Arthur Beesley wrote: » You make Hamas sound so innocent. You make it sound like Hamas are not in power. Who elected Hamas?
Arthur Beesley wrote: » Ir domain - that's Iran, right? Let's take that as Gospel, up there with The Daily Star and The Sun. No reason an Iranian website would not be impartial.
steddyeddy wrote: » End someone asked him this before and he said spot on. I.E someone asked him "what" and he replied "spot on". That's the pro Israeli argument on this thread and it's fair to say we've won
Arthur Beesley wrote: » See above. Tunnels, man.
end of the road wrote: » and the israelies would be impartial of course, they would never lie to us would they?
Arthur Beesley wrote: » Indeed, could have been avoided by Hamas behaving themselves.
tayto lover wrote: » What about this for justice then and it's not Iranian --http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2
obplayer wrote: » The illegal settlements are not in Gaza, all the other things you mention are a direct result of Hamas's actions. The West Bank is seen by Israel as necessary to it's security because so many Arab states want to destroy Israel.
Nodin wrote: » What did you mean by the "world view" you mentioned earlier?
Arthur Beesley wrote: » Certain people on here for unknown reasons seem to side against Israel where ever possible. It is a phenomenon that disturbs me. I doubt you would fall into that group thought, would you? You are above that. You are anti-racist in all it's guises, including being anti anti-Semitic. It is one of your more admirable qualities. Fair play for that anyway.
Tail Docker wrote: » lies arise..
tayto lover wrote: » The vast majority of posters are anti- murder and that's why they're posting. Why do you defend the indefensible?
steddyeddy wrote: » To everyone else who wants a reasoned argument (except the person who couldn't be bothered) HAMAS were elected because Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The IRA membership rose after bloody Sunday for the same reason. People will want to fight back if you treat them like crap.
Arthur Beesley wrote: » As I said, unfortunate collateral damage, couldn't be avoided.
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: ... (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: ... (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; ... (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; ... (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
Nodin wrote: » If there were any here spouting anti-semtism, I'd be the first to call them out on it. Implying that people have that agenda when theres no evidence of it its a bit much, tbh.
Guillermo Faithful Tractor wrote: » You have an exceptionally vague understanding of Hamas and its rise to power.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » since the majority of casualties are civilian it's kinda hard to justify. also given the success of the missile defence it's also hard to justify that the Gaza civilian deaths are necessary to protect Israeli lives. ( the Israeli who died was taking food to soldiers at the Gaza border - I don't know the circumstances but there's a possibility it could even be a Darwin Award ) Anyway Proportionality is the key. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/585-08?OpenDocument
Arthur Beesley wrote: » Certain people on here for unknown reasons seem to side against Israel where ever possible.
Arthur Beesley wrote: » It is a phenomenon that disturbs me.
Arthur Beesley wrote: » You are anti-racist in all it's guises, including being anti-Semitic.
end of the road wrote: » so because people elected them they deserve to be blown to bits even if they do nothing? children included?
Arthur Beesley wrote: » Ironic given that they arise from Hamas.
Arthur Beesley wrote: » And I commend you for that, even if I don't agree that there is no evidence. At least one poster speculated that the Israel was specifically targeting civilians and were forcing them out of their homes so they could kill more civilians.
end of the road wrote: » no, only when they commit acts of terrorism and murder, but you finally answered the question after being asked it a load of times, surprised at that does it now yes i am, thankfully criticising israels actions doesn't make one anti-Semitic.
Arthur Beesley wrote: » Had Hamas not constantly needled and provoked Israel with their rocket attacks, this would not started. The blood is squarely on the hands of Hamas and those that elect and support Hamas.
Arthur Beesley wrote: » What a disgusting comment about Darwin Award. Sickening.
