What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not sure what else Israel could have done as a first reaction. I've not seen any ideas as to what they might have done instead - that would actually do any good.

Again, "they didn't have any choice but to commit war crimes" is not an argument I'm going to countenance any more than "What was Hamas supposed to do but kill babies?" is an argument I'm willing to give any credit to.

Hamas destroyed the rules by what they did, and hiding amongst the populace is just so cynical and cowardly that they should take all the blame for whatever happens. Perhaps the Palestinians need to recognise this.

So, again, the argument reverts to: "It's wrong to target civilians, except when one side does it, because the other side need to learn." You cannot respond to terrorism with more terrorism. Punishing innocent people for the crimes of others is evil, no matter what it is in response to. If we drop that principle then we have no basis on which to even call what Hamas did wrong.

How is that not a pro-terrorist, pro-war crime position? How does that not explicitly justify Hamas?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Stop protesting. I could infer your implicit support if I was to be unfair. I do not. If I did, I would not respond to you. Period.

You literally accused me, multiple times, of being an apologist for Hamas and for justifying their crimes.

You've gone beyond the point of "inferring implicit support". You're explicitly accusing me of supporting them, which is a lie.

 

[Little Dragon]

You literally accused me, multiple times, of being an apologist for Hamas and for justifying their crimes.

Not nice is it? Being accused of things you're not...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not nice is it? Being accused of things you're not...

Cool, so you admit you either lied or are mistaken?

 

[Little Dragon]

You literally accused me, multiple times, of being an apologist for Hamas and for justifying their crimes.

When? I don't think so. My memory is pretty good.

 

[Little Dragon]

Cool, so you admit you either lied or are mistaken?

Who knows what you are, it would only be a lie, if I had access to the truth.
For all I know, you're just a regular dude.
Just don't care now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When? I don't think so. My memory is pretty good.

You're just going to pretend you didn't, then? You literally did it a few posts ago (emphasis mine):

What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

I can't see them not retaliating with force, just as so many other countries would have done. I'm not arguing against them retaliating with force. I've explicitly stated that reasonable force against Hamas is justified. What I am arguing against in their committing war crimes against the...

www.religiousforums.com

"No excuse, that is not justification for such atrocities, even if they and you think it is."

 

[Mock Turtle]

Again, "they didn't have any choice but to commit war crimes" is not an argument I'm going to countenance any more than "What was Hamas supposed to do but kill babies?" is an argument I'm willing to give any credit to.


So, again, the argument reverts to: "It's wrong to target civilians, except when one side does it, because the other side need to learn." You cannot respond to terrorism with more terrorism. Punishing innocent people for the crimes of others is evil, no matter what it is in response to. If we drop that principle then we have no basis on which to even call what Hamas did wrong.

How is that not a pro-terrorist, pro-war crime position? How does that not explicitly justify Hamas?

Well no doubt you will have it in for all those who defeated the Germans and Japan in WWII, given that a lot of civilians were killed in this conflict. But was there any other way at that time? Carpet bombing of cities or the use of nuclear weapons, for example.

 

[icehorse]

So, we can't acknowledge any human rights violations in isolation unless we address literally all human rights violations?

not sure how you went from my suggestion of "regional" to "all" ???

 

[Little Dragon]

You're just going to pretend you didn't, then? You literally did it a few posts ago (emphasis mine):

What are Hamas' leaders thinking?

I can't see them not retaliating with force, just as so many other countries would have done. I'm not arguing against them retaliating with force. I've explicitly stated that reasonable force against Hamas is justified. What I am arguing against in their committing war crimes against the...

www.religiousforums.com

"No excuse, that is not justification for such atrocities, even if they and you think it is."

That's not multiple times chap. That was just now.

 

[Little Dragon]

Well no doubt you will have it in for all those who defeated the Germans and Japan in WWII, given that a lot of civilians were killed in this conflict

The ********. When they could just have used persuasive arguments and offered Chamomile tea to everyone?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who knows what you are, it would only be a lie, if had access to the truth.
For all I know, you're just a regular dude.
Just don't care now.

Well, I am a regular dude. That needn't necessarily preclude me from having such positions, but I can't do much better than simply making my arguments and communicating that I am not.

I can see that this is deeply emotional for you, and that's to be expected. It's not as if what Hamas did is easy to deal with or process - it's monstrous. They deserve, as an organisation, to be wiped out, and I believe peace between Israel and Palestine would be greatly benefited by that. And, for what it's worth, I get the impression from you that you DO try your best to care about innocent civilians caught up in this. Nobody likes to hear that their attitude or beliefs contribute to innocent people suffering and dying. But I genuinely feel that the analysis you have been giving in this thread genuinely justifies war crimes and violence against civilians.

I don't think you would push the button to turn Palestine into glass. I don't believe you'd behead a Palestinian child if you felt Israel was threatened. But I do believe your arguments, taken as you have given them in this thread, can be used to justify atrocities. This is a sincere belief that I hold, and if you feel misrepresented by that I apologise I implore you to keep communicating (as hard as that may be) so that I may understand the nuance of your position better. I assure you there is no wilful dishonesty on my part, no desire to hold a moral high ground. I would much rather we all came together and called the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents abhorrent rather than engage in trying to excuse unimaginable inhumanity because we simply fail to countenance (as difficult as it may be) that inhumanity need not be met with inhumanity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well no doubt you will have it in for all those who defeated the Germans and Japan in WWII, given that a lot of civilians were killed in this conflict. But was there any other way at that time? Carpet bombing of cities or the use of nuclear weapons, for example.

There's a difference between collateral damage as a consequence of war and committing actual war crimes. Again, conflating civilians dying as a consequence of military action against enemy combatants with explicitly targeting an entire city of millions of people with starvation, lack of medicine and power is just an exercise in flagrant dishonesty.

I have been talking explicitly about WAR CRIMES.

Those two words: War. Crimes.

Together, they make this new phrase: "war crimes".

That's the thing I'm talking about.

 

[Little Dragon]

Well, I am a regular dude. That needn't necessarily preclude me from having such positions, but I can't do much better than simply making my arguments and communicating that I am not.

I can see that this is deeply emotional for you, and that's to be expected. It's not as if what Hamas did is easy to deal with or process - it's monstrous. They deserve, as an organisation, to be wiped out, and I believe peace between Israel and Palestine would be greatly benefited by that. And, for what it's worth, I get the impression from you that you DO try your best to care about innocent civilians caught up in this. Nobody likes to hear that their attitude or beliefs contribute to innocent people suffering and dying. But I genuinely feel that the analysis you have been giving in this thread genuinely justifies war crimes and violence against civilians.

I don't think you would push the button to turn Palestine into glass. I don't believe you'd behead a Palestinian child if you felt Israel was threatened. But I do believe your arguments, taken as you have given them in this thread, can be used to justify atrocities. This is a sincere belief that I hold, and if you feel misrepresented by that I apologise I implore you to keep communicating (as hard as that may be) so that I may understand the nuance of your position better. I assure you there is no wilful dishonesty on my part, no desire to hold a moral high ground. I would much rather we all came together and called the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents abhorrent rather than engage in trying to excuse unimaginable inhumanity because we simply fail to countenance (as difficult as it may be) that inhumanity need not be met with inhumanity.

Alright. No worries. It's awful. The whole situation, fubar.

In my head: "Why Hamas? Why go this far? What have you done?"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Alright. No worries. It's awful. The whole situation, fubar.

In my head: "Why Hamas? Why go this far? What have you done?"

You'll turn yourself insane trying to process those questions. I prefer to just give up trying to rationalise them the moment I remember "Extremist, religious Jihadists". It's a mindset so opposed to mine on every level that I'm not sure I have the brain power necessary to even process anything from their point of view. I try to make a little bit of sense of it by believing that their intention very much WAS an escalation of tension and the continued animosity between Israel and Palestine, but that is perhaps giving myself a little too much credit.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There's a difference between collateral damage as a consequence of war and committing actual war crimes. Again, conflating civilians dying as a consequence of military action against enemy combatants with explicitly targeting an entire city of millions of people with starvation, lack of medicine and power is just an exercise in flagrant dishonesty.

I have been talking explicitly about WAR CRIMES.

Those two words: War. Crimes.

Together, they make this new phrase: "war crimes".

That's the thing I'm talking about.

Yes, but you seem to be giving an advantage to one side. One side must operate by the rules but not the other. Why is that?

 

[Little Dragon]

I try to make a little bit of sense of it by believing that their intention very much WAS an escalation of tension and the continued animosity between Israel and Palestine, but that is perhaps giving myself a little too much credit.

Mission accomplished. I suspect Putin was behind this. Colour me paranoid.

 

[syo]

I'm trying to imagine the discussions that occurred in Hamas HQ as they were planning this attack...

It's a set-up.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, but you seem to be giving an advantage to one side. One side must operate by the rules but not the other. Why is that?

What kind of sense would that make? By that logic, you can literally justify ANY ACTION as a response to terrorism. You would have no qualms whatsoever with America, say, nuking the entire middle east in response to 9/11. Or Israel enacting genocide on the entirety of the Palestine. Or, at the end of world war 2, the allied powers re-opening the death camps and shoving German civilians into them.

Remember, Israel was already breaking rules. They've been illegally occupying Palestinian territory and committing war crimes in Gaza for years. So, your logic justifies Hamas as much as it justifies Israel.

Do you or do you not agree that it is wrong to commit war crimes, even as a response to terrorism or war crimes? Yes or no?

 

[mohammad568]

I'm trying to imagine the discussions that occurred in Hamas HQ as they were planning this attack...

What goals did they have in mind?

Here's one of my theories, but I'd like to hear other theories, so maybe post your theory before hitting the spoiler button?

Spoiler: Hamas' goals

I think maybe Islamic martyrdom might have been one of the motivators?

I'm trying to imagine the discussions that occurred in Hamas HQ as they were planning this attack...

What goals did they have in mind?

Here's one of my theories, but I'd like to hear other theories, so maybe post your theory before hitting the spoiler button?

Spoiler: Hamas' goals

I think maybe Islamic martyrdom might have been one of the motivators?

As an Iranian who has spent most of my time inside Iran, I can answer your question very well. Hamas's ideological Leader is Ismail Haniyeh, who is now living in Doha Qatar in a safe and secure area with his family and his other Hamas leaders. They are outside Gaza far away from war; he has no theory for himself and he is just a toy for Ali Khamenei the leader of the mullahs of the Islamic State inside Iran to play. The majority of the Iranians and Gaza's people are opposed to Islam and terrorist activities but they are detained by these radical Islamic forces(Please google Women-Life-Freedom 2022's protests inside Iran). Gaza's Hamas, Lebnon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Al-Hawsi, Iraq's Hashdo al-Shabi, Afqanistan's Fatemion, and other terrorist groups all are rolling by the Islamic Mullas inside Iran. These terrorist groups have no idea for themselves and all they know is to obey the mullahs of Iran. If you want to know what is the reality of Hamas, pursue the clue inside the thoughts of the Islamic regime of Iran.
The mullahs of Iran all obey either British or Russian benefits. The previous leader of the Islamic State was Rohollah Khomeini who was a British spy. But Ali Khamenei (The present leader) is a soviet spy (Read the book "Comrade Ayatollah"). Anything that he is doing is based on the Russian benefits. Ali Khamenei's mission is to put the west block outside the Middle East and create war inside the Middle Eastern countries to purchase Russian weapons. The ideology of the Islamic state inside mullahs is obvious; ordering Hamas to attack Israel, causing big chaos inside the Middle East, following the Russian political views, and in conclusion, purchasing Russian weapons and preserving Russia in a safe zone.
There is no country called Palestine inside Israel(Read about 1947). All these illusions and fake news about history have created to ignite war inside the Middle East. What is the difference between Jordan and Palestine? Jordan is a country in the vicinity of Israel. Why does Jordan treat peacefully with other Middle Eastern countries including Israel, but Palestine cannot?