Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Current conflict Israel
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Since when is righteousness determined by the equal numbers of dead on both sides of a conflict. In WW2, the British lost vastly fewer soldiers and civilians than did Germany. Finland inflicted 10 times the amount of casualties it suffered when the Soviet Union invaded the country. Ought we to suspect some parity in death statistics in a war to determine the "right" side?
Israel actually invests its treasury in the preservation of its population, which explains the almost non-existent casualties for its civilians. Hamas makes no such effort.
Well for the benefit of those suffering from propaganda effects, tell me what the stated goal of Hamas is in its founding charter?
Israel- only democracy mid-east.
Hamas- terrorist org.
Israel-killed more than 1000 palestinians, more than 100 children, n destroyed thousands of
homes and other buildings.
Hamas-killed 60 Israeli soldiers and some civilians but no children so far.
http://rt.com/news/175792-jews-arabs-refuse-enemies/
and @Frozen_Paratroper I hope one day you realize demonizing people and assigning the world into boxes labeled good and evil is not the Buddhist way to handle the suffering of the world. When you stop seeing conflict as a matter of picking which side to cheer for, you might find yourself on the side of the innocent men, women, and children of both sides.
But I'll mention one piece of wild misinformation you're buying into. What is it that keeps Israel from simply killing every living soul in the disputed land and moving their own people into the now empty buildings? World reaction to what monsters that would show them to be. And Palestine is also a democracy, by the way.
@Frozen_Paratrooper How anyone can make such an uninformed statement about such a complicated matter which involves human lives is beyond me. The truth is Israeli has killed more than Hamas as it stands now it's actually 20 to 1. Hamas is just one group of "extremists" which basically consist of a very small minority. There isn't a "hamas" side, it is staged and used as an excuse to perform this nazi like ethnic cleansing. I am all for solutions, but if Israel wanted a solution they would target these "terrorists" instead of bombing civilian homes.
Again the disparity in casualties only speaks to the effort with which Israel makes to protect its own citizenry. It has no bearing on any side's righteousness when we speak of casualty comparisons.
By that standard, the Nazis have the moral high ground since they lost far more than the Allies, excluding Russia.
Israel voluntarily gave up Gaza Strip in hopes of peace, only for it to be overtaken, yes a one-time democratic election, by a criminal gang of terrorists.
What do you expect a sovereign state to do when its neighbor is tunneling under its borders in the hopes of murdering or kidnapping its citizenry? And firing rockets indiscriminately which would have killed thousands of Israelis if not for sinking their treasury into Iron Dome.
Hamas could stop all the violence if it ceased the tunnels and rocketing. Israel would have no need nor moral argument for invasion.
I think the word '7errorist' is just a label given to opposite group in order to justify killing them without having take responsibility for ones own action. If you just notice how this level is used, you'll see this is nothing more than a convenient tool to kill innocents.
It's more a matter of poorer homemade materials and inability to guide or aim the rockets that protects Israelis from casualties, not to mention the Iron Dome or whatever it's called.
You gotta admit it's harder to protect 1.2 million civilians in a swatch of ground the size of Gaza than it would be in a larger area that Israel has. The comparisons between the two are hard to make and stay logical. A major military power funded and armed by the US and a rag tag bunch of terrorists. Comparing them and staying reasonable about any comparison is where I think most people are having a hard time -- unless they, like I did, buy into Hamas using citizens and human shields and putting their rockets in schools -- which an independent (as you could get) investigation disproved.
They moved their 8000 settlers who owned almost half the usable land out of Gaza. Israel remained in control of air/land/water ingress and egress out of Gaza. That can't be ignored.
The tunnel thing is interesting in that there's never been any 'proof' that the 3 Israeli boys were indeed kidnapped and killed by Hamas or Gazans. At this point, those tunnels have been there for a long time, and I'm wondering to exactly what extent they have been utilized during this latest war to justify using their presence as part of the justification for the air strikes in Gaza. I'm wondering if the tunnels are being thrown in the bag to make the Israeli propaganda 'weightier'.
I agree with Cinorjer, and with exactly zero of my friends so far about picking 'sides'. There is no 'side' except the Palestinian and Israeli citizens who have no choice but to be subjected to war. There is substantial push back amongst the Israeli people against the war on Gaza. If the Palestinians in Gaza had electricity, running clean water and food, they'd probably have the physical and mental energy to protest against Hamas instead of spend all their energy trying to survive.
There is some kind of Zen saying about 'picking sides', I just heard it a few days ago too. IOW, Buddhists are unable and unwilling to take 'sides' if they take their practice seriously. More like it is IMPOSSIBLE to take sides and remain devout in one's ethical and mental conduct.
Again - if you don't live there - you know nothing.
Personally, I don't buy that argument. Just because a person doesn't live in a certain area, have a degree in a certain field, etc. doesn't mean that they know nothing about the subject.
There are people living there who are taking picture, filming videos, and sharing their experiences. There are journalists and activists who are there doing the same, as are government agencies (like the UN) and NGOs. There's decades of history one can study about the region's history, politics, etc. All of this can help to inform someone about what's going on even though they don't live there.
Arguably most of the things we 'know' aren't know from direct experience. If that were the case, we couldn't say we know anything about history, places we've never been, scientific theories we've never tested, mathematic equations we've never solved, etc.
Sure, we might not know as much as someone who does live there, witnessing things firsthand; but with all the modern technology at our disposal, we can know quite a bit and in real time.
Israel has killed more than a thousand people, mostly civilians
including many children.
If my child was killed by an Israeli missile, I will probably turn into a terrorist
and try to kill as many Israelis as I can.
By unleashing such violence and destruction in Gaza, how many more terrorists have been created.
Sure because the media is always neutral and unbiaised. Sorry @Jason but I have to strongly contest that given the blatant misrepresentation by BBC Worldwide on Twitter that they were forced to apologise for.
How about this morning when Hamas killed children in a Gazan school?
Can no one here not see how stupid you are all being? Or do you not care because you can all sit comfortably in your lounge room and offices and point the finger of blame at faceless people from the anonymity of your keyboards and screens? How does your moral superiority taste @cook99?
You're all starting to disgust me on this thread. And you all ought to know better!
A. I never said they were. In fact, a few post back, in a response to Hamsaka, I wrote, "Most of the stuff you're going to see on the news or posted online is likely going to be biased one way or the other, however; and it's up to you to research them and separate the wheat from the chaff." That said, biases in and of themselves aren't necessarily bad things. As I wrote in response to vinlyn, "[T]o have a bias is to essentially make a distinction. We all our have own biases, such as what views we have and what we based those views on. Instead of eschewing our biases, I think it's better (and more realistic) to try to be open-minded about things while also being as rigorous as possible in forming our biases, making sure that our sources are reliable."
B. Just as the media isn't always unbiased, neither are the people who live in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Their experiences and perceptions colour (i.e., bias) the things they think and say.
>
>
I fail to see how having an opinion about a high-profile, generation-long conflict is disgusting or stupid. I suppose the real issue that is bothering you is that some us of have a different perspective/opinion on the matter. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I'm not going to cease paying attention to global issues and having opinions just to satisfy you or anyone else.
I agree that some of the comments in this thread are less than skillful, however, and I'm making an executive decision to close before it devolves any further.