Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zen Baphomet)
    He wasn't though, he was spewing opinions you disagreed with, it doesn't make it Zionist by default.

    I say an awful lot of Anti-Islamic things, does it make me a Zionist puppet?
    Don't much want to proceed with this pointless convo but jsyk, that isn't true, he was actually using popular Zionist-propagandist tactics. People were talking about Palestinians being massacred, he tried to divert people's attentions to 'anti-Semitism in Europe'. He was told Israel was committing a massacre, he said no, because if that were true so many more Palestinians would have died.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTechN1304)
    If I told you it was from Wikipedia, you'd laugh it off as 'not reliable' so I'll give you the original source:

    Gil, Moshe [1997]. A History of Palestine, Cambridge University Press:



    I'm not a walking encyclopedia. If you want more information then search google for the "7th century Muslim conquest".

    For the record, these are facts, not 'claims'. Just because you lack sufficient knowledge on the 7th century Middle East, don't automatically assume that none of it is true. Thank you.
    Tries to use an Israeli historians version of events as an unbiased source. Again, do you have any actual sources? I'm asking because in fact the first and initial claim of the Jewish people is biblical but you won't mention that will you because some people, like myself, won't accept that as a legitimate source of evidence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinzgauer)
    More in link

    http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Prote...shields-369619




    Gee, I wonder why we're getting one-sided reports :rolleyes:
    Do you have any other sources other than israeli propaganda sites?!
    Channel 4? BBC? CNN? Al-Jazera? Heck even bloody fox news?!!
    Pathetic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Tries to use an Israeli historians version of events as an unbiased source. Again, do you have any actual sources? I'm asking because in fact the first and initial claim of the Jewish people is biblical but you won't mention that will you because some people, like myself, won't accept that as a legitimate source of evidence.
    I've told you. Search for 7th century Muslim conquest. Are you honestly telling me you believe that there were Arabs there to begin with? Please, cut out your bull****
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Israel is clearly a terrorist state intent on committing genocide. It's amazing that the media even call this a war, how the **** is a co-ordinated, US-supported, armed and formidable military force killing defenseless men, women, and children a war? On what planet is this so?

    "B-B-BUT HAMAS!"

    If an entire nation imprisoned you and your people on a small strip of land; dropped 1000-pound iron fragmentation bombs on your family, friends, schools, hospitals and limited energy sources; took your land and water supplies, and starved your people to the point where half of the children are malnourished, and subjected you to various other incredibly heinous acts of war, would you not wish for their destruction too? Netanyahu is clearly a psychopath, and those defending Israel are getting angry about a victim scratching a rapist during an assault. Fighting is all that the Palestinians have left.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Are you ****ing stupid? Hamas started this. Israel gave gaza back in 2005 as a sign of PEACE. Hamas has said they will or be content until Israel is eradicated.

    They don't care about the death of their own Palestinian citizens. They have consistently broken attempted ceasefires and attempts by Israel to coexist. How can you have the audacity to say 'fighting is all the Palestinians have left' as if the Israelis are mercilessly trying to destroy them unprovoked. Get your facts right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Israel is clearly a terrorist state intent on committing genocide.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    I think you sum up pro-palestinians.

    There's just no debating with you. The only ones you can debate with are those who are more neutral.

    Guaranteed without fail, every pro-palestinian just uses streams of hyperbole.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)


    There was no blockade between 2005 and 2007. You fire rockets, and there comes a blockade. Surprised much? geez. This is the most interesting definitions of "occupation" in history, oh look the poor people are occupied without a single foreign soldier on their soil. Pathetic, its all excuses.

    Israel did not blockade Gaza because of rocket attacks from Hamas. Israel had demonised Hamas before Hamas ever started firing rockets into Israel as a freely and fairly elected government of the Gazan people. Israel blockaded Gaza because Israel did not like that Gaza was being ruled by a government that would not readily bend over backwards to appease Israel.



    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    "llegal" according to Jew haters in the UN, legal according to authoritative analysts, scholars and drafters of the Fourth Geneva Conventions itself. I'd love to see this case in a court. Two years ago the PA went to French court, and surprise surprise, French court declared Israel's control of those territories as legal. Go ahead, elaborate and tell me according to which law is it "illegal".
    'Jew haters in the UN'? I think you'll find that Jews rather populate the UN in abundance rather than Muslamic Jew-haters.
    According to International Law, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its ceaseless manufacture of ultra-racist Jews onto stolen land is illegal. According to Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank, it is oppressive. According to basic human beings, it is immoral.
    'Th PA went to French court'? Isn't France that same country that bans Muslim women from donning the garb of their choice? Yeah, those are the people onto whose every word you hang on to. Rather you than me.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Hamas only fire rockets into Israel 24/7 because their suicide bombers get a bullet in the head before they reach the border.

    What youre seeing here is Israel being able to repel Hamas from killing innocent Israeli civilians, through means of defence, however they are well within their rights to a counter offensive.

    This however has not always been the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

    And people wonder why Hamas is called a Terrorist organisation :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Do you have any other sources other than israeli propaganda sites?!
    Channel 4? BBC? CNN? Al-Jazera? Heck even bloody fox news?!!
    Pathetic.
    Jerusalem Post is over 100 years old and 100 times more reliable than the BBC, Channel4 or Qatar owned Al Jazeera that supports ISIS and Hamas.

    Go do some googling if you want other sources.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinzgauer)
    Jerusalem Post is over 100 years old and 100 times more reliable than the BBC, Channel4 or Qatar owned Al Jazeera that supports ISIS and Hamas.

    Go do some googling if you want other sources.
    :rolleyes:

    it would be like using the hamas facebook posts or hamas official website articles.
    Would you accept their sources?
    And all other sources I have seen so far point to the JerusalemPost as initial source.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTechN1304)
    Are you ****ing stupid? Hamas started this. Israel gave gaza back in 2005 as a sign of PEACE. Hamas has said they will or be content until Israel is eradicated.

    They don't care about the death of their own Palestinian citizens. They have consistently broken attempted ceasefires and attempts by Israel to coexist. How can you have the audacity to say 'fighting is all the Palestinians have left' as if the Israelis are mercilessly trying to destroy them unprovoked. Get your facts right
    Stop giving me fake or exaggerated quotes about Hamas 'wanting Israel's extinction'. This is a common thing you pro-Israelis do, and yet there have been plenty of ominous promises by Netanyahu to destroy the subhuman Palestinians. Like I've said, wishing for an enemy, who's brutalising you for no good reason, to vanish off the face of the earth isn't unjustified, is it?

    Rubbish, all of Israel's so-called ceasefires and "attempts to coexist (lol)" have collapsed because the conditions were simply not good enough. Exactly how do they want the land to be divided up? How come there have been no promises to cease the occupation of Gaza, remove the ridiculous blockades, and return land and water to the people who rightfully own it? Those are the minimum and just conditions that should be included in any truce, and Hamas would be foolish to accept less. There is and always has been a simple two-state solution to this conflict, but people like you, Israel and the US can only speak in the language of disproportionate violence.

    I have the "audacity" to say that simply because it's true. Would you call killing 1300+ civilians in 24 days being merciful? Your jingoism has completely warped your sense of reality.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinzgauer)
    I think you sum up pro-palestinians.

    There's just no debating with you. The only ones you can debate with are those who are more neutral.

    Guaranteed without fail, every pro-palestinian just uses streams of hyperbole.
    Haha, get a load of this guy. I guess by "not neutral", you mean I tell it as it is? Look at the second paragraph I wrote in my previous post, and tell me what's inconsistent with being a genocidal terrorist state. Go on.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Haha, get a load of this guy. I guess by "not neutral", you mean I tell it as it is? Look at the second paragraph I wrote in my previous post, and tell.me what's inconsistent with being a genocidal terrorist state. Go on.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hey man, reply to my post bro.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Do you have any other sources other than israeli propaganda sites?!
    Channel 4? BBC? CNN? Al-Jazera? Heck even bloody fox news?!!
    Pathetic.
    In fairness, there have been plenty of reputable journalists, including from those sources, complaining about Hamas intimidation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Which only came about as a result of mass illegal immigration and terrorism, no? .
    no

    Do you consider "illegal immigration" to be illegal or legal? .[/QUOTE]

    i consider people applying the term 'illegal' to whatever they personally wish doesnt make it so.


    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Without resorting to whataboutery, can you clarify and confirm if there was terrorist attacks perpetrated by members of the Jewish faith prior to the creation of the State of Israel? .


    i think that was
    your assertion wasnt it?



    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Why did you try and make it seem as if I had posted what you had in fact posted? .

    i didnt , i posted it and asked you what you thought we should do about islamists causing the same problems you were complaining about.

    to this point have not heard a peep out of you in answer to that.


    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Do you not understand the concept of a democracy? .
    yes.. :dontknow:



    (Original post by tsr1269)
    According to your reasoning, the "majority of the civilized world" are actually funding HAMAS.
    nope. in the 1970s various countries sent money to south africa to help townships - where they 'funding' apartheid south africa? Is USA funding taleban by sending aid to afganistan?

    i dont think you fully understand the concept of international aid.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by well in the dark)
    According to International Law, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its ceaseless manufacture of ultra-racist Jews onto stolen land is illegal. According to Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank, it is oppressive. According to basic human beings, it is immoral.
    'Th PA went to French court'? Isn't France that same country that bans Muslim women from donning the garb of their choice? Yeah, those are the people onto whose every word you hang on to. Rather you than me.
    the french ban on face covering is neither targeted at women or muslims. It effects all face coverings (bar some required exceptions such as motorcycle helmets).

    In addition for you to claim illegality one must bring up actual evidence. Just an FYI
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Petrue)
    im glad youve simplified islamist propaganda further into cartoon form, i was getting concerned certain tsr members weres till getting confused as to what they were supposed to believe.
    PS got any good Memes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A good article that refutes popular Zionist claims about Hamas, Gaza, Israel, etc.

    It is in context of America and its foreign policy re Israel-Palestine but is very relevant to all the Zionists on TSR who think they've fathomed it all when they ignore or misrepresent basic historical facts.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    If you’ve been anywhere near the American Jewish community over the past few weeks, you’ve heard the following morality tale: Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, hoping the newly independent country would become the Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, Hamas seized power, ransacked greenhouses, threw its opponents off rooftops and began launching thousands of rockets at Israel.American Jewish leaders use this narrative to justify their skepticism of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. But in crucial ways, it’s wrong. And without understanding why it’s wrong, you can’t understand why this war is wrong too.
    Let’s take the claims in turn.
    Israel Left Gaza
    It’s true that in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel’s more than 8,000 settlers from Gaza. (At America’s urging, he also dismantled four small settlements in the West Bank). But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. As the Israeli human rights group Gishahas detailed, even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (In conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland).
    “Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government — has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.
    To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state. By 2004, when Sharon announced the Gaza withdrawal, the Road Map for Peace that he had signed with Mahmoud Abbas was going nowhere. Into the void came two international proposals for a two state solution. The first was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, in which every member of the Arab League offered to recognize Israel if it returned to the 1967 lines and found a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. The second was the 2003 Geneva Initiative, in which former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators publicly agreed upon the details of a two state plan. As the political scientists Jonathan Rynhold and Dov Waxman have detailed, Sharon feared the United States would get behind one or both plans, and pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state near the 1967 lines. “Only an Israeli initiative,” Sharon argued, “will keep us from being dragged into dangerous initiatives like the Geneva and Saudi initiatives.”
    Sharon saw several advantages to withdrawing settlers from Gaza. First, it would save money, since in Gaza Israel was deploying a disproportionately high number of soldiers to protect a relatively small number of settlers. Second, by (supposedly) ridding Israel of its responsibility for millions of Palestinians, the withdrawal would leave Israel and the West Bank with a larger Jewish majority. Third, the withdrawal would prevent the administration of George W. Bush from embracing the Saudi or Geneva plans, and pushing hard—as Bill Clinton had done—for a Palestinian state. Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass,put it bluntly: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
    It’s no surprise, therefore, that the Gaza withdrawal did not meet minimal Palestinian demands. Not even the most moderate Palestinian leader would have accepted a long-term arrangement in which Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza while maintaining control of the Strip’s borders and deepening Israeli control of the West Bank. (Even in the 2005, the year Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the overall settler population rose, in part because some Gazan settlers relocated to the West Bank).
    In fact, Sharon’s advisors did not expect withdrawing Gaza’s settlers to satisfy the Palestinians. Nor did not they expect it to end Palestinian terrorism. Ehud Olmert, a key figure in the disengagement plan (and someone who himself later embraced Palestinian statehood), acknowledged that “terror will continue” after the removal of Gaza’s settlers. The key word is “continue.” Contrary to the American Jewish narrative, militants in Gaza didn’t start launching rockets at Israel after the settlers left. They began a half-decade earlier, at the start of the second intifada. The Gaza disengagement did not stop this rocket fire. But it did not cause it either.
    Hamas Seized Power
    I can already hear the objections. Even if withdrawing settlers from Gaza didn’t give the Palestinians a state, it might have made Israelis more willing to support one in the future - if only Hamas had not seized power and turned Gaza into a citadel of terror.
    But Hamas didn’t seize power. It won an election. In January 2006, four months after the last settlers left, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem chose representatives to the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. (The previous year, they had separately elected Abbas to be the Palestinian Authority’s President). Hamas won a plurality of the vote - forty-five percent - but because of the PA’s voting system, and Fatah’s idiotic decision to run more than one candidate in several districts, Hamas garnered 58 percent of the seats in parliament.
    To the extent American Jewish leaders acknowledge that Hamas won an election (as opposed to taking power by force), they usually chalk its victory up to Palestinian enthusiasm for the organization’s 1988 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction (The president of the New York board of rabbis said recently that anyone who voted for Hamas should be considered a combatant, not a civilian). But that’s almost certainly not the reason Hamas won. For starters, Hamas didn’t make Israel’s destruction a major theme of its election campaign. In its 2006 campaign manifesto, the group actually fudged the question by saying only that it wanted an “independent state whose capital is Jerusalem” plus fulfillment of the right of return.
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that by 2006 Hamas had embraced the two state solution. Only that Hamas recognized that running against the two state solution was not the best way to win Palestinian votes. The polling bears this out. According to exit polls conducted by the prominent Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, 75 percent of Palestinian voters—and a remarkable 60 percent of Hamas voters—said they supported a Palestinian unity government dedicated to achieving a two state solution.
    So why did Hamas win? Because, according to Shikaki, only fifteen percent of voters called the peace process their most important issue. A full two-thirds cited either corruption or law and order. It’s vital to remember that 2006 was the first Palestinian election in more than ten years. During the previous decade, Palestinians had grown increasingly frustrated by Fatah’s unaccountable, lawless and incompetent rule. According to exit polls, 85 percent of voters called Fatah corrupt. Hamas, by contrast, because it had never wielded power and because its charitable arm effectively delivered social services, enjoyed a reputation for competence and honesty.
    Hamas won, in other words, for the same reason voters all across the world boot out parties that have grown unresponsive and self-interested after years in power. That’s not just Shikaki’s judgment. It’s also Bill Clinton’s. As Clinton explained in 2009, “a lot of Palestinians were upset that they [Fatah] were not delivering the services. They didn’t think it [Fatah] was an entirely honest operation and a lot of people were going to vote for Hamas not because they wanted terrorist tactics…but because they thought they might get better service, better government…They [also] won because Fatah carelessly and foolishly ran both its slates in too many parliamentary seats.”
    This doesn’t change the fact that Hamas’ election confronted Israel and the United States with a serious problem. After its victory, Hamas called for a national unity government with Fatah “for the purpose of ending the occupation and settlements and achieving a complete withdrawal from the lands occupied [by Israel] in 1967, including Jerusalem, so that the region enjoys calm and stability during this phase.” But those final words—“this phase”—made Israelis understandably skeptical that Hamas had changed its long-term goals. The organization still refused to recognize Israel, and given that Israel had refused to talk to the PLO until it formally accepted Israel’s right to exist in 1993, it’s not surprising that Israel demanded Hamas meet the same standard.
    Still, Israel and the U.S. would have been wiser to follow the counsel of former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, who called for Sharon to try to forge a long-term truce with Hamas. Israel could also have pushed Hamas to pledge that if Abbas—who remained PA president—negotiated a deal with Israel, Hamas would accept the will of the Palestinian people as expressed in a referendum, something the group’s leaders have subsequently promised to do.
    Instead, the Bush administration—suddenly less enamored of Middle Eastern democracy--pressured Abbas to dissolve the Palestinian parliament and rule by emergency decree. Israel, which also wanted Abbas to defy the election results, withheld the tax and customs revenue it had collected on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf. Knowing Hamas would resist Abbas’ efforts to annul the election, especially in Gaza, where it was strong on the ground, the Bushies also began urging Abbas’ former national security advisor, a Gazan named Mohammed Dahlan, to seize power in the Strip by force. As David Rose later detailed in an extraordinary article in Vanity Fair, Condoleezza Rice pushed Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to buy weapons for Dahlan, and for Israel to allow them to enter Gaza. As General Mark Dayton, US security coordinator for the Palestinians, told Dahlan in November 2006, “We also need you to build up your forces in order to take on Hamas.”
    Unfortunately for the Bush administration, Dahlan’s forces were weaker than they looked. And when the battle for Gaza began, Hamas won it easily, and brutally. In response, Abbas declared emergency rule in the West Bank.
    So yes, members of Hamas did throw their Fatah opponents off rooftops. Some of that may have been payback because Dahlan was widely believed to have overseen the torture of Hamas members in the 1990s. Regardless, in winning the battle for Gaza, Hamas—which had already shed much Israeli blood - shed Palestinian blood too.
    But to suggest that Hamas “seized power” - as American Jewish leaders often do - ignores the fact that Hamas’ brutal takeover occurred in response to an attempted Fatah coup backed by the United States and Israel. In the words of David Wurmser, who resigned as **** Cheney’s Middle East advisor a month after Hamas’ takeover, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that waspre-empted before it could happen.”
    The Greenhouses
    Israel responded to Hamas’ election victory by further restricting access in and out of Gaza. As it happens, these restrictions played a key role in explaining why Gaza’s greenhouses did not help it become Singapore. American Jewish leaders usually tell the story this way: When the settlers left, Israel handed over their greenhouses to the Palestinians, hoping they would use them to create jobs. Instead, Palestinians tore them down in an anti-Jewish rage.
    But one person who does not endorse that narrative is the prime mover behind the greenhouse deal, Australian-Jewish businessman James Wolfensohn, who served as the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In his memoir, Wolfensohn notes that “some damage was done to the greenhouses [as the result of post-disengagement looting] but they came through essentially intact” and were subsequently guarded by Palestinian Authority police. What really doomed the greenhouse initiative, Wolfensohn argues, were Israeli restrictions on Gazan exports. “In early December [2005], he writes, “the much-awaited first harvest of quality cash crops—strawberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and flowers—began. These crops were intended for export via Israel for Europe. But their success relied upon the Karni crossing [between Gaza and Israel], which, beginning in mid-January 2006, was closed more than not. The Palestine Economic Development Corporation, which was managing the greenhouses taken over from the settlers, said that it was experiencing losses in excess of $120,000 per day…It was excruciating. This lost harvest was the most recognizable sign of Gaza’s declining fortunes and the biggest personal disappointment during my mandate.”
    The point of dredging up this history is not to suggest that Israel deserves all the blame for its long and bitter conflict with Hamas. It does not. Hamas bears the blame for every rocket it fires, and those rockets have not only left Israelis scarred and disillusioned. They have also badly undermined the Palestinian cause.
    The point is to show—contrary to the establishment American Jewish narrative—that Israel has repeatedly played into Hamas’ hands by not strengthening those Palestinians willing to pursue statehood through nonviolence and mutual recognition. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when Sharon refused to seriously entertain the Arab and Geneva peace plans. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it refused to support a Palestinian unity government that could have given Abbas the democratic legitimacy that would have strengthened his ability to cut a two state deal. And Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it responded to the group’s takeover of Gaza with a blockade that—although it has some legitimate security features—has destroyed Gaza’s economy, breeding the hatred and despair on which Hamas thrives.
    In the ten years since Jewish settlers left, Israeli policy toward Gaza has been as militarily resourceful as it has been politically blind. Tragically, that remains the case during this war. Yet tragically, the American Jewish establishment keeps cheering Israel on.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    Hamas only fire rockets into Israel 24/7 because their suicide bombers get a bullet in the head before they reach the border.

    What youre seeing here is Israel being able to repel Hamas from killing innocent Israeli civilians, through means of defence, however they are well within their rights to a counter offensive.

    This however has not always been the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

    And people wonder why Hamas is called a Terrorist organisation :rolleyes:
    I'm wary of Wikipedia as a source, do you have other sources of recent events like these? Any proof of human shields? Israel's Hasbara (propaganda team) has been worming its way into public sites, so there's no reason to absolutely believe pages which they can edit, and have a good incentive to edit.

    If Hamas have really been doing most of that, well I certainly don't condone it. Hamas is indeed far from perfect, but we need to look at the bigger source of evil here. Racist terrorism against a group of people is going to stir up frustration, anger, heartbreak and feelings among victims that they have nothing to lose. It would be wrong to believe lots of people want to kill themselves just for fun. Israel is 100 times the terrorist organisation Hamas is, so they need to look at their own backyard first and fix up the mess they've created.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.