Amnesty International and Hamas

Discussion in 'World Events' started by BenTheMan, Feb 19, 2009.

  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Tell it to Hamas, I have no war going on that I can't win, I am not the ones living on the charity of others, even the charity of those I would Kill.

    I am not the one who is refusing food from the Israelis, and I am not the one trying to smuggle weapons in to the Gaza for another round of fighting with those who would feed me, and help me build a State if left alone in Peace.

    Tell it to Hamas, it is their choice, staving Children or War with Israel.

    Hamas refused the food shipment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Don't take my word for it

    Call up David Holbridge of the Portland Mercy Corps and ask him about Israeli blockade of food

    And it's funny that you should favour giving in to the occupation. I never thought of you as a collaborator type
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    I will never give into the Occupation of Israeli land by the Arabs.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Now it makes sense why you admire the native Americans. You admire the ones who gave in and surrendered not the ones who died fighting. I think I was distracted by your claiming to be a soldier. Of course you don't support the Palestinian bid for freedom if you think collaboration with the occupier is more admirable!

    Makes sense now. It's just surprising that's all. I just never considered you to be the kind of person who admired collaborating with an occupation, that's all.
     
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,298
    apparently someone forgot the single most important rule in criminal law. You cannot gain from your crime. There is no arab "occupation" of Israeli land just your delusions of knowledge, your delusions of reality, and your bigotry.
     
  9. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Yes. They are tired of the fighting. Sanity and peace desperately needs to prevail. The position (political and populist) of HAMAS has beem strengthened both in Gaza and the West Bank due to the recent Israeli assault. Also any level of trust in Israel that may have been present is now gone.

    Correct. For this a certain humility is needed, but looking at the right wing dominance in Israel after elections, the situation is not hopeful.

    Yes. A neutral body could be formed to oversee this.

    Thus the urgency to get talking. There is already much damage to undo.

    Unfortunately, this could be used by Israel as a pretext to commit genocide. All it would require would be continued conflict. IOW, more of the same that is occurring now. Also UN Peacekeeping activities don`t have a great success rate. There are other potential solutions to police things however. (for another thread)

    Absolutely. But this "International Community" would need to include the US as a NEUTRAL member.

    This is also for another debate.

    As you say, there are many factors involved. The evidence points to Israeli geopolitical strategy and gains.

    Saddam was visibly unstable, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not only visibly calm and eloquent, but he seems more than stable. His agenda is purely to lift his nation up. He is consistently misquoted in the Western Media.

    It would not be surprising (considering they have a nuclear neighbor) if Iran made some attempts at investigating weapons possibilities, but at present everything seems on the level. The Russian manufacturer of the nuclear reactor has recently stated as much.

    Yes.

    That is the point. If ONE nation has it, then ALL nations should be entitled. Thus the best outcome would be NO nukes.

    It does to a certain extent give potential need for missile defences, but the positions need a VAST amount of thought. The present thinking is clearly Russophobic. And of course the West, would need to earn the trust of Iran. Given that the West and Israel, are nuclear proliferaters.

    There is no evidence for this.

    There was mutual antagonism, and off course the conditions of UNRAR 181 was not, and rightly so, acceptable to the Arabs.

    And South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognised as sovereign, Its called GEOPOLITICS.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    To get moving the talks need to be unconditional. Concessions will keep stalling initiation to dialogue ad infinitum.

    I concur. The need for humility is a two way street.

    These are the facts on the ground. Israel bombs Gaza, or Lebanon, or Syria, or even Iran, G-d help us, Arabs hate Israel. Simple.

    Taken on board.

    Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. Israel could have limited the assault due to the dense population. They had a choice. Today they are not letting food in to Gaza. They have a choice.

    There was no de facto Palestinian representation.

    The have achieved nothing apart from the slaughter of innocents, the destruction of thousands of homes, and the invoking the hatred of the Palestinians and Arabs. The have created GREATER militancy, and the Palestinians are still firing rockets.
     
  10. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Thankfully you are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. No limping draft evaders required. Eventually justice will prevail. You will see.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,802
    They cannot afford to have Hamas recognized as the government of the Palestinians - it would force official recognition of the nature of their doings.
    Israel would not agree to such a stipulation - initiating hostilies has been their means of expansion, and they want to expand some more, not be forced back behind internationally recognized borders.
    The Iranians didn't respond "in kind", in the first place, and in the second - how do you fail to apply such reasoning to Israel's behavior, which would be not only "in kind" but ten times worse, even granted the bogus accusations of Palestinian aggression?
    No it isn't. Not when the going too far and exceeding reasonable bounds has been planned in advance, and the "spark" chosen accordingly.
    The idea that Iran should have to "earn the trust" of its abusers and assaulters, of the betrayers of itself and its neighbors and the violaters of its borders, of the very liars engaged in a propaganda campaign to justify military assault on its territory and oil resources, is bizarre.
    Not with any respect for historical fact and physical reality.
    That was handled in the last truce, in which Hamas agreed to stop doing that if Israel agreed to lift its blockade. That truce was overtly broken by Israel, November 4th, after four months of Israeli failure to live up to its terms anyway.

    The blockade by Israel is not acceptable. Neither are the settlements, the dispossessions, the walls, the encroachments, or the violence and threats.
     

Share This Page