Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

You could mock up an image with a quote by a Hamas spokesman saying "we must ensure many Palestinian civilians are bombed by Israel" and it would be what is happening but not what a Hamas spokesperson actually said.

I don't really give a shit what they say tbh. I care about what they do.

They've already confessed to multiple actions which are unambiguously war crimes. Demanding that a population flee their homes under threat of extermination is not an action you can misinterpret.
 
You could mock up an image with a quote by a Hamas spokesman saying "we must ensure many Palestinian civilians are bombed by Israel" and it would be what is happening but not what a Hamas spokesperson actually said.
Lots of UK papers say that he did say that. Haaretz says "On Tuesday morning, the IDF reported having dropped hundreds of tons of bombs in attacks on the Strip and said that "the emphasis is on damage, not precision."


So what exactly are you saying?
 
If opinion polls show a majority of Israelis are against any further military action in Gaza I’d expect I’d be happy to concur. I don’t like everything the IDF are doing but I’m sure no one needs my uninformed opinions on which particular air strikes were immorally targeted and which weren’t.
That comes down at least in part on how you define "immorally targeted". Personally I consider any action that kills entirely innocent people is immoral. Whether you are Hamas or the IDF. If the morality doesn't apply to everybody it isn't morality, it is hypocrisy.
 
Lots of UK papers say that he did say that. Haaretz says "On Tuesday morning, the IDF reported having dropped hundreds of tons of bombs in attacks on the Strip and said that "the emphasis is on damage, not precision."


So what exactly are you saying?

Why change the word to destruction then? Perhaps damage wasn't shocking enough for their wannabe meme.
 
Douglas Murray, who was cited in Anders Breivik's manifesto, wades in with this textbook example of psychological projection.


Corbyn is only leader of major party in this country whose been subject to character assassination. It wasn't just that some disagreed with him it was that he and those who support Palestinian rights in this country had to be eliminated from body politic.

Which almost succeeded. Now the people doing this are being shown what they are. Apologists for mass bombing of civilians.

It's like the previous post on member of momentum when saying they wanted a ceasefire being asked if they are Corbynite.

Looking at right press today across Europe and, like the Evening Standard, the big demos in support of Palestinians are being portrayed as example of what happens when you let large numbers of Muslims into Europe. That support for Palestinian rights is to blame for rise in anti semitism.
 
That comes down at least in part on how you define "immorally targeted". Personally I consider any action that kills entirely innocent people is immoral.

I wouldn't. Most wars contain actions in which entirely innocent people are killed but not all of those wars are immoral.
 
Lots of UK papers say that he did say that. Haaretz says "On Tuesday morning, the IDF reported having dropped hundreds of tons of bombs in attacks on the Strip and said that "the emphasis is on damage, not precision."


So what exactly are you saying?
Lots of UK papers make up a lot of nonsense and print it. Generally it is only true if they say somebody said something that contradicts the newspaper's political position and which makes sense, or if they use a precise verbatim quote by a specified individual that can be corroborated independently. Otherwise they know that by and large the PCC will do nothing and that they can afford any legal bills that will result from it. If an article claims "a spokesman said", quote "sources close to", or some such anonymising guff, then the quote was made up by a journalist. If they paraphrase a specified individual then they are like as not misrepresenting what they actually said in order to make it more controversial and create a "newsworthy story" where there is none. This has been standard practise by most UK newspapers for decades, and over the last 15 years or so ALL national UK newspapers.
 
I wouldn't. Most wars contain actions in which entirely innocent people are killed but not all of those wars are immoral.
In my view that means all wars have included actions that were immoral even when the war itself was entirely justified. There is a case that can be made by both the IDF AND Hamas that they are fighting a war that is morally justifiable. Both have taken actions that are not morally acceptable at all. It's really simple if you don't feel you need to turn every conflict into an over-simplified "good guys" versus "bad guys".
 
In my view that means all wars have included actions that were immoral even when the war itself was entirely justified. There is a case that can be made by both the IDF AND Hamas that they are fighting a war that is morally justifiable. Both have taken actions that are not morally acceptable at all. It's really simple if you don't feel you need to turn every conflict into an over-simplified "good guys" versus "bad guys".

Sure, all I've said is that based on the information available to me in my armchair is that it's easy for me to identify the specific actions of Hamas that are not morally acceptable, but less easy for me to identify the specific actions of the IDF that are not morally acceptable.🤷
 
Sure, all I've said is that based on the information available to me in my armchair is that it's easy for me to identify the specific actions of Hamas that are not morally acceptable, but less easy for me to identify the specific actions of the IDF that are not morally acceptable.🤷

The IDF claims they are targeting Hamas locations, yet over 50% of residential units, that's over half for the hard of understanding, have been destroyed or at least badly damaged, do you seriously think Hamas has been operating from over 50% of residential units?
 
Sure, all I've said is that based on the information available to me in my armchair is that it's easy for me to identify the specific actions of Hamas that are not morally acceptable, but less easy for me to identify the specific actions of the IDF that are not morally acceptable.🤷
yes - cos dead isralies is always a horrible artrocity. Wheras dead palastinians the reaction is "it depends" (with all points covered from "hamas to blame" right up to "regretable mistake" ) .
 
Last edited:
Top half of Gaza strip is gone... Only once it's all rubble and bones look out for a *humanitarian pause."

Speculation is pretty pointless but still, I can well imagine Israel won't allow it to be rebuilt either, will become some kind of militarily protected buffer zone ... The ultimate project is pushing Palestinians out of Israel, can't see this regime allowing their work to be undone. Dream come true for Netanyahu, all worked out a treat, played the long game and won
 
Last edited:
The IDF claims they are targeting Hamas locations, yet over 50% of residential units, that's over half for the hard of understanding, have been destroyed or at least badly damaged, do you seriously think Hamas has been operating from over 50% of residential units?

The last I read from the UN via Al-Jazeera it was 45% damaged 4% destroyed. I don't know the details of how many Hamas operatives and facilities there are, although i presume many facilities are below ground level and thus hard to target without damaging surrounding buildings.
 
Last edited:
yes - cos dead isralies is always a horrible artrocity. Wheras dead palastinians is "it depends" (with all points covered from "hamas to blame" right up to "regretable mistake" ) .

No it's because the dead Israeli civilians were tortured and murdered while being video-recorded by their torturers and murderers, so it's easy to say they didn't accidentally and regrettably get in the way of supposed legitimate military targets.
 
The IDF claims they are targeting Hamas locations, yet over 50% of residential units, that's over half for the hard of understanding, have been destroyed or at least badly damaged, do you seriously think Hamas has been operating from over 50% of residential units?

I know that is what they love to claim, but as you say in this war there is very little evidence to suggest that is what they are doing.

The targets are quite clearly those parts of the state that allow civilian life to continue in Gaza - schools, shops, bakeries, housing, universities, hospitals, religious buildings and of course the people who staff, occupy or use those things. Even the siege - which is still advertised as preventing Hamas from getting much needed supplies - now seems exclusively targeted at the population because Hamas has considerable stockpiles. Where they do hit "military" targets, they are those where the hostages are most likely to be, rather than for example the units setting off rockets.
 
No it's because the dead Israeli civilians were tortured and murdered while being video-recorded by their torturers and murderers, so it's easy to say they didn't accidentally and regrettably get in the way of supposed legitimate military targets.
yeah. they get in the way by living in gaza when its getting bombed to fuck. only got themselves to blame really. cunt
 
Back
Top Bottom