FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Because the soldiers are cowards to face Hamas militants.
An army killing and injuring thousands of civilians for one month and still afraid to invade Gaza.
Thats it, cowardice.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Palestinians under attack
- Thread starter Matemkar
- Start date
Because the soldiers are cowards to face Hamas militants.
An army killing and injuring thousands of civilians for one month and still afraid to invade Gaza.
Thats it, cowardice.
Are you having trouble fabricating an answer?
sorry to all ,for down to this level of speech .
for sure, some of them will be their last place to visit, or the last day for their guests
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
Why are you getting so impatient dude ? As if my response to your question is going to stop the terrorist Israeli forces from killing some innocent Palestinian civilians and save some lives
Some people have work, family and social life you know ....
Answer to your question is in the following video ... watch the whole thing and it will give you many reasons not just one - starting all the way from when Israel was created. And it is not by a Hamas member or any Palestinian. It is by an Israeli Jew who served in IDF and who's father was an Israeli general. Or may be you'll blame this Jew of being anti-semitic sell out as well.
[youtube]etXAm-OylQQ[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ&list=WL&index=101
Anyone who has an iota of interest/sympathy regarding the issue of Palestine/Israel should absolutely watch this eye-opening video where he clears so many myths that are propagated as facts by the Zionists.
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
They are trying to invade Gaza and many of them were died and some others are in the hospitals.
They can't enter Gaza because they are cowards but the Palestinians had entered Israel and killed many of those cowards who are good only in killing children and women.
I think Israel according to the recent situation in the ME won't exist after 5 years of now.
Last edited:
Summarize it for us.
Godobeyer, FearGod, loverOfTruth, et. al.,
It's clear on this thread that some folks lean towards support of Israel and some people lean towards criticism of Israel. While I lean towards Israel at this moment in time, I'm doing my best to understand the folks who are criticizing Israel. My experience in this forum, and on the internet in in the media in general, is that the degree of "spin" that both sides use is really extreme. In other words, on this issue of Israel and Palestine, it's extra, extra difficult to find objective reporting. (Of course there is probably no such thing as absolute, 100%, true objectivity, but we can attempt to achieve it.)
On this thread (and similar threads) I mostly see variations on name calling - back and forth. I'd really like to understand your perspective! One issue might be differences in cultures and differences in core values. For example, I have been told by many Muslims that martyrdom in the name of Islam is a core value for many Muslims. This value, whether it's religious or cultural, or some combination of the two is extremely different than my core values. (And I suspect that valuing martyrdom in the name of religion is probably counter to most of the folks defending Israel.)
To further describe this, I personally place a high value on on:
- evidence
- logic
- understanding
I place a low value on:
- religious beliefs
- cultural beliefs
It could be that if you're criticizing Israel you place a higher value on religion (and more specifically Islam), than I do. If that's the case, and if you tell me that that's the case, then we have a better chance of understanding each other.
For example, if you say that "Israeli's are acting in cowardly ways", it's important to understand the context you're coming from when you say that. if you think Israel has a right to exist, you probably disagree with the claim of cowardice. If you do NOT think Israel has a right to exist, you might conclude that they are acting like cowards. (This is just an example.)
To try to summarize: I've offered some of my core values. What values are you using to support your criticisms of Israel?
It's clear on this thread that some folks lean towards support of Israel and some people lean towards criticism of Israel. While I lean towards Israel at this moment in time, I'm doing my best to understand the folks who are criticizing Israel. My experience in this forum, and on the internet in in the media in general, is that the degree of "spin" that both sides use is really extreme. In other words, on this issue of Israel and Palestine, it's extra, extra difficult to find objective reporting. (Of course there is probably no such thing as absolute, 100%, true objectivity, but we can attempt to achieve it.)
On this thread (and similar threads) I mostly see variations on name calling - back and forth. I'd really like to understand your perspective! One issue might be differences in cultures and differences in core values. For example, I have been told by many Muslims that martyrdom in the name of Islam is a core value for many Muslims. This value, whether it's religious or cultural, or some combination of the two is extremely different than my core values. (And I suspect that valuing martyrdom in the name of religion is probably counter to most of the folks defending Israel.)
To further describe this, I personally place a high value on on:
- evidence
- logic
- understanding
I place a low value on:
- religious beliefs
- cultural beliefs
It could be that if you're criticizing Israel you place a higher value on religion (and more specifically Islam), than I do. If that's the case, and if you tell me that that's the case, then we have a better chance of understanding each other.
For example, if you say that "Israeli's are acting in cowardly ways", it's important to understand the context you're coming from when you say that. if you think Israel has a right to exist, you probably disagree with the claim of cowardice. If you do NOT think Israel has a right to exist, you might conclude that they are acting like cowards. (This is just an example.)
To try to summarize: I've offered some of my core values. What values are you using to support your criticisms of Israel?
ametist
Active Member
there is this thread somewhere here saying "dont believe in every picture in social media without the context" read my posts and read the explanation of the article in the link of OP saying " the boy wore the bomb jacket because he was unpopular at school and wanted to go to heaven for 72 virgins" (hinting that all problem is the stupid religion boy has )where in my post there is use of religion, when in their explanation there is both decline of actual situation and false info on religion.
My value is that an upper hand with nuclear power and under iron dome cant say "i am scared and i have to still defend myself more" and then go out to attack civilians. there is no good intention there.
Last edited:
Matemkar
Active Member
Zionist regime kills 150 Palestinians:
Israel has killed more than 150 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the past 24 hours after Tel Aviv falsely claimed that the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, had captured one Israeli soldier.
Israel bombarded the southern Gaza town of Rafah on Saturday after it was reported that an Israeli soldier had been captured by Palestinian resistance fighters.
Hamas has denied capturing an Israeli soldier, saying the missing trooper might have been killed in Israeli bombardment on Friday after Tel Aviv violated an internationally brokered three-day ceasefire.
Hamas military wing Qassam Brigades has said in a statement that it is not aware of the missing soldier's whereabouts or the circumstances surrounding his disappearance.
At least 35 Palestinians were killed in Israeli bombardment and shelling in and around Rafah early Saturday, said Palestinian health official Ashraf al-Kidra, adding the city’s main hospital was evacuated because of the strikes.
Elsewhere in Gaza, Palestinian officials reported more than 150 airstrikes, including one against the Islamic University in Gaza City.
Friday’s escalation came after Israel abruptly ended a 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire with Hamas only a few hours after it began.
According to Tel Aviv, the Israeli death toll currently stands at 66, including 63 soldiers and three civilians. However, Hamas puts the figure at about 150 which is the heaviest loss of life for the Israeli military in years.
The Palestinian death toll from Israel’s 26 days of onslaught on Gaza has now reached nearly 1,650, with 9,000 people injured. Most of the casualties have been civilians, including a large number of women and children.
PressTV - Israel kills 150 Palestinians over missing officer
Hi ametist,
The most reliable, logical reports I've heard are that the "iron dome" is mostly not effective. (From the perspectives of ballistics and physics and technology, my quasi-well informed intuition is that this is probably the case. In other words, from a technology perspective, I doubt that the iron dome is successful most of the time. I'd guess that it's successful a small percentage of the time.)
On the other hand, it seems far more plausible and logical that Israels public alert system is the reason that so few Israelis are killed or injured by Hamas's rockets.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, that seems like a distraction. There has been no mention of Israel using nuclear weapons against the Gaza strip, and it would make no sense for them to do so. (Even if they were the height of evil, they wouldn't want to expose themselves to the radiation fallout.)
Let me ask you this... why isn't Hamas attacking Egypt or Jordan with rockets so that they can establish a homeland there? From a logical perspective, Israel is the toughest enemy you could chose to fight in the region, correct?
ametist
Active Member
iron dome ineffective? fine and dandy.
i said when you are the upper hand with military strength way over than the other party, you cant be the attacking party to the civilians with an explanation to "defend yourself". Mentioning of nuclear capability is given to show how secure they are in militaristic sense.
it isnt my business to sort out why hamas is not attacking other countries. it is your claim that hamas is attacking. it was israel's responsibility to see the motives before starting to kill civillians. afterall, it should be easy to understand for them after 20 years of peaceful negotiations during the time of arafat and not having any situation change in palestine.
i said when you are the upper hand with military strength way over than the other party, you cant be the attacking party to the civilians with an explanation to "defend yourself". Mentioning of nuclear capability is given to show how secure they are in militaristic sense.
it isnt my business to sort out why hamas is not attacking other countries. it is your claim that hamas is attacking. it was israel's responsibility to see the motives before starting to kill civillians. afterall, it should be easy to understand for them after 20 years of peaceful negotiations during the time of arafat and not having any situation change in palestine.
Hi ametist,
My sense is that when you said "it is your claim that hamas is attacking", you got to the heart of the matter. Cool.
This is what I'm interesting in discovering. The question I'm asking is whether Israel is "attacking" or "counter-attacking". As far as I can tell, no one is disputing the fact that for the last several weeks, Israel has been using superior force in this conflict. If you take the stance that it's fair to assess the situation by looking at the last three weeks in isolation from the rest of history, then it's fair to conclude that Israel is using "excessive force".
I don't think that isolating the last three weeks is an honest way to assess the situation.
What seems tricky to me is to determine just how much history is worth including. If we look only at 2014, we can say that for the first 6 months of the year Hamas launched thousands and thousands of rockets against Israel before Israel started their current offensive. But maybe that's not fair, maybe we should go back further? How far? 2008? 2006? the 90s? the 60s? the 40s? WW I?
Everyone debating on this thread is debating from their worldview. I'd like to understand the worldviews of the people criticizing Israel. Again, what values are you using? How much history are you using?
My sense is that when you said "it is your claim that hamas is attacking", you got to the heart of the matter. Cool.
This is what I'm interesting in discovering. The question I'm asking is whether Israel is "attacking" or "counter-attacking". As far as I can tell, no one is disputing the fact that for the last several weeks, Israel has been using superior force in this conflict. If you take the stance that it's fair to assess the situation by looking at the last three weeks in isolation from the rest of history, then it's fair to conclude that Israel is using "excessive force".
I don't think that isolating the last three weeks is an honest way to assess the situation.
What seems tricky to me is to determine just how much history is worth including. If we look only at 2014, we can say that for the first 6 months of the year Hamas launched thousands and thousands of rockets against Israel before Israel started their current offensive. But maybe that's not fair, maybe we should go back further? How far? 2008? 2006? the 90s? the 60s? the 40s? WW I?
Everyone debating on this thread is debating from their worldview. I'd like to understand the worldviews of the people criticizing Israel. Again, what values are you using? How much history are you using?
ametist
Active Member
just tell me why israel is walking away from the meetings when palestine is taken as an observatory member in UN?
you have a right to self determination and they dont? you have right to exist they dont? that incident happened way before 3 weeks. actually i gave the answer to you in my previous post. you are an intelligent person. i am sure if you reread you will see.
you have a right to self determination and they dont? you have right to exist they dont? that incident happened way before 3 weeks. actually i gave the answer to you in my previous post. you are an intelligent person. i am sure if you reread you will see.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
How would you resolve this conflict and achieve (at least) several years of peace?
Hi ametist,
First off, I'm not 100% sure my view of this situation is the correct one. Your question is a fantastic example of what I'm talking about... From your perspective, there are moments of history that are worth including into the discussion - such as your UN question. I'm wondering how you go about deciding which moments of history are valid to include and which aren't.
And to reiterate, I agree that I'm going through a similar thought process! I'm looking at all sorts of history about this conflict and I'm using my worldview to decide which bits of history are more important than others.
It seems to me that if one our goals is to understand each other better, then it's useful to understand how we go about forming our opinions...
ametist
Active Member
lets say you have %73 recognition from other states and there is this group of people living next to you who just recently owned the lands you live on. you came from 4.000 years ago with a right to exist in your own land, set up your state,wanted your recognition,your right to exist, your right to be treated respectfully, couldnt find a way to gather the current dwellers under your authority, went on with occupying their settlements, didnt give them the international respect and recognition, and you couldnt even bear with it when they were getting some recognition in international arena as an observatory member in a UN meeting and eventually turned their place into an open prison where today they cant even leave just to get medical treatment.
whose values i am using to address this issue?
why people shouldnt want what you want?
whose values i am using to address this issue?
why people shouldnt want what you want?
okay, so you're using a LOT of history, fair enough. Given that history, why shouldn't Jordan and Egypt also contribute some land so that the Palestinians can have a homeland? The "Palestinians" (air quotes intended, because if you go back in history it's not easy to find references to such a self-identified tribe), I assume you are talking about historically spent more time in Jordan than in Israel, and they spent some time in Egypt as well.
So why must the smallest state, Israel, be the only state to contribute to creating a Palestinian homeland?