dawaxman
Gheorge Popescu
The non-radicalised civilians? Deep regret for them being caught up in this
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Sick sick world what is wrong with people
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
The non-radicalised civilians? Deep regret for them being caught up in this
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Unfortunately that pretty much backs up the journey to my last paragraph.
My last para is, of course, ludicrous in that it would never happen (perhaps fanciful rather than ludicrous?).
HAMAS has the stated aim of destroying Israel, not Jadaism. (I'm not saying that isn't their intent, religious fanatics of any brand seem to want to wipe out or convert all others. It's been Christians, Islamists, Jews, hell even Buddhists! at some point in time.) From my understanding that comes down to a key character in a novel promising land to someone. The offered solution was to share. The Arab response was to start a war - humans are good at that. The Israeli response was to annex the Sinei and push people into the current Gaza situation, and along the way create plenty of reasons to be hated. They also decided to expand territory elsewhere - an action that many Sovereign states before it, and many that will come, have done.
In the face of all of that Israel cannot be surprised when it is attacked. The west has this very odd (and weirdly admirable) approach to the "rules of war" - these rules are barely a century old. Israel has committed war crimes upon Gaza in the past. Hamas now commits what the west would consider war crimes (or in this case terrorism - the distinction being "we don't recognise you as a state because you don't play by our colonial rules. And we have bigger guns, so we get to make the rules.") against Israel.
Humanity has always been about power and war at some level. "Peace" is a very modern concept and western privilege - usually administered because the west has bigger guns. Israel wants to act like it has some moral high ground here - it doesn't. It is just as bad as Hamas, but Hamas play by different rules and Israel relies on its friends and it's bigger guns.
"If the Arab world laid down it's guns, there would be peace"? Would there? Really? That isn't the Government Israel currently has.
Israel created reasons to be attacked.
Hamas has now created reasons to keep Gazaians subjegated and angry towards Israel.
And that's why the solution is that no-one gets to have the promised land - because noone can be trusted to not act like an utter fudgewit.
What would happen if the promised land was made a neutral zone? The different religious factions in the region would probably start a war over it, and kill eachother - and that's central to the human condition. Because peace is a privilege, governed by having bigger weapons than someone else.
For some reason, humans are just a bit fudged up. And the ones that get into religion seem to be even moreso (and maybe they are just noticed more because they give it a name?).
The Philistines and Israelites were fighting eachotherother in Bible. It isn't new. Ultimately, one of them needs to leave the area - they clearly are not welcome by the other and haven't been able to find a way to live side by side for centuries. Such is being human.
Describing Hamas as terrorists is not partiality, it's accuracy. Channel 4 can refer to Hamas as terrorists and still follow the guidelines as that's what Hamas are.
In going out of its way to avoid doing so, the BBC is trying to make a false equivalence where there is none.
dawaxman
Gheorge Popescu
And your solution to defend against a terrorist organisation seeking to eradicate you and your people? (Rhetorical question)
Although a significant majority of them voted in a terrorist organisation.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
No, it’s doing its job. You just don’t like it.
dawaxman
Gheorge Popescu
Those would be the radicalised ones imo
So the BBC is the only media organisation doing its job properly, despite others being to the left of the organisation and it having a history of bias in that manner?
I've got a bridge you might want to buy.....
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Yes, quite literally it’s following its broadcast guidelines to the letter. You should definitely write a letter of complaint about it though as it animates you so much.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
What a ridiculous post.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
How do you come to that conclusion?
The elections were 2006; Hamas was recognised as a terrorist organisation by the UK in 2021.
Hamas were clear in what they stood for from the start. It's at the very top of their own manifesto.
There's no room for sympathy for anyone who voted for them.
Glenda's Legs
Les Ferdinand
I’m pretty sure Reuters still don’t use the term ‘terrorist’ in their reporting. Part of the Reuters Principles of journalism and impartiality.
Mikey10
John Lacy
First of all, they got peace in NORTHERN Ireland - which, last time I checked, remains very much part of the UK.
So, they didn’t give away what was the fundamental reason for the existence of Sinn Fein and the IRÁ; and, 25 years down the line, Northern Ireland remains British.
You may also want to talk to people from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland before claiming that ‘nothing was got in return’. Being able to go about daily business without constant roadblocks, security checks, shootings and bombings is quite a return, as is seeing a country torn apart by civil war rebuild as a very decent place in which to to live and work.
Craig_J
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Respectfully that's insanity.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian's were expelled from their homes and had them burnt down to make way for people who hadn't lived their for a millennium.
To this day the borders are pushed further and further back. For 75 years these people who had no say in the issue have great-great grandparents, great-grandparents, grand-parents and parents forcibly evicted. Those living, or with relatives living, close enough to the borders will have seen them evicted.
How is it Israel defending itself when for they are the ones forcibly, consistently and relentlessly taking people's homes for three quarters of a century?
How can Palestinians not feel so much anger and so much rage for everything they once had which was utterly destroyed - on loop for such a long time?
Guidelines that they often don't follow - except when it suits them.
Try searching on the BBC News website for "terrorist" or "terrorism" - you'll see that they use it rarely, but they do use it.
They sold our own military out whilst letting all the terrorists walk away free.
They gave it all away.
Baleforce
Martin Peters
Israel didn’t take the land, we did, before telling them they could make a home there.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Still doesn't mean they voted for a terrorist organisation. They didn't.
But on that note, "a significant majority" didn't vote for them - there was a 3 percentage point difference in votes for Hamas and Fatah, and a unity govt was formed. The current Hamas in Gaza took it by force, not by democracy.
I don't follow their coverage of events enough to know if they've shown an anti-Israel bias in the past, or if they break those guidelines for terrorism when it doesn't involve Israel.
If they do, then they're as bad as the BBC.