You’re in ‘Great Debates’ and you haven’t grasped the concept that total votes and won constituencies don’t align?
I hope you’re sitting down for this news … Gore got more votes than Bush.
This whole thread is like a Fox News ME special.
You didn’t specify what the percentage referred to so I naturally assumed you were discussing the previous number and that you had flipped your fraction. In any case, your number seems slightly off and I confess to not knowing the exact percentages off the top of my head (but I would have verified had it been clear that’s what you were talking about).
In any case, do you have any suggestions for us O’Reillys?
George Bush and Barack Obama are individuals. Hamas is a political group. It holds the majority vote according to your post (74/132=56%). Right now it IS Palestine. The difference here is that it’s also a terrorist group.
What constitutes a terrorist group? What is the definition?
people who terrorize.
If they would use their majority in a single Israeli state to advance the same goals as their acts of terrorism, that is a damn good reason not to give them a majority in a single Israeli state. “Majority rules” is not casus belli for genocide.
And “payback” is a deceptive way of putting it. Hamas is the enemy of Israeli and Palestinian alike. They take deliberate action to maximise casualties on both sides. Trying to pretend their victims were asking for it is obscene.
Because you explicitly said “All those within Palestine”. If you only mean the West Bank, you should have said so.
MY sixth grade teacher was a terrorist?
Seriously though, a poor definition using the same word to define itself.
No, it isn’t cause and effect that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They want that no matter what, which is 90% of the problem.
We already covered this. Israel is under no moral obligation to wait until their very existence is threatened before taking action to defend themselves.
The idea that Israel shouldn’t do anything until it’s too late is both silly and morally repugnant. Firing rockets at another country is an act of war, and justifies a war-like response by that country (all other things being equal). If the PA wants to be an independent state, then they will have to deal with all the consequences of being an independent state, including having those you attack defend themselves against you. Even if you are a craven fuckturd who hides his rockets behind the bodies of your own children.
Grunman dealt with this.
If Israel unjustly attacks another country, then yes, the other country is entitled to do what it likes with whatever territory it conquers.
I think you mean that you haven’t read it. That, I can’t help.
Regards,
Shodan
You have put your finger on the problem, and it tends to be a very basic one in this situation - namely, Israel has tried the sensible move, and it did not work.
What now?
My impression is that Israel will simply step up the counter-battery fire, to put more pressure on Hamas. There are reports that Hamas is sending out mixed messages - the military and political “wings” are sending different signals. The hope is more pressure will, eventually, compel a cease-fire.
The concern is: what if it doesn’t? What then? There is little appetite in mainstream Israeli circles for a ground invasion, that will inevitably result in serious casualties among Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers. Also, it has been tried before.
The difference is name calling. This is how you ‘Great Debates’?
Fwiw, you could very easily be a terrorist; it’s well known terrorits try to distract by pointing at other. Maybe you are.
Using the base of a word from which it comes is the hallmark of a proper definition.
Okay, I’ll bite.
In ordinary combat, a combatant attempts to achieve its military goals while minimizing, insofar as is possible while achieving those goals, casualties to civilians. In short, the intent is to achieve some tangible military success, and civilian casualties are an unfortunate by-product of achieving that success.
A terrorist is someone who is essentially uncaring of achieving any military success. Their goal is to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible, in order to break the morale of the civilian population. In fact, a terrorist usually avoid the ordinary military. This is an inversion of “ordinary” combat.
My friend, you are using the word whose definition is sought in the definition itself, thereby abdicating the responsibility of providing meaning or justification. It’s called “circular definition” by grammarians… and others.
Sorry, I was hoping to enter into an intelligent discussion.
You might re-think your definition. Was the allied bombing of Dresden, the carpet bombing in Vietnam examples of terrorism?
Fine, I’ll bite.
A terrorist is an individual or sub-state actor that engages in the deliberate and intentional infliction of physical and/or mental harm on civilian populations to affect a change in political policy.
Unabomber, blew random people up to make a political point - terrorist
Timmy, 18 year old men’s right jackass kills girl friend - not a terrorist
Hamas - sub state actor inflicts harm that specifically targets civilians - terrorist
Iran - nation state that sponsors sub state actors, not a terrorist
Allies - alliance of nation states engaged in total war - not a terrorist
And the IDF?
Is this an intentionally stupid question?
There’s a lot to differ with here, but I think the important point is that although Gaza is not a country recognised by the U.N., it does have a legitimate government elected by democratic vote.
I do agree though that no matter what they may say, Hamas’ use of missiles is totally civilian casualty oriented. What else can firing missiles on cities be called?
However, on the one hand, this has been done by many so called “official” countries in the past, without being labelled as anything other than conducting war.
And on the other hand, Hamas does not have any other viable threat as a weapon.
No, it’s an unintentionallly stupid question.
I’m surprised, given your comprehensive labelling, that you omitted that “sub-state actor”.
So what is Abbas’ role in all this? Is he just an interested observer?
The Palestinians don’t all seem to be on the same page Fatah–Hamas conflict - Wikipedia
And hamas doesn’t seem to be continuing the Democratic tradition of free and fair elections. IIRC, the election victories of Hamas were portrayed by the media as a rebuke of the corruption of Fatah more than it was an adoption of the principles of Hamas.
Gaza never got a chance to vote them back out. I don’t know if they would or not but if they would then why would Hamas suspend elections?
Despite Abbas saying the opposite on several occassions. Is he just saying that he wants a two state solution, and I suppose he is also open to a one state solution; and he is certainly open to not driving Israel into the sea.
Once again, who is doing the attacking? And what state?
There are autnomous zones in the wb and noone is firing rockets out of those places.
Cite that this is the case in the west bank.
And what if anything is israel doing to change that mindset (besides aggravate it by building settlements)? I think I have already described why that mindset mihgt have developed. It wasn’t there before zionism and while you may not like it, the reaction is understandable if not entirely rational.
Cite. IIRC it was more about Fatah corruption that Hamas fanaticism. in fact IIRC Hamas toned down their rhetoric for the election.
once again its just wikipedia but:
They omitted their usual “death to israel” warcry and a lot of people seemed to think this was a repudiation of Fatah corruption rather than an embrace of Hamas principles.
I think you are wrong. I don’t see how you can say that when Fatah has led Palestinians for decades while Hamas won ONE election.