0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Would you like to donate £250k to the Naked Scientists for more peaceful and probably more beneficial endeavours?
But, what do they gain by launching from built-up areas?
Also, assuming you are not suicidal, would you really take a rocket launcer into the middle of a big emty space to launce missiles at an enemy with much better technology than yours?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/01/2009 19:53:53Also, assuming you are not suicidal, would you really take a rocket launcer into the middle of a big emty space to launce missiles at an enemy with much better technology than yours?So you think that causing the almost certain death of innocent civilians is preferable to suicide. I can't say I agree with that point of view.
The argument that it is the launching of rockets from those built-up areas that causes the death of the people in those areas only holds true if you believe that it is fair and reasonable to kill people who have not hurt you because you can't kill the people who did.
Perhaps the people launching those rockets just erroneously assumed that the Israelis had more humanity than turned out to be the case.
What is is clear beyond dispute though, is that in deciding to fire munitions in to an area mostly occupied by non-combatant civilians it would be inevitable that the majority of people killed by those munitions would be non-combatant civilians. There was nothing accidental about the deaths of the non-combatant civilians in those built-up areas.
I'm not sure that 'ironic' is really an adequate description, but this strategy is almost identical to the one used by the Nazis in WW2, in several places around the world, but notably in France, where quite a few communities of innocent civilians were summarily executed following actions by the French Resistance because the Resistance people themselves could not be caught. It was considered to be a war-crime then, although of course, 'war-crime' may have since been re-defined, just as 'torture' and 'inhumane treatment' appear to have been.
I suspect that Hamas targets civilian areas because a) it is slightly bonkers
b) because, rather rarely in today's world, the Israeli government is doing what it's citizens want. I believe that the most recent Israeli government's actions had over 70% general support across the general Israeli populace; it is the Israeli people who wanted the attacks.
Those who understand the truth (which is WIDELY available to those unegotistic enough to read things other than their own bigoted opinions) please don't waste time debating with morons.
The refusal of Israel to comply with UN resolution 242 and relinquish all of the territories it has occupied, and in some cases illegally settled, gives Hammas, from it's point of view, reasonable justification for it's actions.
According to Resolution 242, there is no Israeli obligation to withdraw prior to the achievement of a comprehensive peace. Nor is there any requirement of Israel to withdraw fully from the territories it captured in 1967
UNSCR 242 calls on all parties to the conflict to negotiate a solutionIt anticipates that Israel will withdraw to secure borders (not specified in the resolution) in exchange for peace guarantees from the Arab parties
I bought Medjool dates from Sainsburys which had place of origin as "Westbank". On subsequent research I discovered these are indeed from the Westbank but produced in illegal Israeli settlements. I wrote to the trading standards office and to Sainburys and had a reply from Sainsburys saying they are looking into it but that they are conforming to EU rules in their description (which is true). I subsequently found they had received complaints about this for several months and have done nothing so far. Tesco also imports these dates.
The information was correct but I would not expect the EU to be supporting these settlements and think that just stating "Westbank" gives a false impression
According to wikipedia... "International bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law".