Palestine: How Will the Hypocritical West Deal with a Coup D'état by an Elected Government?

AlterNet: Palestine: How Will the Hypocritical West Deal with a Coup D'état by an Elected Government?

This kinda of goes with what everybody was talking about Israel and Palastines. Maybe this will shed some light on what the hell is going on.

@seisen
Hamas does not recognize existing agreements with Israel.
Hamas is denying Israel's right to exists.
Hamas is calling for the physical destruction of Israel, and
the general butchering of Jews.
Hamas has been killing Jews whenever possible, in any way they could.

What can possibly be the Israel's interest to talk to Hamas? Agree to a 10 years Hudna, after surrendering all negotiation cards, and then resume hostilities until it is destroyed? Whats the bloody point?

I've made a reference to the Hamas Chapter numerous times. Have you actually read it?

I was simply posting an article.

Oh really!
Tell me about that.

@Matodo
Here you go:
List of Hamas suicide attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for general consumption:
Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hamas Covenant - Wikisource

You two are the sort of people that think we should sympathise with terrorist scumbags...

utabintarbo

Ya, is their a problem with that.

@mangar
Sorry, I can't give you all the Israeli crimes in Palestine because they are too many to put them here.
Here are some videos, probably you've never watched them in your favorite news channel.
Israeli Attack on Palestinian Family on Gaza Beach
Captured Prisoners: the Whole Story. Part I, Part II and Part III
Gaza After Disengagement
Jeffrey Goldberg: Pundit for Israel
AP Erases Video of Israeli Soldier Shooting Palestinian Boy
Off the Charts

I have thousands of videos, articles, documents, websites... showing the BLACK history of Israel. So there is no need to give me 3 or 4 links of legal resistance's operations done by AK-47 and made-at-home bombs.

You have to know that Hamas is a natural result of Israeli crimes against Palestinians, because Hamas was created after 39 years of illegal occupation of Palestine.

Israel is denying Palestine's right to exist, so this is not a valid argument.

@Matodo
1. If I recall correctly, the attack on the beach was actually a Palestinian land mine that exploded:
Gaza beach blast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
either way, it's not cut-and-dry case.

2. can you provide material that is not a youTube video?
movies are easily forgeable, (like the Muhammad a-Dura case)
Muhammad al-Durrah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Either way, those are appeals to emotion, rather than proofs.

Here's some well known Palestinian children show:
YouTube - Farfour
YouTube - Farfour "martyred" by Israelis in final episode
YouTube - A Tribute to Farfour

3. There was never a Palestine to illegally occupy, so that point is moot.

4. Israel agreed to acknowledge Palestinian right to self determination, ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as Palestinians. Hamas (and by lesser extent, the Fatah), does not acknowledge Israel right to exist, even when it has been in existence for almost 60 years.

5. In any case, what was to be Palestine does not exists anymore, as the Palestinians liberated themselves from Palestine, and created the lands of Hamastan and Fatahland.

Are you retarded?

You're asking me if agreeing with terrorists is bad?

Seriously?



Terrorist scumbags kill innocent civilians to further their own idiotic goals (usually religiously motivated). If you agree with them and their motives, move to Iraq.

Another interesting wikipedia link:
Pallywood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Big Dave:
Dude, please refrain from personal attacks, mm'kay?

Is the discussion who is baddest not a bit moot?..

Indeed, if one could somehow give whole populations responsibilities about what generations before them did, the Jews would get the fault. They had the silly idea that they had to move there.. Then again, the German Nazis caused the people to really surge there, then again, the UN and the Brittish allowed them their own country, ignorant about the consequences, really. Then again, silly ideas is hardly unique to the Jewish religion anyway. Most religions have their fair (enormous) share of ridiculousness. So I do not think any population is really to blame.

The only thing the societies are to blame for is what they do now. If Israel does not defend its borders there will definitely be more terrorist attacks on Israel. Isnt they move of the population from Fatah to Hamas desperation because Fatah did not give any positive results!
I think they should keep their borders closed, but they should stop foolish attacks to try to kill 'terrorist leaders'. They kill too many bystanders. They had some right to defend themselves against Hezbollah in Lebanon, but they were so stupid to throw clusterbombs about which they knew that they would not all explode and effectively become landmines. From I sure they regularly do stuff to damage surrounding countries, which serves absolutely no purpose to defend their only country.

So that was my ridiculously opinionated relative to my uninformedness post , didnt even check those links. (Although that is the blame game anyway?)

@Big Dave: Your point of view about 'sympathizing with terrorists' is awfully fascistic.
@bns: Ye, wonder where utabintarbo is off too, perhaps got tired of our leftness.

Will you buy me a plane ticket? Did you read the definition of terrorism I posted
http://socialdiscussion.com/united-s...html#post76585

But they are still human beings, and according to what you say most of the World's leaders would fall into the definition of terrorism, including Bush and Blair.

Sorry, no airlines currently service Baghdad International. I shall endeavor to find you another way to enter Iraq (joining the military would be one way).

Please name a single person who has been personally killed by President Bush or Mr Blair.

(And, I mean "personally" killed. As in, you know, they actually pulled the trigger or something.)

Bush and Blair responded to what they thought was a real threat to their countries (although that was likely due to dodgy intel reports) at the time. Under Saddam's regime, all sectarian violence was strongly repressed as the punishment imposed at the time was (summary) execution. Once Saddam was removed from power, the lid was opened and sectarian violence was reignited. I see no reason why Bush or Blair could have predicted this would have happened - it just did. Unfortunately, many people have now been killed in Iraq (many of them completely innocent), but their killers were Iraqis, not the Coalition Forces.

Dude, this isn't the first time I've seen these sorts of illogical posts from seisen; it kind of gets tiring after a while.

I'll try to refrain from my use of the word "idiot" more frequently in future.

Why would I join the army when I don't even believe in my own government. Perhaps they haven't personally killed anybody yet, but they are the one's that give the orders. The coalition forces have killed civilians, just a couple of weeks ago they bombed a school because they thought terrorists were thier. If it's so illogical when why do you reply to my postings or is it to feed your ego by trying to put people down.

Please name a single person who has been personally killed by Stalin or Hitler.
Huh, it was clear that Iraq was no threat at the time. And that is not after-knowledge either. There is plenty of evidence that they knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction, nor any intent of using those. It was not about Iraqi freedom/protection either. In other countries, there were people in more important threats and problems. There was also way to little planning on what to do after the invasion.
The response of these leaders on the situation were, at the least, incompetent.