So today I attended a lecture at the University of Dayton, where a guest speaker (Fateh Azzam) was talking about refugees worldwide. Before I state what I need to, let me just point out that Azzam is a Palestinian so you can see where he is coming from. Azzam when talking about Palestinian-Israeli relations said the following: "Let me ask you this... What is the difference in an Israeli pressing a button to launch a missile that kills Palestinians versus a Palestinian who carries the same explosive into a crowd of Israelis and blows himself up? Nothing." To summarize: He is comparing a suicide bomber of Palestinian background blowing himself up and killing civilians of Israeli background to an Israeli soldier launching a missile to kill a Palestinian targeted because of evidence and links to terrorism with the risk of collateral damage (his family) and calling it the same thing. What are your thoughts on this comparison?
Ahhh, the good ole' Buck I know. More on topic, I can't answer with out seeming.. Can't think of the word.
You really need an opinion on the difference between targeting "civilians" and targeting "terrorists" . You OP are just as ignorant as Fetah Azzam.
OP, tell me your thoughts on when the Twin Towers were targeted. Was that action of killing "civillians" justifiable?
Targeting a suspected terrorist organisation building is strategic, aimed to prevent future acts of terrorism. A suicide bomb aimed at innocent civilians is an act of terrorism. You may aswell ask, What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Your first comment assumes a lot. Im not sure it would be fair to say israel only intends to aim at military targets. Your second comment is fair. I might add it could also the an act of desperation. Not defending it. Just calling it as it is. You last comment is an irrelevant metaphor.
My first comment only assumes that the Israeli military is acting how a modern, accountable military would. Assuming anything other than that then leads to ask questions such as.. Is the Israeli military a terrorist force? Is it commit in war crimes? Etc. True How is it irrelevant. The chicken lays the egg, the egg hatches Into a chicken. No terrorism, no anti terrorism. No chicken, no egg. Get it?
To summarize, you're framing the argument to fit your preconceived opinions. Eighty-six percent of those killed in Gaza were civilians. Yeah, I know the Israelis said they tried to avoid civilian casualties, but the fact is, they killed a bunch of them. You can't shell and bomb neighborhoods and not kill civilians. And it's not the first time. In Lebanon back in 2006, the Israelis fired around 1,800 MLRS cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets. They scattered that **** everywhere. Whole towns were covered. 40% of the bombets don't explode. They stay on the ground basically becoming land mines. While we're on the subject of double standards, why is it that Israel is ready to bomb Iran to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon, when it's widely known that Israel itself has a nuclear weapons program and already has about 80 or so nuclear weapons? Don't you think that's a tad bit hypocritical? You may not like Iran, but they're a sovereign country just like Israel. So what gives Israel the right and moral high ground to say we can have these weapons, but Iran can't? Iran is a "terrorist nation" and Israel isn't? That's a matter of perspective. If your neighborhood got cluster bombed you might think differently. Anyway, if I were an Iranian, I might be pissed about the double standard. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Hamas are the good guys. But I don't think the Israelis are as pure and innocent as they want everyone to think either.
How would you describe the situation of Israel using a missile and a Palesinian carrying a bomb to clarify for others not aware of the scenario? Also, Israel doesn't exactly not recognize Iran's right to exist and doesn't issue rhetoric saying Iran should be wiped off the map like Iran does towards Israel. If I was Israel I'd be a little worried too.
Let's talk about Iran. Many Americans hate Iran. A lot of this goes back the 70's, when Iran took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Americans viewed this as an attack on America. It was an act of war. But few people ever bother to understand WHY Iran is hostile to the U.S. and the west. Meet Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953. After getting elected, Mosaddegh felt that his country was getting a raw deal from these guys called the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now known as BP) which had controlled his country's oil since 1913. He was right. Iran was getting screwed. After trying and failing to get a better deal, Mosaddegh said screw it. It's our oil. So he nationalized the Iranian oil industry. That was seriously going to cut down on APOC's profits, so they got together with the CIA and MI6 and they overthrew him. Mosaddegh went to prison and the CIA and MI6 put a new guy in charge. Meet Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran. His father had ruled as King of Iran from 1925 to 1941, when he was ousted by the Allies. Back then Iran was a neutral county, but since they had oil and were a little too friendly with the Axis, we decided to bomb them and invade in order to establish a more democratic government. One more friendly to us and our oil companies. Anyway, since the democratic government we installed didn't work out so well for the oil companies, we put his son back in charge. The Shah was an ambitious guy. His agenda was to modernize Iran. A worthy goal, but the problem was the way he went about it. He ruthlessly killed anyone who got in his way. He was also pretty corrupt. He accumulated a massive amount of wealth and flaunted it. Not a great idea in a dirt poor country. After years of this the people rose up and over threw him. That's when Iran took over our Embassy. So you can see why Iran isn't too fond of the US and the west in general. Same goes for much of the middle east. Read up on how the French and the British invaded Egypt in the 50's in order to take over the Suez Canal. We have a long history of screwing them over in order to control their oil and access to it. If they had done the same to us, you'd be outraged too. We did the same thing when Israel was created. In 1947 the British controlled Palestine, and the question of what to do with it was turned over to the UN. The UN proposed "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem was to be under "an International Trusteeship System". That was the approved UN plan, but the problem was, nobody took any action to implement it. What happened was in 1948 the British simply pulled out of Palestine and as soon as they did, Jewish People's Council proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel and immediately went to war. The Arab forces lost. In 1949, Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations and they've been backed and supported by the U.S. ever since. The "independent Arab State" was never created and Israel currently rejects a two state solution. So yeah, you can imagine there's some pretty hard feelings in the middle east about the west and our support of Israel.
Does Mohammad in that first picture look like lord Voldemort to anyone else??? Mohammad Mosaddegh. lord Voldemort Mystery solved