The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Meenglishnogood
see my answer above


See my amended question previous.
In many respects, I hope Hamas don't lose, if they achieve their goals (I think we can exclude the removal of Israel from the list of goals) they effectively win, they stop being terrorists and in the eyes of history become freedom fighters, and that will annoy a lot of people, especially the sheep that blindly follow IDF propaganda.
Original post by miavdbt
It would be nice if Tsr could address people's points rather than rely solely on his/ her straw man arguments through most of these posts.

Tsr, it is an irrelevant hypothetical example. It's implausible for it to occur in reality.

Furthermore, Tsr, I am fluent in three languages and have good command of a fourth. I wonder how many languages you speak.

if you are talking about tsr1269, im afraid youd be waiting along time. his tactic is to adopt the role of the pedant, and not to answer any points directly, because his argument would fall over. instead he repeatedly demands sources, without ever actually reading those given, then asking you to constantly copy and paste various lines from it in order to bore you into going away. he seems to think it lends credibiltiy to the argument of the islamist side, but of course all it does is highlight on this thread the ignorance of the islamist position on palestine as on all their issues
Ex-Mossad Chief, Danny Yatom, bemoans the fact that the operation is going nowhere and Israel needs to force HAMAS to sue for a truce.
Original post by Meenglishnogood
if you are talking about tsr1269, im afraid youd be waiting along time. his tactic is to adopt the role of the pedant, and not to answer any points directly, because his argument would fall over. instead he repeatedly demands sources, without ever actually reading those given, then asking you to constantly copy and paste various lines from it in order to bore you into going away. he seems to think it lends credibiltiy to the argument of the islamist side, but of course all it does is highlight on this thread the ignorance of the islamist position on palestine as on all their issues


This. So much truth here. I have provided tsr with sources from Reuters and NYT and they have been labelled as propaganda and not directed by him in any way.

I have on numerous occasions asked him to address certain points and he has failed to do so, completely ignoring them since he knows he is incapable of producing an answer.
Original post by tsr1269
See my amended question previous.


your question is the same and my answer the same
Original post by miavdbt
It would be nice if Tsr could address people's points rather than rely solely on his/ her straw man arguments through most of these posts.


And it'd be better for you to quote me if you want a response. Not quoting someone whilst addressing them smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Tsr, it is an irrelevant hypothetical example. It's implausible for it to occur in reality.


It doesn't matter whether it will occur or not. What it was intended to show is the "game" that the Israeli's are playing with their unilateral ceasefire claims.

Furthermore, Tsr, I am fluent in three languages and have good command of a fourth. I wonder how many languages you speak.


The fourth being English?
Original post by n00
I believe normally the police would withdraw to a safe distance and try and clear the area of innocent civilians before opening fire. :wink:


And Israel are supposed to do that how? There's not really a safe distance for such a small country with hostiles on both sides of it, and they do try to clear the area with their warning shots.


No Israelis would need to die before they're allowed to defend themselves, they just have to keep their response proportional, which quite clearly they're not.


Well I'd agree there, but the rhetoric of a lot of the anti-israel posters is that they need to stop fighting back - which clearly is ridiculous: a country should not drop its arms when fighting an aggressive force (unless a ceasefire is agreed to and stuck to by both sides) just because some of it's retaliatory strikes have killed innocents.

No? Not three mile?


A person I worked with on the mod team for all of about 3 months, and a person I've never met. Hardly what I'd consider a friend.

Whats the death toll up to now? I think Israel are doing a pretty good job of that all by themselves.


Because hamas paints every death as that of a civilian. If two countries go to war, and one country beats the other country quite comfortably, does that immediately make the winners the bad guys because they killed more?
As much as I'm loving all this "hasbara" attention being "devoted to me", I fel it would be prudent to interject at this point.

Original post by miavdbt
This. So much truth here. I have provided tsr with sources from Reuters and NYT and they have been labelled as propaganda and not directed by him in any way.


Your premise for those sources was incorrect. Therefore, it made your sources redundant. This was explained to you quote plainly.

I have on numerous occasions asked him to address certain points and he has failed to do so, completely ignoring them since he knows he is incapable of producing an answer.


Could you tell me specifically which points?
Original post by Meenglishnogood
your question is the same and my answer the same


For the sake of clarity:

Is HAMAS's resistance against Israel a religious cause or a political cause or is it a mixture of both?
Original post by tsr1269
And it'd be better for you to quote me if you want a response. Not quoting someone whilst addressing them smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

I won't be taking lessons in intellectual dishonesty from someone who is himself using deceitful tactics to 'win' a debate.

It doesn't matter whether it will occur or not. What it was intended to show is the "game" that the Israeli's are playing with their unilateral ceasefire claims

Yes, it does matter. It makes sense under the conditions laid out by the Israelis. It would not make sense under the ludicrous suggestion you made.


The fourth being English?


If you want I could speak to you in either of the other three languages I speak, if you feel like our communication will flow better?
Original post by tsr1269
As much as I'm loving all this "hasbara" attention being "devoted to me", I fel it would be prudent to interject at this point.



Your premise for those sources was incorrect. Therefore, it made your sources redundant. This was explained to you quote plainly.
YOUR OPINION DID NOT MATCH MINE! THEREFORE THE PREMISE WAS INCORRECT



Could you tell me specifically which points?


Specifically, do you support Hamas's actions? Do you believe that Hamas is the best option for the people of Gaza?
Original post by miavdbt
I won't be taking lessons in intellectual dishonesty from someone who is himself using deceitful tactics to 'win' a debate.


Deceitful tactics being?

Yes, it does matter. It makes sense under the conditions laid out by the Israelis. It would not make sense under the ludicrous suggestion you made.


If you call a unilateral ceasefire, you hold your own fire.

If you do not, you break the ceasefire as you are the only ones adhering to the ceasefire.

How is that so difficult for you to understand?
If you want I could speak to you in either of the other three languages I speak, if you feel like our communication will flow better?


Well, it would be rude to speak in another language and having to translate that for the "commoners" as the TSR rules states quite clearly...
Original post by tsr1269
Ex-Mossad Chief, Danny Yatom, bemoans the fact that the operation is going nowhere and Israel needs to force HAMAS to sue for a truce.


I've heard that there are 80 odd IDF fatalities so far.
Wont look good for ninyahuu at home.
Original post by n00
It's ****ing depressing isn't it, i just can't begin to comprehend how anyone can try to defend all those deaths.


the reality of this conflict it is politcial or at least semi-political. i say that because islam governs the politics of the islamist. and so the islamist agenda here is to remove jews political influence form the entire region, despite them having a right to be there. to them the islamist issue is all important, lives , people and numbers are not- and that mindest has largely spread to most of the muslim world

i can prove that by simply looking at the numbers comparatively - obviously you recognise muslims worldwide are obsessed with this topic - inc here. the numbers of casualties are jsut now reaching 4 figures do you think same people are concerned with much more casualty heavy, in the 6 or 7 figure ? would they be organising and marching in the streets for people in east timor, darfur, sierra leone? nope, because there is no islamic angle there.
Original post by tsr1269
For the sake of clarity:

Is HAMAS's resistance against Israel a religious cause or a political cause or is it a mixture of both?


it is an islamic cause - as their own title suggests and as i stated to you now numerous times:rolleyes:
Original post by miavdbt
YOUR OPINION DID NOT MATCH MINE! THEREFORE THE PREMISE WAS INCORRECT


Please do not shout. It is thoroughly understandable but extremely unbecoming in a debate.

Your premise that "HAMAS is responsible for Gaza" is incorrect as had been pointed out to you.

If HAMAS are not in "direct control" of their own armed wing, how do you expect them to control other organisations and factions?

Added to that, Israel refuses to recognise the HAMAS government as a legitimate government so it can't then cry that HAMAS is "responsible for everything in Gaza".

Smacks of hypocrisy...
Specifically, do you support Hamas's actions? Do you believe that Hamas is the best option for the people of Gaza?


I believe that HAMAS are the best option, at the moment, for those who believe they should seek resistance against the Israeli aggression...
[QUOTE="tsr1269;48884379"]Deceitful tactics being?

if you are talking about tsr1269, im afraid youd be waiting along time. his tactic is to adopt the role of the pedant, and not to answer any points directly, because his argument would fall over. instead he repeatedly demands sources, without ever actually reading those given, then asking you to constantly copy and paste various lines from it in order to bore you into going away. he seems to think it lends credibiltiy to the argument of the islamist side, but of course all it does is highlight on this thread the ignorance of the islamist position on palestine as on all their issues/QUOTE]



If you call a unilateral ceasefire, you hold your own fire.

If you do not, you break the ceasefire as you are the only ones adhering to the ceasefire.

How is that so difficult for you to understand?

​I have already addressed your misconception of the definition of this unilateral ceasefire previously. I will not do it again.




..
Original post by Meenglishnogood
it is an islamic cause - as their own title suggests and as i stated to you now numerous times:rolleyes:


"Islamic cause" wasn't an option...

It was either:

a) Religious
b) Political
c) Both.


Anything else and it isn't a "terrorist organisation"...
Original post by tsr1269
"Islamic cause" wasn't an option...

It was either:

a) Religious
b) Political
c) Both.


Anything else and it isn't a "terrorist organisation"...


it is a terrorist organisation as designated by most right thinking people and it is also driven by the islamic agenda, as are all islamists. i cant really explain that any clearer for you

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you