Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[LuisDantas]

The Blame of Hamas that they did not prepare for this war very well , that's what gave Israeli army the chance to ecrase their civilians , intentionally massacres or not intentionnaly massacres .

I suppose no preparation that causes civilian deaths can be considered very good.

 

[Mycroft]

It's interesting that you perceive yourself as not being hateful.

Quite the irony there, Jay.

 

[Alceste]

It's interesting that you perceive yourself as not being hateful.

I am not overly fond of people who drop bombs on children, or encourage or accept the practice. This is true. And also reasonable, IMO.

 

[Godobeyer]

I suppose no preparation that causes civilian deaths can be considered very good.

Preperation for defence not for attack , IF hamas have just anti-aircraft missiles , their causulties maybe could be less than this , because Israeli army would be careful to attack Gaza by bombs from aircrafts .

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not about to support Hamas' supposed right to "defend" itself by firing missiles towards Israel.

 

[Alceste]

I am not about to support Hamas' supposed right to "defend" itself by firing missiles towards Israel.

Nor me.

 

[Godobeyer]

I am not about to support Hamas' supposed right to "defend" itself by firing missiles towards Israel.

me too

 

[beenie]

I am not about to support Hamas' supposed right to "defend" itself by firing missiles towards Israel.

Nor me.

me too

Me three.

Can we all sit together and end this crap then?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not believe that Hamas is firing missiles in order to defend itself but, rather, in order to provoke. It serves in much the same way as does promoting the Protocols of Zion.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes, but this a completely acceptable tactic when you're dealing with the absolute evil of the horned devil-Jews of Israel. The peace-loving and noble Hamas is defending itself and its people the only way they can.

sorry that i frubal this post Trout , it's seems mocking Hamas

 

[Godobeyer]

Me three.

Can we all sit together and end this crap then?

I am in ,sister , what you suggest ?

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not believe that Hamas is firing missiles in order to defend itself but, rather, in order to provoke.

So it would seem. They have been described as a largely symbolic show of defiance by people that I have little reason to believe to be partial in favor of Israel.

And if anyone in Gaza thinks that shooting those missiles makes them safer, I must worry about their mental health.

It serves in much the same way as does promoting the Protocols of Zion.

That is not a very clear comparation. The missiles are a direct threat to people, albeit probably not enough of one to provoke the reaction that happened. Are implying that the moral and emotional offense is far more significant than the military one? I think I can accept that. It seems to match my perception of the Israeli perspective on the matter.

The question does present itself, though: how much of a justification for military response is that largely immaterial offense supposed to be?


Are you implying that it is a matter of principle, that by attempting to scare or shame Israel and/or the Jewish People at all Hamas is forfeiting its basic rights? Even if it is largely ineffectual? And does that license to kill extend to those who happen not to be motivated enough to evacuate the area?

How much violence is Hamas' hostile agenda supposed to justify exactly?

 

[Alceste]

I am in ,sister , what you suggest ?

If enough of us learned the knack of talking the language of peace and compassion for others and insisted on it, without being baited, we could at least change the tone of these threads. Not much, but better than nothing. It's also something I do IRL whenever I meet an apologist for organized state violence against civilians (aka war).

 

[beenie]

If enough of us learned the knack of talking the language of peace and compassion for others and insisted on it, without being baited, we could at least change the tone of these threads. Not much, but better than nothing. It's also something I do IRL whenever I meet an apologist for organized state violence against civilians (aka war).

Agree, larger peace often starts in baby steps.

 

[CMike]

I suppose no preparation that causes civilian deaths can be considered very good.

Unless you are protecting the citizens of your country.

Otherwise you are showing terrorists that all they have to do is hide among civilians and they can attack another country's civilians with impunity.

That would be a very bad precedent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless you are protecting the citizens of your country.

I don't recognize that exception as either realistically possible, nor as morally valid if it somehow could exist.

Otherwise you are showing terrorists that all they have to do is

... fight to the death and hope to sell their hides in glorious martirdom?

I am sure many of them adhere to that line of thought. I still think it is ultimately for everyone's good if they are not encouraged.

hide among civilians and they can attack another country's civilians with impunity.

That would be a very bad precedent.

Indeed.

As it turns out, state-backed terrorism is a much worse precedent. And a far more destructive one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It serves in much the same way as does promoting the Protocols of Zion.

That is not a very clear comparation. The missiles are a direct threat to people, albeit probably not enough of one to provoke the reaction that happened. Are implying that the moral and emotional offense is far more significant than the military one? I think I can accept that. It seems to match my perception of the Israeli perspective on the matter.

I was indeed unclear. I meant only that the missiles serve, first and foremost, as a means of rallying support -- as does the dissemination of blatant antisemitic lies.

Whatever Israel's culpability - and I believe it to be great - the fact is that Hamas feeds off the siege. They are fully vested in sabotaging, by any means necessary, any effective movement toward a 2-state solution.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can agree with that.

 

[Alceste]

I was indeed unclear. I meant only that the missiles serve, first and foremost, as a means of rallying support -- as does the dissemination of blatant antisemitic lies.

Whatever Israel's culpability - and I believe it to be great - the fact is that Hamas feeds off the siege. They are fully vested in sabotaging, by any means necessary, any effective movement toward a 2-state solution.

I can agree with that.

Me too. Although I would add that both sides regularly sabotage efforts at a two state solution - Israel with belligerent, non-stop settlement expansion and Hamas with belligerent, non-stop rocket attacks.

One of my favourite military analysts, Gwynn Dyer, argues that the status quo, however uncomfortable for civilians, is desirable for both governments for different reasons. He's also convinced that the demographic reality will resolve the issue in time, violence or no.

 

[RitalinOhD]

I was indeed unclear. I meant only that the missiles serve, first and foremost, as a means of rallying support -- as does the dissemination of blatant antisemitic lies.

Whatever Israel's culpability - and I believe it to be great - the fact is that Hamas feeds off the siege. They are fully vested in sabotaging, by any means necessary, any effective movement toward a 2-state solution.

If Hamas has done one thing effectively, it is gotten the IDF painted in the media in a very negative light.

No doubt one of their main goals.