon wants 'to win' the conflict. What in God's name does that mean? At what point do they 'win'? The extermination of all Arab states?
    I believe that the only way to 'win' in the Middle East is to democratize those terrorist nations. But in that case it's a win-win situation.
  • Special_KSpecial_K Join Date: 2003-04-19 Member: 15637Members, Constellation
    edited March 2004
    [QUOTE]So let me get this straight. You're saying that there's no difference between deliberately targeting innocent people while they're on their way to work, and accidentally a civillian in the crossfire of a heated battle?[/QUOTE]
    I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying that both are morally indefensible. Why does Israel shoot missiles at cars or apartment buildings to kill one person, often killing or injuring innocent people? These are not 'accidents'. Israeli policy allows for some civilian causualties in their military strikes. They think that's okay; I don't.

    [QUOTE]Despite the impression you may get from the media, IDF troops don't walk into refugee camps and machinegun everthing that moves. They don't plant explosives in Arab schools. They don't set out to kill innocent civillians.[/QUOTE]

    Despite the impression <b>I</b> get from the media? Which media actively suggests that Palestinians are being killed by Israeli soldiers 'machinegunn[ing] everything that moves?' I understand that its hard to sort our misleading information when we (I am anyways) are halfway around the world. Chances are good that we read the same newspapers, or newspapers sharing the same sources. Saying that I'm being mislead by the media applies equally to you as it does to me, unless there's some special insight you possess and haven't told me.

    [QUOTE]Perhaps you're unclear about what a "civillian" is. A non-combatant. Someone who does not want to participate in armed conflict. To a soldier, on the other hand, death is an occupational hazard. They knowingly put themselves in danger because that's what they're paid to do. Wars are fought with the understanding that the soldiers fight the soldiers. International law protects non-combatants - attacking and killing civillians is murder.[/QUOTE]
    What I'm unclear on is how this adds to the discussion.

    [QUOTE]QUOTE
    By this logic, if Hamas put together the funds to create a military who could take 'action', killing civilians by way of 'military action' would be as legitimate as you believe Israel's actions are.

    I fail to see any logic in that statement. Could you rephrase it, please?[/QUOTE]
    [QUOTE]You're equating military action with terrorism, and frankly that's disgusting.[/QUOTE]
    I'm not equating the two. You seem to think 'military action' is somehow better than 'terrorism'. What I'm suggesting in the example is that the possession of a military doesn't give any group any moral legitimacy. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the term 'military action'.

    [QUOTE]QUOTE
    The motives of both groups are not so transparent as you make them out to be (at least not to me).

    [QUOTE]Actually Hammas' motivess are quite transparent, they have announnced them over and over again. The want to kill the jews.[/QUOTE]
    Sure they do. But that's not their motive. Think for a second about why they want to kill Jews and what they think they'll gain because of it.

    [QUOTE]QUOTE
    Hamas wants to return to life as it was before the state of Israel was created

    Or do you mean before Palestine took part in an attack on Isreal along with several other nations, got their **** handed to them, and lost the land they attacked from.[/QUOTE]
    Sure, but that's irrelavent in the discussion here. Just because they screwed up in the past doesn't change the fact that too many people are dying.

    [QUOTE]QUOTE
    Hamas is responsible for the death of thousands of people. Its leaders who believe suicide bombing is an acceptable strategy to achieve their goals are wrong. You can't discount, however, that they have improved conditions for some Palestinians.

    I can do, and with ease. As you said they are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people; innocent men, women, and children. They send impressionable children off to blow themselves up. Untill Hammas stops with the suicide bombings, it will be imposible to say that they do good. Their bad actions far out wiegh their good actions.[/QUOTE]
    Hamas does lots of bad stuff, as you pointed out, and is generally a bad group of people, but that doesn't mean that they haven't helped families move out of refugee camps.

    [QUOTE]QUOTE
    Hamas' use of violence deplorable, but Israel's reaction to that violence is just as bad.

    In the perfect world you can solve a problem without the use of violence. Our world is far from perfect, and violence is often the only course of action left. Hammas is on a jihad, a religious war, to expell the jews from their lands. Ever try to convience someone that their religion is wrong? Try it sometime, but make sure its with someone willing to blow themselves up for their god. When you are sucessfull get back to me.[/QUOTE]
    I'm not saying that all violence is without justification. What I'm saying is that Israel's use of violence to kill Yassin (like Hamas' use of violence to kill Israelis) is wrong. And when you're successful with spellcheck get back to me.


    [QUOTE]Somehow I highly doubt there is bias in Israeli textbooks on the level of that which is found in those distributed by Hamas.[/QUOTE]
    Why's that exactly?

    [QUOTE] So there you go, once again trying to show how similar Hamas and Israel are... And once again you fail to realize that the differences between the two are dramatic and extremely important.[/QUOTE]
    I'm not saying that they are completely alike. I realize the huge differences in the conditions of both groups. My perception of the differences stop when it comes to being able to defend particular actions. I believe both groups are wrong.

    [QUOTE]Before Israel was created there were Jews and Arabs all thought of as Palestinians, so the Jews will not disappear if things were like the past... But that is not what Hamas wants. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill the Jews. So this is not wanting to make things like they were. It could actually be called genocide.[/QUOTE]
    Why does Hamas want to get rid of Jews? I would argue: not for the sake of doing it. I think that Hamas believes that they have something to gain by destoying Israel. Don't discount their motives as simple bloodthirstyness.

    [QUOTE]Also, you should have no problems at the moment, NOT sympathizing with Hamas.[/QUOTE]
    I sympathise equally with the Israeli military as I do with Hamas: very little.

    [QUOTE]So a group that targets civilians on purpose is just as bad as a group that only targets terrorrists? That's absurd. Once again you're trying to give legitimacy to an organization that should have none.[/QUOTE]
    I'm trying to give legitimacy to no one. Both groups are trying to do what they think is the best for their people. Both are doing the wrong thing.

    [QUOTE]The IDF is not out there killing civilians on purpose. This is a key difference that is far more important than you seem to realize.[/QUOTE]
    By having the policy that there are acceptable civilian casualties, the IDF is just as illegitimate as Hamas.

    [QUOTE]You are improperly defining military action and ignoring intent and context and stated objectives of both sides.[/QUOTE]
    He didn't define it, so I took it in the most general sense possible.

    [QUOTE]There you go again. There is no IDF "practive" of killing Palestinian civilians. Get that out of your head. There isn't. So the practice of targeting terrorrists is FAR less disgusting than the practice of targeting civilians.[/QUOTE]
    According to Le Monde, a Palestinian boy was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers for throwing rocks at a Jewish tomb yesterday.

    [QUOTE]Against a foe that does not want peace but only your destruction, the only thing you can do is destroy him before he destroys you.[/QUOTE]
    A pretty depressing opinion.

    Thanks for the replies by the ways. I'm glad people are thinking about this stuff.

    EDIT: hmm i dont seem to be very good at quoting.
  • Marine0IMarine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
    Special K, it seems to me that attitudes like "Israeli's have acceptable civilian casualties too, so they are both equally immoral" is one of those attitudes/beliefs that look great on paper, but are impossible to apply IRL.

    Do you condemn the "acceptable" civilian casualties in WW2 and accuse the Allies as being just as evil as the Nazi's? If you lived in that time who would you have supported? Remember, they are both morally equitable, so whose it going to be? You cant call "allies" based on the atrocities of the Nazi's - that would be suspiciously akin to calling "Jews" based on the constant specifically aimed attacks on unarmed civilians by Hammas etc.

    If you are going to go all out pacifist - any killing of anyone is wrong, then I will feel completely comfortable in ignoring those opinions automatically, not because they are necessarily wrong, just completely and totally unhelpful and useless in the situation at hand.

    Just on a side note - I think the absence of replies has a bit to do with the quotes totally pwning your post <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->

    I think and understand why Hammas are attacking the Jews and what they stand to gain. Turn it around, and I see the exact same reasoning could be used for the Jews going on a genocide run against the Palestinians. Understanding of motives here is not helpful, we already know what they want.

    Final point, one which I dont think you are going to understand/agree with.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that all violence is without justification. What I'm saying is that Israel's use of violence to kill Yassin (like Hamas' use of violence to kill Israelis) is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Killing a combatant and killing civilians are completely and totally different, both morally and intellectually. If you cannot distinguish the difference between an Israeli military strike on a terrorist leader (read "military strike specifically aimed against combatant) and a bomb against nothing but civilians in the market place (military strike specifically against unarmed civilians), then, well..... this discussion is over.

    The same thing happened to me in the Relative moralist thread. Xect stated flat out that the violent murder of an innocent woman was not ALWAYS morally wrong, and in some places was morally good and decent and correct. When two people disagree on such fundamental issues, then there is no point in continuing.

    So please, flat out, yes or no, do you consider military action directed against military targets and military action directed against civilians on the same moral ground?
  • slipknotkthxslipknotkthx Join Date: 2002-12-17 Member: 11016Members, Constellation
    he was a terrorist, and he deserved it.
Sign In or Register to comment.