Middle East - what's next

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

If America had a close, real and superior threat people in power would be using every tool at their disposal to create a nation of motivated warriors, religion most definitely being one of them.

Don't kid yourself.

You mean like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? I don't understand what you are referring to? The US Army?

[jeff061]

If you get granular and look at it from a lower level, of course it has.

But from a high level, if the need arises it would be used to turn devout believers against their enemies. It's easy for a lot of people to look down on Muslims and the violence it's used to support, but the middle east has been in a far different situation than Europe or America for a long time now.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You mean like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? I don't understand what you are referring to? The US Army?

I don't understand your point. I'm not touting anti-religion, thats just the discussion here(well not really I've off topic'd it, sorry I'm done after this). If there are better ways to get the masses to follow than religion, those will be used more.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not sure I understand your last sentence. Specific to who broke the most recent ceasefire first, here are some different POV links. Arguments on both sides. Although I do not know how valid it is, there is a wiki that lists the attacks. The "best answer" reponse is pretty interesting.
Who broke the ceasefire? Both Israel and Palestine say other side did? - Yahoo! Answers

There are western sources (CNN, NYTimes, UK The Guardian etc) have articles claiming Israel broke the truce with the Nov attacks.

Rocket fire from Fatah is still rocket fire from the Palestinian territory. It doesn't really matter who was shooting them. The cease-fire is between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Firing those rockets broke the cease-fire. Failure to take action against those firing the missiles is what resulted in Israel taking action.

If I'm not mistaken, everytime Palestine shoots a rocket at Israel, the Israeli's start an air-raid drill and the local populations must take cover. Palestine can have a handful of terrorists fire one rocket and keep an entire village or region awake for hours in the middle of the night. Over and over again, during a cease-fire? Eventually, I'd guess the people would want their government to take action.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Rocket fire from Fatah is still rocket fire from the Palestinian territory. It doesn't really matter who was shooting them. The cease-fire is between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Firing those rockets broke the cease-fire. Failure to take action against those firing the missiles is what resulted in Israel taking action.

If I'm not mistaken, everytime Palestine shoots a rocket at Israel, the Israeli's start an air-raid drill and the local populations must take cover. Palestine can have a handful of terrorists fire one rocket and keep an entire village or region awake for hours in the middle of the night. Over and over again, during a cease-fire? Eventually, I'd guess the people would want their government to take action.

And anyone can easily make the argument that the near complete embargo precipitated the rocket firing into Israel. Considering Gaza's residents were having difficulty obtaining basic necessities, "Eventually, I'd guess the people would want their government to take action.."

Not that the Israeli army is acting like a terrorist organization or anything...

"The civilian death toll in Gaza increased dramatically today, with reports of more than 40 Palestinians killed after missiles exploded outside a UN School where hundreds of people were sheltering from the continuing Israeli offensive.

Two Israeli tank shells struck the school in Jabaliya refugee camp, spraying shrapnel on people inside and outside the building, according to news agency reports.


The medical director of the hospital in Jabaliya told the Guardian 41 bodies had been brought in so far and more could be on the way. Reuters journalists filmed bodies scattered on the ground amid pools of blood and torn shoes and clothes. In addition to the dead, several dozen people were wounded, hospital officials said. The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports.


A United Nations official in Gaza said the school was clearly marked with a UN flag and its location had been reported to Israeli authorities. John Ging, director of operations in Gaza for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, said that three artillery shells landed at the perimeter of the school where 350 people were taking shelter. "Of course it was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said."

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Would you think there's a chance that school is being used to launch attacks on Israel? If so, how should they handle it? Why are people hiding in a spot that is likely to be hit as attacks originate from there?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Would you think there's a chance that school is being used to launch attacks on Israel? If so, how should they handle it? Why are people hiding in a spot that is likely to be hit as attacks originate from there?

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

A United Nations official in Gaza said the school was clearly marked with a UN flag and its location had been reported to Israeli authorities.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Bang your head all you want, I'm not sure how that answers my questions.

[Fighter of Foo]

So the UN shelter is bombing Israel? Is that what you're suggesting?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

No, I'm suggesting that the UN has no idea of the reality on the ground. The IDF at least believes that that school was the origin of rocket attacks.



This video is from 2007.

I have no way to know whether the IDF is lying through their teeth or what have you, but personally I am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than Hamas based on prior activities. And the thought that attacks would originate from a location like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[ISiddiqui]

whether the IDF is lying through their teeth

That'd be my view of it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That'd be my view of it.

Isiddiqui and FoF, I don't recall if you have an opinion on this but how would you characterize the deliberate bombing of Israeli civilian gathering places (buses, restaurants) in the past by Hamas?

Have you condemned those acts against civilians, and if not, why?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No, I'm suggesting that the UN has no idea of the reality on the ground. The IDF at least believes that that school was the origin of rocket attacks.


This video is from 2007.

I have no way to know whether the IDF is lying through their teeth or what have you, but personally I am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than Hamas based on prior activities. And the thought that attacks would originate from a location like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Sorry, I played that video twice and i still don't see the mortar attack. However, I would not put it beyond Hamas to use a school to attack from.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

At 1:12 you can clearly see something coming out of the circled area that the guy keeps running to and away from. Whether its from the UN school that the IDF claims, I can't say.

edit: Also 1:32.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

So the UN shelter is bombing Israel? Is that what you're suggesting?

Because clearly, Hamas has NEVER risked the lives of their civilians in such a manner as to invite attacks on schools, civilian neighborhoods.

Israel dealing with this nonsense generation after generation is just silly. They should annex the West Bank and Gaza (and grant full citizenship to those that want it), and give autonomy back only to the extent that the terrorists deserve it. Show some muscle and there might actually be peace. No other legitimate country would tolerate this stuff. No other country would consider itself bound by peace accords when facing constant attacks.

Instead, everyone seems to be content with generations of bloodshed, and pointless analysis over who was "right" any given time. Israel is a sovereign nation - if they face attacks from an outside entity, they're "correct" in destroying that entity, even with collateral damage.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Because clearly, Hamas has NEVER risked the lives of their civilians in such a manner as to invite attacks on schools, civilian neighborhoods.

Israel dealing with this nonsense generation after generation is just silly. They should annex the West Bank and Gaza (and grant full citizenship to those that want it), and give autonomy back only to the extent that the terrorists deserve it. Show some muscle and there might actually be peace. No other legitimate country would tolerate this stuff. No other country would consider itself bound by peace accords when facing constant attacks.

Instead, everyone seems to be content with generations of bloodshed, and pointless analysis over who was "right" any given time. Israel is a sovereign nation - if they face attacks from an outside entity, they're "correct" in destroying that entity, even with collateral damage.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

Instead, everyone seems to be content with generations of bloodshed, and pointless analysis over who was "right" any given time. Israel is a sovereign nation - if they face attacks from an outside entity, they're "correct" in destroying that entity, even with collateral damage.

So you're a supporter of terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

So you're a supporter of terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

For real?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Isiddiqui and FoF, I don't recall if you have an opinion on this but how would you characterize the deliberate bombing of Israeli civilian gathering places (buses, restaurants) in the past by Hamas?

Have you condemned those acts against civilians, and if not, why?

Could you try and make the question a little more loaded?

I'll quote extensively from this morning's Guardian editorial.

"To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak - terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law....


This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination."

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

So you're a supporter of terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

No if you read my post, I actually said they could destroy the terrorists.

But no, you're right, the current strategy is working just great.

What would you do if you were Israel? Nothing? Or attack only clearly military installations? I think Hamas would quickly figure out a way around that....They figured out their way around that years ago.

I think you're living in a fantasy world. If it were possible for Israel to destroy only those adults who actually brought them harm through their own hands, I guarantee you they would. Do you disagree? Do you think Israel has the option of eliminating all threats to it, but just chooses to kill civilians for fun?

[Fighter of Foo]

Where?

[jeff061]

Fighter of Foo lives in some fantasy world apparently. Really. Targeting civilians is wrong, this is what Hamas does. Civilian casualties is unfortunate but necessary or Hamas could terrorize Israel with zero repercussions.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination."

If this was Israel's aim, this would all be over now. It SHOULD be it's aim, because clearly their neighbors will accept nothing less than destruction of one party or the other, but they're still playing politics, which will cost lives for generations to come.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

No if you read my post, I actually said they could destroy the terrorists.

But no, you're right, the current strategy is working just great.

What would you do if you were Israel? Nothing? Or attack only clearly military installations? I think Hamas would quickly figure out a way around that....They figured out their way around that years ago.

I think you're living in a fantasy world. If it were possible for Israel to destroy only those adults who actually brought them harm through their own hands, I guarantee you they would. Do you disagree? Do you think Israel has the option of eliminating all threats to it, but just chooses to kill civilians for fun?

I'd start by not antagonizing a couple of million people who I'm not exactly on the best terms with.

Again,

Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza.

If this happened to you, what would be your response?

In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Fantasy land huh?

[molson]

Still waiting to here what your solution would be.

The ratio of casualties, though titled one way (which you help, artificially, by including all Palestinian deaths, and only those Israelis killed by rocket fire), makes perfect sense considering the nature of the war.

You would think the Palestinians would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Israel results in far heavier casualties on their side. Nope, they could care less about that. They don't have the same respect for human life. 1 dead jew is WORTH 100 dead of their own, including children and civilians. They're barbaric, plain and simple. Not all of them of course, and Israel should offer citizenship to those who want it. Give them that choice, that opportunity to save their children (most won't take it, they don't give a shit about their children's lives, they'd rather have them die just so people like you turn against Israel). The rest should be destroyed into unconditional surrender on Israel's terms.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'd start by not antagonizing a couple of million people who I'm not exactly on the best terms with.

Again,

Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza.

If this happened to you, what would be your response?

In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Fantasy land huh?

So the solution if you think you are being blockaded illegally I guess is to fire 30 rockets a day at your neighbor. All while the people who voted you to lead them are starving. Sounds like a good strategery. I think you fail to realize that most of the world views Hamas as a terrorist organization, similar to the Taliban. Just because they are in charge doesn't mean people always have the deal with them peacefully.

It sucks that civilians are caught up in this, but that is the choice of Hamas. If they really cared for Palestinian freedom more than Israeli destruction, some sort of peaceful status probably could have been reached, like the West Bank, which has been out of the terror news for a little while. If Israel's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

Maybe Israel should say "pretty please" and maybe even add some "cherries on top" or something.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by miked

So the solution if you think you are being blockaded illegally I guess is to fire 30 rockets a day at your neighbor. All while the people who voted you to lead them are starving. Sounds like a good strategery.

Um, they live in the middle of a desert. Israel decides whether they let food & supplies in or not.

Let's see. These people have lots of guns and missles but no food. What the fuck do you think their response is going to be?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by miked

It sucks that civilians are caught up in this, but that is the choice of Hamas. If they really cared for Palestinian freedom more than Israeli destruction, some sort of peaceful status probably could have been reached, like the West Bank, which has been out of the terror news for a little while. If Israel's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

Maybe Israel should say "pretty please" and maybe even add some "cherries on top" or something.

This is my favorite response, because as the stronger country, Israel has much more power to take this action:

It sucks that civilians are caught up in this, but that is the choice of Israel. If they really cared for Israeli freedom more than Hamas destruction, some sort of peaceful status probably could have been reached, like the West Bank, which has been out of the terror news for a little while. If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

Maybe Hamas should say "pretty please" and maybe even add some "cherries on top" or something.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Um, they live in the middle of a desert. Israel decides whether they let food & supplies in or not.

Let's see. These people have lots of guns and missles but no food. What the fuck do you think their response is going to be?

Well, I guess that makes it cool then. Sorry, I thought maybe instead of their "government" smuggling in weapons on a daily basis they could perhaps arrange for some food and supplies to be sent in. Other countries have lots of desert and they seem to get food and supplies. What about Egypt, you know, one of the countries that decades ago promised the people the world if they would move out of the way so Israelis could be wiped out.

Nah, it couldn't quite possibly be complicated.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by molson

They should annex the West Bank and Gaza (and grant full citizenship to those that want it)

I agree with you, but Israel doesn't. When Israel occupied these territories, full citizenship and democratic representation was never going to be on the table. Why?

Annexation with full rights solves the multiculturalism vs Jewish state question once and for all. If Israel were to annex West Bank and Gaza, Israel will basically have to choose between being a Jewish state or a true democracy, since this would cause the percentage of Jewish voters (who are already fractured politically) to shrink considerably.

Due to demographics, Israel may have to make this choice eventually (as the proportion of non-Jews in Israel is increasing)--but annexation would force this painful debate much earlier...

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

You would think the Palestinians would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Israel results in far heavier casualties on their side. Nope, they could care less about that. They don't have the same respect for human life. 1 dead jew is WORTH 100 dead of their own, including children and civilians. They're barbaric, plain and simple.

You would think the Israelis would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Gaza attack results in far heavier casualties on their side. Nope, they could care less about that. They don't have the same respect for human life. 1 dead terrorist is WORTH 100 dead children and civilians. They're barbaric, plain and simple.

We can do this all day because the arguments you make work both ways. Which is my point.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Except that quite a few of your "switched" arguments make no sense at all.

"If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago."

"You would think the Israelis would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Gaza attack results in far heavier casualties on their side."

And these are important points, because they point to some level of restraint being shown by Israel (even if fear of international response, rather than morality, is the driving factor) as well as the thought process by the Hamas leadership, where civilian casualties provide them with international political currency and are thus part of the overall strategy.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Except that quite a few of your "switched" arguments make no sense at all.

"If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago."

"You would think the Israelis would be more willing to play ball, and not continously flare up the violence, when they know that even a restrained Gaza attack results in far heavier casualties on their side."

And these are important points, because they point to some level of restraint being shown by Israel (even if fear of international response, rather than morality, is the driving factor) as well as the thought process by the Hamas leadership, where civilian casualties provide them with international political currency and are thus part of the overall strategy.

Yeah because Israel didn't pick a fight and now they're really going out of their way to avoid killing civilians. Right.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You continue to argue points that I'm not making.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

If Hamas's goal were to dominate the region militarily and take over, it would have been done years ago.

I doubt that, unless you're suggesting that the only reason the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a wing) hasn't taken over the region yet is because they haven't bothered to.

[SportsDino]

I find it completely ironic that we completely steamrolled two countries in the last half decade or so, ostensibly over the actions of a couple dozen jerks among millions, and then feel justified in criticizing Israel which has constant attacks.

If this was happening to the U.S. we all know Gaza would be a barren parking lot by now. If this was any time except after 1945 Israel would have long ago blown the surrounding territory to nothing and assembled their own state through force. It is the artificial self-righteousness of modern times that keeps this in the current state, that natural result throughout most of human history is that either Israel would conquer a bunch of land, or the Arab countries would have conquered Israel (and likely excluded Palestine from the celebration), or a stalemate would end up where they beat on each other for a while and decide that internal needs outweigh the value of a war they can't win. There is also peace, but that usually takes some people with real character to get that far, most of history is devoid of such folk.

[Noop]

I still say they should annex the west bank and gaza; and just create a Palestine state. My main problem with the whole creation of Israel is that they were given their country oppose to doing what civilizations have done before them and conquered.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No, I'm suggesting that the UN has no idea of the reality on the ground. The IDF at least believes that that school was the origin of rocket attacks.

I have no way to know whether the IDF is lying through their teeth or what have you, but personally I am more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than Hamas based on prior activities. And the thought that attacks would originate from a location like this wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Good questions about this:

"It was a school. It was flying a UN flag. The UN had given the Israeli military the coordinates. People were seeking refuge there from Israeli air strikes and military operations. If it were true, as the Israelis now charge after the fact, that the building was being used for mortar attacks on the Israeli army, the why in the world would anyone in their right minds stay there. It would be like playing golf in a lightning storm, and Gazans are not stupid about war. Second, how come dead soldiers didn't come out of the building?"

Way to commit murder & create more terrorists Israel. Good job. Us Americans have taught you well.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Second, how come dead soldiers didn't come out of the building?

I'm not trying to make this into anything funny or anything, but was I the only one who read this line and thought, "Well, cuz they're dead of course!"

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled arguing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

simply state that peace would be the best option

If that were a realistic option you might have a point there, but there's as realistic a chance of wishing for unicorns to swoop down on a Skittles Rainbow & deliver each resident of the region the deed to their own personal island.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If that were a realistic option you might have a point there, but there's as realistic a chance of wishing for unicorns to swoop down on a Skittles Rainbow & deliver each resident of the region the deed to their own personal island.

The same was said of the situation in Northern Ireland back in the days of the IRA. However thats now receeding slowly into history ... and things are much more peaceful there these days.

(apologies - if anyone wonders where the 'quote' came from deleted the post I did about 10 seconds after putting it up as I try my best to avoid these discussions, wasn't anything particularly enlightening - just suggesting that rather than take sides in a discussion about a situation with limited information about it and opponents who have both done bad things it'd be better to just state that peace would be the best thing regardless of which party started that approach.)

[Edward64]

Some misc info on the ground level tactics being employed by both sides.

A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery - NYTimes.com

Interviews last week with senior Israeli intelligence and military officers, both active and retired, as well as with military experts and residents of Gaza itself, made it clear that the battle, waged among civilians and between enemies who had long prepared for this fight, is now a slow, nasty business of asymmetrical urban warfare. Gaza’s civilians, who cannot flee because the borders are closed, are “the meat in the sandwich,” as one United Nations worker said, requesting anonymity.

It is also clear that both sides are evolving tactics to the new battlefield, then adjusting them quickly.

Another interesting article from Washington Post on April 4, 2008 which seems to have predicted the Gaza war by the end of the Bush term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040601662.html

But officials portray Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as having little interest in a deal with Hamas. They acknowledge that a suspension of attacks by both sides might make the ongoing peace talks easier -- and that the outbreak of an all-out conflict would almost certainly kill the Annapolis process. Yet, increasingly Israeli officials see the confrontation in Gaza with Hamas as more important in strategic terms than the talks with moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The view in Jerusalem, as more than one official put it to me, is that there is no alternative to a military collision with Hamas in Gaza, probably before the end of the Bush administration.

The grim Israeli view is driven to a large degree by what officials say is the massive and continuing smuggling of weapons into Gaza, sponsored by Iran and tacitly allowed by Egypt, which despite considerable pressure from Washington shrinks from actions that might trigger its own confrontation with Hamas. Hamas is building hardened bunker systems and stockpiling missiles in imitation of the infrastructure built in southern Lebanon by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement. The Israelis say hundreds of Hamas militants have traveled to Iran for training in targeting and firing Grad missiles, Iran's version of the old Soviet Katyusha.

[Edward64]

Could you try and make the question a little more loaded?

I read the quote from the Guardian but I don't feel my question was answered? Admittedly it is a loaded question however it does not make it a unfair question to ask considering your povs in this thread.

I guess I could try search through the old threads but it would be simpler.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty surprised that CNN and several other news outlets fell for this Hamas propoganda video.......

Confederate Yankee: Anatomy of a Media Hoax

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I read the quote from the Guardian but I don't feel my question was answered? Admittedly it is a loaded question however it does not make it a unfair question to ask considering your povs in this thread.

I guess I could try search through the old threads but it would be simpler.

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas

You can add America and every other country/person in the world to that statement.

[jeff061]

So basically your argument is pretty much PRO world peace?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

You can add America and every other country/person in the world to that statement.

With all due respect, I would say your generalization and lack of specificity to my question below indicates the answer to the second question as 'no'.

Originally Posted by Edward64
Isiddiqui and FoF, I don't recall if you have an opinion on this but how would you characterize the deliberate bombing of Israeli civilian gathering places (buses, restaurants) in the past by Hamas?

Have you condemned those acts against civilians on FOF, and if not, why?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If that were a realistic option you might have a point there, but there's as realistic a chance of wishing for unicorns to swoop down on a Skittles Rainbow & deliver each resident of the region the deed to their own personal island.

Free ponies!!!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I find it completely ironic that we completely steamrolled two countries in the last half decade or so, ostensibly over the actions of a couple dozen jerks among millions, and then feel justified in criticizing Israel which has constant attacks.

Revisionist history, FTW. But what can you do when our very own propaganda service...err...the AP keeps rehashing this?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Revisionist history, FTW.

Ok, ok, it was three dozen jerks out of millions. Happy now?