In a hospital. At the beach. Hamas, Israel tells us, is hiding among civilians (Guardian nails it!)

[SBD-3]

Ok Idiot...you will never Understand as you have never understand a single thing in JF-17s thread...so am not gonna waste my time..bye

Hold your horses and stop low blow posts. Engage reason with reason, not with filth.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Hammas has two big weakness
1- It is weak.
2- It is unforgiving.
Hammas isn't willing to back down for the sake of lives of Palestinians, show some flexibility. There's really no point in excepting anything flexible from Israel because they have the upper hand both militarily as well as politically. They're gonna pounce upon every opportunity to inflict casualties on Gaza. Its not in Israel's interest to back down,calm down things, they never care about it; Its Hammas's.

And in the interim, the ordinary people of Gaza suffer

 

[SBD-3]

And in the interim, the ordinary people of Gaza suffer

unfortunately yes, they are the cannon fodder in the geopolitical struggle for influence.

 

[VCheng]

unfortunately yes, they are the cannon fodder in the geopolitical struggle for influence.

That has always been the case throughout human history. Nothing new here either.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Sure, we can agree to disagree.

If India attacks Pakistan with a much larger Army, does that impose any restriction on Pakistan not to be the first to use nuclear weapons to defend itself? Who gets to decide? Pakistan Army or the world press?

Same analogy.

Good. Let's stick with that analogy. If India attacks Pakistan with a larger army and Pakistan fires two nukes towards India , both of which are intercepted and cause no harm to India would that in your view justify India firing a barrage of nukes at Pakistan which would result in Pakistan being exterminated ?

 

[VCheng]

Good. Let's stick with that analogy. If India attacks Pakistan with a larger army and Pakistan fires two nukes towards India , both of which are intercepted and cause no harm to India would that in your view justify India firing a barrage of nukes at Pakistan which would result in Pakistan being exterminated ?

Actually, I would be willing to bet 100% that India would respond with full force in that case.

 

[SBD-3]

Good. Let's stick with that analogy. If India attacks Pakistan with a larger army and Pakistan fires two nukes towards India , both of which are intercepted and cause no harm to India would that in your view justify India firing a barrage of nukes at Pakistan which would result in Pakistan being exterminated ?

Morality takes a back seat when interests collide.....

 

[Hasbara Buster]

If Palestinians were allowed to have an army they would fight and defeat those scumbags easily.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Actually, I would be willing to bet 100% that India would respond with full force in that case.

Unlikely or hopefully not. If they did, they would be in the same place that Israel is now in. Facing world condemnation

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

The response must be commensurate with the threat itself. If a guy half your size and three quarter your height threw a slap at you, would you pull out your 9mm pistol and pump a few shots into his legs ? That rule applies to international issues as well

argument is simple, When PLA and israel are on the desk talking it out, hamas shouldnt have attacked
They very well know Israel responds like this, still they carried out the attack ?

Talking about talking out a pistol, this is how the strong has been suppressing the weak since generations

 

[VCheng]

Unlikely or hopefully not. If they did, they would be in the same place that Israel is now in. Facing world condemnation

Condemnation is a totally different issue. The fact that Pakistan's nukes were not effective in the scenario you posed above is not enough to prevent India from responding with full force if its military deems that to be the correct and effective response.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Morality takes a back seat when interests collide.....

The world is becoming a global village. As I stated in another thread, apartheid South Africa ditched the moral compass when it went beserk on its Black inhabitants and its Black neighboring states. The world regarded that as being totally immoral and eventually even its firmest backers, the USA and the UK ditched it in favor of world opinion. Lest we forget, morality won the day there even though it was neither in the interests of the UK or the USA to ditch a state which was openly obeyed their biddings

 

[AUz]

My logic is impeccable and fair. Yours is emotional and hypocritical.

Obviously it is proper to try to reduce civilian casualties as much as is possible, but not always achievable, whether in FATA or in Gaza. Same thing.

No its not.

Let me educate yet another "basic" dude who is less qualified than he delude himself to be.

In a colonial-colonized set up, there is no moral or legal equivalent.That is the collective moral consensus of humanity AND the International Law. I must know this, because I study International Relations.

Now coming to Israel-Palestine issue, ONLY one entity (Israel) has completely taken-over the other entity (Palestinians). ONLY one entity (Israel) has colonized the other entity (Palestinians). ONLY one entity(Israel) has enslaved the other entity (Palestinians) and have taken their territories. And ONLY one entity (Israel) has "systematically" (key word) destroyed the property and lives of the other entity (Palestinians). So, again, tell me with a straight face that there are "two sides" to the issue? As I stated previously, in a colonial-colonized set-up, there are no two-sides. The "two-sides" of the issue you are talking about is when two SOVEREIGN entities engage in a conflict (For example Indo-Pak dispute over Kashmir). These aren't opinions or rhetoric, but pure facts that anybody would understand, unless offcourse they see Israelis as "more human" than the Palestinians.

Now, when you bomb a colonized population that has no army, no navy, no air-force, and no military capacity to defend itself..and that is ALREADY under your control...it is against all International Laws and basic humanity of 21st century civilization.

Defending disproportionate bombardment of already-colonized, defenseless populace is despicable, and barbaric. And defending that is not called "impeccable" logic.

Stop embarrassing yourself infront of people who are, most likely, much more accomplished in life and much more qualified to comprehend things than your attention-seeking, insecure, and incomplete personality.

 

[SBD-3]

If Palestinians were allowed to have an army they would fight and defeat those scumbags easily.

How will they get money and resources to raise it? With every new attack, more of whatever is left of economic infrastructure goes to dust.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Condemnation is a totally different issue. The fact that Pakistan's nukes were not effective in the scenario you posed above is not enough to prevent India from responding with full force if its military deems that to be the correct and effective response.

I highly doubt that a civilized nation like India would oblerate Pakistan simply because Pakistan fired two nukes at them which turned out to be harmless and if they had a system which could prevent any harm from Pakistani nukes. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Israel