Palestinian Gunmen Shoot Human Shields

[BPSCG]

something upsetting you beeps? Tell uncle fool all about it.

Yeah; you wouldn't tell me when you started drowning brain cells in alcohol this weekend, or whether you like your alcohol on tap, in bottles, or in cans. I checked back repeatedly for a reply, all day Saturday, hoping against hope for an answer, only to be disappointed. I was finally forced to throw a dozen lamb kebabs on the grille and share them with my neighbors in an attempt to banish my disappointment. It worked for a while, but when my neighbors left, the overwhelming grief at your failure to respond came rushing back in a torrent.

Start with a link to an event then write a brief comment....

Okay, done.

make sure the comment does not discuss the issues surrounding the event or the impact of the event on other issues or anything like that...

I thought it did discuss the issues surrounding the event, or one of them, anyway - that issue being the apparent fact that the gunmen terrorizing the streets of Gaza have no regard for human life: they will shoot people trying to make peace between them as readily as they will shoot each other. Isn't that an issue surrounding the event? Doesn't it speak to the issue of whether or not Israel can ever make peace with Palestine, if the Palestinians cannot make peace among themselves?

Now, if I wanted to get irrelevant, my comment accompanying the link would have been along the lines of, "The Baltimore Orioles defeated the Washington Nationals, 3-2 today, and hope to sweep the three-game series between the local teams when they meet again on Sunday afternoon at Oriole Park. Meanwhile, in the American League, the Yankees lost to the Chicago White Sox, and fell ten games behind the first-place Boston Red Sox for the first time in Joe Torre's career as the Yankees' manager."

preferably just stick to something suggesting the moral inferiority of the target group.....

"Moral inferiority of the target group"? I say thee nay; one could argue that the people who stepped between the gunmen were brave, foolhardy, or naive, but hardly morally inferior in their attempt to stop the shooting.

Oh, you mean to say that I consider gunmen who shoot at innocent bystanders trying to stop the bloodshed as being morally inferior? Well, yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Who are they superior to? You? Me? Anyone on this board? I believe there are very few people on this board who would shoot someone unless in self-defense.

Preferably include a nice pic of some of the target group behaving like the bigoted stereotype you are championing...

Sorry, can't help you with that. Why, do you have some strange need to see innocent people being shot by their own countrymen?

I've talked to beeps about the lack of a picture this week, i'm sure he will do better with next weeks thread.

TF, as usual, you bring nothing of substance to the discussion, just your usual snide comments. Let's get back to the central issue: Do you think there is any hope for the Palestinians to live in peace, given that the two terrorist organizations that have the country by the throat are willing to kill anyone not on their respective sides? And if they are willing to kill their own countrymen for either choosing the "wrong" side, or choosing no side at all, what do you think that says about the chance of Israel being able to live in peace with Palestine?

Please - for once in your life, give an actual answer. Spare us the snide comments and the innuendos.

 

[webfusion]

In all the reports, in all the statements made by the people in charge of Gaza, I was struck particularly by the following comment:

"We will execute anyone who dares to interfere with our rocket crews."
--- HAMAS Izz-A-Din-Al-Kassam Brigade spokesman

The streets of Gaza are pretty much back to normal, by the way. It seems that the Israeli Air Force put everyone in the mood to be united in anger just at Israel and put aside their internicine fight for now.

• Fawzi Barhoum of HAMAS said the IAF attacks could actually help their internal situation:
  "No one would accept to fight one another while the Israelis are bombing Gaza," he said.

And that bombing doesn't appear to be letting up at all --

Israel killed three suspected Hamas militants in one of six pre-dawn Air Force strikes across Gaza on Sunday, and the Israeli cabinet approved "intensified operational measures" against HAMAS targets, until their Qassem rockets stop completely. The cabinet threatened that if Hamas attacks on Israel continue it would consider expanding targeted killings to include Hamas political leaders.

• Israel must launch bold military operations aimed at "dismantling Hamas totally and absolutely" and creating "an entirely new situation," Minister Avigdor Lieberman said.

 

[RandFan]

sigh..do I really need to explain this?

Start with a link to an event then write a brief comment....make sure the comment does not discuss the issues surrounding the event or the impact of the event on other issues or anything like that...preferably just stick to something suggesting the moral inferiority of the target group..... Preferably include a nice pic of some of the target group behaving like the bigoted stereotype you are championing...

I've talked to beeps about the lack of a picture this week, i'm sure he will do better with next weeks thread.

I'm still waiting for your explanation. This is the politics forum where politics and current events are discussed. The OP is dealing with a an event that is both current and political. The OP does not draw any unwarranted conclusions neither does it belittle or defame Palestinians. The OP simply states matters of fact and asks a sarcastic question but I don't think that the sarcasm of that question warrants your characterization of the OP.

It's a legitimate point of discussion. These human shields are arguably naive and this incident demonstrates that nicely.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's a legitimate point of discussion. These human shields are arguably naive and this incident demonstrates that nicely.

No one answered my sincere question, yet, but perhaps it was deemed rhetorical by the great unwashed.

Let me clarify my question: the Pals shoot human shields, and get some press. If the US kills Human Shields, the world press goes to GQ and the condemnations cascade down from on high.

No fair.
DR

 

[daenku32]

Human shields. Daring to believe in a peaceful world.

 

[RandFan]

Human shields. Daring to believe in a peaceful world.

Oblivious to reality.

 

[BPSCG]

something upsetting you beeps? Tell uncle fool all about it.

Yeah; you wouldn't tell me when you started drowning brain cells in alcohol this weekend, or whether you like your alcohol on tap, in bottles, or in cans. I checked back repeatedly for a reply, all day Saturday, hoping against hope for an answer, only to be disappointed. I was finally forced to throw a dozen lamb kebabs on the grille and share them with my neighbors in an attempt to banish my disappointment. It worked for a while, but when my neighbors left, the overwhelming grief at your failure to respond came rushing back in a torrent.

Start with a link to an event then write a brief comment....

Okay, done.

make sure the comment does not discuss the issues surrounding the event or the impact of the event on other issues or anything like that...

I thought it did discuss the issues surrounding the event, or one of them, anyway - that issue being the apparent fact that the gunmen terrorizing the streets of Gaza have no regard for human life: they will shoot people trying to make peace between them as readily as they will shoot each other. Isn't that an issue surrounding the event? Doesn't it speak to the issue of whether or not Israel can ever make peace with Palestine, if the Palestinians cannot make peace among themselves?

Now, if I wanted to get irrelevant, my comment accompanying the link would have been along the lines of, "The Baltimore Orioles defeated the Washington Nationals, 3-2 today, and hope to sweep the three-game series between the local teams when they meet again on Sunday afternoon at Oriole Park. Meanwhile, in the American League, the Yankees lost to the Chicago White Sox, and fell ten games behind the first-place Boston Red Sox for the first time in Joe Torre's career as the Yankees' manager."

preferably just stick to something suggesting the moral inferiority of the target group.....

"Moral inferiority of the target group"? I say thee nay; one could argue that the people who stepped between the gunmen were brave, foolhardy, or naive, but hardly morally inferior in their attempt to stop the shooting.

Oh, you mean to say that I consider gunmen who shoot at innocent bystanders trying to stop the bloodshed as being morally inferior? Well, yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Who are they superior to? You? Me? Anyone on this board? I believe there are very few people on this board who would shoot someone unless in self-defense.

Preferably include a nice pic of some of the target group behaving like the bigoted stereotype you are championing...

Sorry, can't help you with that. Why, do you have some strange need to see innocent people being shot by their own countrymen?

I've talked to beeps about the lack of a picture this week, i'm sure he will do better with next weeks thread.

TF, as usual, you bring nothing of substance to the discussion, just your usual snide comments. Let's get back to the central issue: Do you think there is any hope for the Palestinians to live in peace, given that the two terrorist organizations that have the country by the throat are willing to kill anyone not on their respective sides? And if they are willing to kill their own countrymen for either choosing the "wrong" side, or choosing no side at all, what do you think that says about the chance of Israel being able to live in peace with Palestine?

Please - for once in your life, give an actual answer. Spare us the snide comments and the innuendos.

 

[BPSCG]

No one answered my sincere question, yet, but perhaps it was deemed rhetorical by the great unwashed.

Let me clarify my question: the Pals shoot human shields, and get some press. If the US kills Human Shields, the world press goes to GQ and the condemnations cascade down from on high.

No fair.
DR

You're right; it's rhetorical.

Skeptic* pointed out often that the world yawns and shrugs and rolls over and goes back to sleep when Muslims commit an atrocity, but, as you eloquently put it, goes to GQ when the US or Israel does something that is only a tiny fraction as bad. He held that it's an example of the racism of low expectations, that the world's attitude seems to be, "Well, they're Muslims, they're stupid and inferior, they can't help themselves, so what do you expect? You have to excuse them because they're incapable of knowing how to behave any better."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. It is, unfortunately, no longer surprising.

* BTW, where's skeptic been, anyway?

 

[Mycroft]

Human shields. Daring to believe in a peaceful world.

Well, we are talking about Palestinian human shields. These are not starry-eyed college students who travel to Iraq with the naive belief they can somehow stop the United States going to war by placing themselves in harm's way. No, these human shields have been brought up with the belief that if they die in a righteous cause they get their 72 virgins, so they place themselves in harms way for nothing more than the hope of becoming a statistic to be used in the propaganda war against Israel.

Dying for Hamas or Fatah has nothing to do with believing in a peaceful world.

 

[Mycroft]

* BTW, where's skeptic been, anyway?

He's been gone for a couple months now. I tried to send him a PM several weeks ago, but he never answers those anyway.

Hope he's okay.

 

[geni]

geni, do you have a point to add here? Just wondering...

Juyst suggesting that lebanon pulling out of southern lebanon isn't as insane as it first might seem.

 

[webfusion]

geni tells us that he believes in the (not insane?) idea that the Lebanese should leave Lebanon. OK, check.

WildCat was being sarcastic, not at all serious back in post #34. It was an illustration of how some muslims are able to make new demands out of the clear blue sky, and start battles and firefights willy-nilly, no rhyme nor reason.
He said nothing, not one word, about Southern Lebanon, and I fail to see how you envision parts of Lebanon (North, South, East, or West) functioning without the Lebanese. Are you suggesting that the Palestinians be ceded Southern Lebanon? What is your point, I have to ask again...

 

[Zep]

Well, we are talking about Palestinian human shields. These are not starry-eyed college students who travel to Iraq with the naive belief they can somehow stop the United States going to war by placing themselves in harm's way. No, these human shields have been brought up with the belief that if they die in a righteous cause they get their 72 virgins, so they place themselves in harms way for nothing more than the hope of becoming a statistic to be used in the propaganda war against Israel.

Dying for Hamas or Fatah has nothing to do with believing in a peaceful world.

So you are saying that these human shields are the equivalent of suicide bombers without actual bombs strapped to themselves? Or that someone convinced them to stand in front of their own guns and die to prove a point?

"Look, world! See how Israel forces us to shoot our own people!"

Are you serious?

Surely it is obvious that these factions refuse to see any solution to sorting their issues other than by force of arms? And that they don't care who they shoot at? That is, they have exactly the same mental processes running as Fred Phelps?

 

[webfusion]

"Look, world! See how Israel forces us to shoot our own people!"

Are you serious?

That is exactly what they seem to be saying -----
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/861437.html

• Al-Ahmad, a Fatah leader and an outspoken critic of Hamas, accused Hamas's Executive Force of carrying out executions that have pushed Palestinians to the brink of civil war.
  
  "I demand now the dissolution of the Hamas Executive Force and to integrate it into the security forces apparatus," al-Ahmad of Fatah told Reuters, repeating calls he and other Fatah officials have made in the past.
  
  Hamas officials responded by saying the Executive Force was created to combat lawlessness and accused al-Ahmad of colluding with Israel and the United States in seeking to eliminate the Executive Force.
  
  Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and other Hamas leaders have rejected calls to disband the 5,600-strong Force and have told their fighters to resist any attempts to stop them in the streets --- including shooting and murdering those who try.

By this rationale, the HAMAS is indicating that they are being set-up, and the Israelis (and the USA) were behind these inter-factional battles. Which, ipso-facto, makes the Israelis responsible for the battles.

That's the way it's presented by the palestinians.


Also, they are looking to die at the hands of the Israelis directly:

Several family members and Hamas activists had apparently gathered in the yard of the home when the IAF struck, a little after 9 A.M. Al-Haya, who was lightly injured in attack, had just finished discussing a cease-fire with a Fatah leader at the Egyptian Embassy in the Gaza Strip.

This man was WARNED not to return home, he received a phone call from the Israelis, telling him that his home was being used as a meeting-place for terrorists, and if they showed up, they would be targeted by the IAF, and yet, he went in there with his buddies from HAMAS and brought his family with him, with the intention of shielding the place from attack with their presence.

However: 9 people died as the IAF went ahead with the planned bombing run, and now, the HAMAS is screaming revenge revenge revenge!
IDF sources maintain that only three of the eight Palestinians killed in the attack had been civilians, and the remaining five had been militants active in the Hamas military wing.

And rockets continue raining down on Israel.
For no good reason.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think they were accusing Fatah of colluding with the enemy, not the enemy being behind the fighting. It is usually a problem when a group of people want independence from a colonialist force, and one faction wants to strike a compromise. Just look at Ireland/Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka. Those who seek a compromise are branded as traitors.

 

[webfusion]

I think they were accusing Fatah of colluding with the enemy, not the enemy being behind the fighting.

A bit of both, actually.
There are plenty of palestinians who simply say -- "It was the Mossad. They infiltrated and started the whole thing." --- just read the talkbacks and the blogs, this feeling is prevalent.


By the way, there is no "colonialist force" in Gaza. Try to remember that.

 

[Mycroft]

So you are saying that these human shields are the equivalent of suicide bombers without actual bombs strapped to themselves? Or that someone convinced them to stand in front of their own guns and die to prove a point?

"Look, world! See how Israel forces us to shoot our own people!"

From the OP:

“Just as we used to protect you from the occupation by acting as human shields, we have come to protect you from yourselves,” one protester shouted at gunmen, referring to instances when Palestinian civilians positioned themselves between militants and Israeli forces.

Yes, when Palestinian “civilians” place themselves between the Israeli military and Palestinian militants, they are to a lesser extent playing the same role as the shahids who blow themselves up to kill Israeli civilians. Where the suicide bombers march to a certain death, these “human shields” only risk death, but the outcome is the same. They die, and their deaths become fodder for the anti-Israel propaganda machine.

But no, I wasn’t making that same claim for when they stand between different Palestinian factions, but that they do so isn’t surprising given the social conditioning to place their lives in jeopardy.

Surely it is obvious that these factions refuse to see any solution to sorting their issues other than by force of arms? And that they don't care who they shoot at? That is, they have exactly the same mental processes running as Fred Phelps?

Uhm, I would say they are more sophisticated in their thinking than you give them credit for, but I would agree their fanaticism is similar to that of Fred Phelps.