Alright, my attempt at making a point was ill recieved by our moderator, so here’s a thread involving no irony or humor whatsoever (lest I be accused of “trolling.”)
Here’s what I think: Hamas may have charitable purposes. However, the moral righetousness of any such thing is completely negated by the fact that Hamas is essentially a terrorist group. Donating to it on the grounds of contributing to charity is the same as donating to a charitable wing of the KKK (if one even exists.)
In fact, it’s far worse. The KKK doesn’t send suicide bombers into buses or nightclubs.
Here’s the new thread, irony-free and without any attention-getting device like the one I used before. If anyone has anything to say about this issue, say it here.
And just about everybody else who responded, near as I could tell.
The situation may be a little more nuanced than you choose to believe, but overall, I agree.
Sorry, you expected maybe some disagreement on this?
You said in the other thread that your purpose was to expose the hypocricy of persons on this board who you claimed supported the idea of donating money to a charitable wing of Hamas. Well, how about if you name some names, and link some links, so we can decide for ourselves whether these hypocrites actually exist?
I couldn’t agree more. Indeed the social work Hamas does is actually exceedingly dangerous in the long run, because it generates sympathy and political capital for Hamas, undermining the corrupt, incompetent, violent, but not quite as insane PA.
Like El_Kabong, I can’t imagine you’d get much serious disagreement on this.
I can think of maybe one poster here who MIGHT argue that donating to Hamas was “OK” for charity reasons, but only one. And I’m not even certain that he would.
Vague statements about what “some people claim” do not a good OP make.
If someone strongly advocates donating money to Hamas, probably the best reaction would be to Pit that person and link to the post.
IOW, give us some evidence that you are not just posting a strawman.
Just mark me down as one more liberal, generally-Islam-friendly poster who thinks that donating to Hamas in any way, shape, or form is morally unacceptable.
For that matter, I also think it’s a shame they landed that plane before they threw Cat Stevens off of it.
I don’t know if there’s any who disagree on SDMB, certainly there’re those that disagree in world politics. The EU has at some time donated money to the so called political wing of Hamas. And still, even as the US, Britain and Israel insist, refuse to act against it.
When it works. See how the provisional Iraqi government was all set to release that biological warfare woman after a mere two videotaped beheadings.
Terrorism is a tool toward a political end. Any tool, be it a hammer or a car bomb, is only legitimate when it accomplishes the task for which it is being used. Contrary to what many politicians say, striking fear in the heart of a population is only a means to an end, not the end itself.
Israel itself used to be a covert donator to Hamas, which was a registered charity in Israel (or at least the Muslim Bortherhood which wa sthe charity from which it emerged at the end of 1987).
The original premise of the OP is flawed (with refernce to Cat Stevens that is) as Hamas in 1988 had not carried out any terrorist attacks and was not seen as a terrorist organisation and outlawed by Israel until 1989.
