Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[volatile]

Like these airstrikes, would arresting them cease the rocket attacks? No.

Why wouldn't it?

The British marched into Northern Ireland and arrested the terrorists. Why can't Israel? Why do they need to (relish?) act in a way that guarantees civilian deaths?

Collective punishment is inhuman. How would you feel if someone dropped bombs on your house because your next-door neighbour was a (suspected, even) terrorist?

Get some empathy.

How many of these men were fighters?

Did you see the word "unknown" there? That means the number is unknown.

 

[gtc]

It matters that over 400 Palestinians are dead due to the actions of a few of their neighbours. It matters a great deal.

Have 400 civillians died?

 

[RandFan]

they may kill Hamas leaders and destroy weapons..but the next generation of Hamas terrorists is now a sure thing.

Given the history I see no reason to think it wasn't a sure thing already.

 

[Thunder]

I think the number is like 70.

One could only wonder if Hamas would have been firing rockets if it was not for the blockade.

=(

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why wouldn't it?

The British marched into Northern Ireland and arrested the terrorists. Why can't Israel?

Maybe because the two situations aren't as identical as you wish they were.

Why do they need to (relish?) act in a way that guarantees civilian deaths?

I see, another subscriber to the "Nits Make Lice" theory of Israeli decisions on Gaza. Thank you for sharing.

Collective punishment is inhuman.

Using civilians for shields for the political purpose of making the enemy look bad is, dare I say it, inhuman.

Let's call this one a wash. No good guys here.

How would you feel if someone dropped bombs on your house because your next-door neighbour was a (suspected, even) terrorist?

I'd be dead. Past feeling. This would suck.

Get some empathy.

Get a clue: this is a war, and has been for some time. A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it. I note the UN's impotence. Disappointing, again. Bordering on depressing.

This isn't your father's war, nor your grandfather's. And no, it ain't Northern Ireland.

Did you see the word "unknown" there? That means the number is unknown.

Yeah. The butcher's bill will be tallied in due course, but somehow that gives me no comfort at all.

The cycle continues. Come back next year, we'll be remarking on another chapter of this quarrel.

DR

 

[volatile]

Have 400 civillians died?

At least 62 (women and children) -- and the fact that every dead adult male is being counted amongst the "militant" dead doesn't help matters.

What's an acceptable ratio, G? How many civilians need to die before this becomes outrageous to you?

If your wife and child were killed in an missile attack on your terrorist neighbours, I guess that would be OK with you? Because the bad guys bought it? Does the manner in which Israel is going about "solving" their problems - a manner, incidentally, which is guaranteed to cause massive civilian death - not matter to you at all? The end justifies the means?

 

[gtc]

And yet Israel carry out dozens of "Bloody Sundays" every single day.

That is an enormous lie.

Firstly, 'Bloody Sunday' involved police shooting civil rights protestors who are believed to have been unarmed. Israel is targetting Hamas militants.

Secondly, 13 people died on Bloody Sunday. Israel does not kill more than 312 Palestinians (2*12*13) daily. That would mean 114 thousand dead Palestinians a year

How can you stand behind that with a straight face?

How can you say that with a straight face?

 

[volatile]

Maybe because the two situations aren't as identical as you wish they were.

Terrorists in a "disputed" territory attacking targets from within civilian areas, whilst receiving considerable local popular support.

Sounds quite similar to me. Why would the British not have been justified in bombing West Belfast? They would have killed plenty of IRA men, after all.

Using civilians for shields for the political purpose of making the enemy look bad is, dare I say it, inhuman.

Yep, you're right.

That's the thing here, isn't it. Those of us conemning the Israelis are quite content to condemn Hamas equally. Those defending the Isrealis, not so much.

Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly when one of those wrongs is wrought on one of the poorest populations on earth with some of the world's most sophisticated military killing technology.

Let's call this one a wash. No good guys here.

There are good guys. The civilians caught in the crossfire. Never, ever forget that.

I'd be dead. Past feeling. This would suck.

Get a clue: this is a war, and has been for some time. A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it. I note the UN's impotence. Disappointing, again. Bordering on depressing.

This isn't your father's war, nor your grandfather's. And no, it ain't Northern Ireland.

Funny; "A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it" sounds precisely like Northern Ireland in the 1970s.

The cycle continues. Come back next year, we'll be remarking on another chapter of this quarrel.

With this, I have no argument. It's entirely depressing.

 

[gtc]

The British marched into Northern Ireland and arrested the terrorists. Why can't Israel?

Because Gaza isn't Northern Ireland and because Northern Ireland was British territory and Gaza isn't Israeli territory.

Why do they need to (relish?) act in a way that guarantees civilian deaths?

You obviously don't have evidence that Israel relishes the death of civillians, otherwise you wouldn't have shared your disgusting views in the manner of a question. Your suggestion that Israelis relish the death of Palestinian civillians sounds just like the blood libels that pepper Hamas' TV shows.

 

[volatile]

That is an enormous lie.

Firstly, 'Bloody Sunday' involved police shooting civil rights protestors who are believed to have been unarmed. Israel is targetting Hamas militants.

And missing with alarming regularity.

The British police were targeting IRA men. What's the difference? Why are Irish civilian casualties so horrifying, but Palestinian dalliance casualties all fair in love and war?

Secondly, 13 people died on Bloody Sunday. Israel does not kill more than 312 Palestinians (2*12*13) daily.

Oh, well that's all right then. Carry on.

 

[WildCat]

Terrorists in a "disputed" territory attacking targets from within civilian areas, whilst receiving considerable local popular support.

Sounds quite similar to me. Why would the British not have been justified in bombing West Belfast? They would have killed plenty of IRA men, after all.



Yep, you're right.

That's the thing here, isn't it. Those of us conemning the Israelis are quite content to condemn Hamas equally. Those defending the Isrealis, not so much.

Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly when one of those wrongs is wrought on one of the poorest populations on earth with some of the world's most sophisticated military killing technology.



There are good guys. The civilians caught in the crossfire. Never, ever forget that.

I'd be dead. Past feeling. This would suck.



Funny; "A state of belligerency exists, which is all that need be present for a war to exist. That it's an unorthodox form of war, a state versus a non state, is certainly a problem in how to deal with it" sounds precisely like Northern Ireland in the 1970s.



With this, I have no argument. It's entirely depressing.

I could have sworn that NI was actually a part of the UK...

 

[gtc]

At least 62 (women and children) -- and the fact that every dead adult male is being counted amongst the "militant" dead doesn't help matters.

So 400 civillians haven't died.

If your wife and child were killed in an missile attack on your terrorist neighbours, I guess that would be OK with you? Because the bad guys bought it?

Its a war. Government's are supposed to value the lives of their own civillians over the lives of the civillians of countries that are attacking them.

 

[volatile]

You obviously don't have evidence that Israel relishes the death of civillians, otherwise you wouldn't have shared your disgusting views in the manner of a question. Your suggestion that Israelis relish the death of Palestinian civillians sounds just like the blood libels that pepper Hamas' TV shows.

Does it?

What do these quotes sound like to you, then, if not relishment?

"Israel's decision to launch its devastating attack on Gaza on a Saturday was a "stroke of brilliance", the country's biggest selling paper Yediot Aharonot crowed: "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". The daily Ma'ariv agreed: "We left them in shock and awe"." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east)

Describing the death of hundreds of people as "a stroke of brilliance" is hardly the actions of a media concerned about the real damage their country's military is inflicting on real human beings. I find it rather depressing that you can on the one hand accuse me of "blood libel" and on the other callously dismiss the deaths of women and children.

Shame on you.

 

[gtc]

The British police were targeting IRA men.

Were they? That is, genuinely, news to me.

Why are Irish civilian casualties so horrifying, but Palestinian dalliance casualties all fair in love and war?

I never said that.

Oh, well that's all right then. Carry on.

Again, I never said that. If you want to be disgusted about the actions of Israel then you should confine your disgust to Israel's actual actions. There is no need to invent the annual deaths of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

 

[volatile]

Its a war. Government's are supposed to value the lives of their own civillians over the lives of the civillians of countries that are attacking them.

So then Hamas are equally justified in firing their rockets?

No - violence and killing are never to be justified. Dividing this into "them" and "us" is what is at the root of this bloody mess in the first place. All human life is valuable. If you think otherwise, then I suggest this discussion halt right now.

 

[volatile]

I could have sworn that NI was actually a part of the UK...

So "Palestine" is a separate state from Israel, then?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

So why do the Palestinians put weapons in Mosques? Who ultimatly bears responsibilty?

Who says there were weapons in mosques?

 

[gtc]

Does it?

What do these quotes sound like to you, then, if not relishment?

"Israel's decision to launch its devastating attack on Gaza on a Saturday was a "stroke of brilliance", the country's biggest selling paper Yediot Aharonot crowed: "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". The daily Ma'ariv agreed: "We left them in shock and awe"." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east)

Please provide evidence that they were talking about the deaths of civillians and then we can discuss whether they were relishing those deaths.

Describing the death of hundreds of people as "a stroke of brilliance" is hardly the actions of a media concerned about the real damage their country's military is inflicting on real human beings.

Now you are equating a lack of concern for civillian casualties that result from attacks on military targets with relishing the death of civillians.

I find it rather depressing that you can on the one hand accuse me of "blood libel" and on the other callously dismiss the deaths of women and children.

Where have I done that?

Shame on you.

I'm a terrible, terrible person.

 

[volatile]

I never said that.

Will you, then, condemn the actions of Israel - actions which are guaranteed to cause civilian deaths? If you disagree that Palestinian civilian deaths are justifiable and that the Israeli methods of punishing / mitigating terrorism are entirely appropriate, please say so. Now's your chance.

For the record: I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' actions, and the philosophy they embody.

 

[WildCat]

So "Palestine" is a separate state from Israel, then?

I'm not going to be drawn into a semantics debate over the meaning of the word "state".

Gaza is not part of Israel. That's a critical distinction.