• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Doesn't the World Call on Hamas to Surrender?

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
yeah that’s not really a risk that Egypt is gonna take. You cannot ask from a country to take millions of refugees, that’s just foolish thinking

You are talking about terrorist but what is your opnion on that Israel created themselves this issues, help creating a organization to undermine Arafat and his party?

Arabs and Israelites could have been living together peacefully in the same and one country. They could have lived together without any religious or racial fanaticism. Even, some of the political leaders of the country could have been Arabs. But unfortunately, religious and racial fanaticism, fed by the Religious leaders, have caused this stupid and foolish disunity between human race.
I am not going to take sides here.
It has no benefit for the Palestinians or Israelites. It only brings hatred and war.
I see the fault is with the Religious Leaders. They are the ones that always caused hate and war to people.
I also see, people at fault. Because they blindly follow their Religious Leaders and scholars. Thus, they are lead to hell fire , by their Religious Leaders.
 

MayPeaceBeUpOnYou

Active Member
So Egypt's government claims not to be in control of its border?
Obviously it’s their responsibility, but just because things get trough doesn’t mean they are the ones that have an agreement with Hamas. I am not saying it’s not possible but we shouldn’t speculate on that. Here in the Netherlands a lot of drugs comes through doesn’t mean the government is in on it.

was stupid and cold.
Yes indeed it was.
 

MayPeaceBeUpOnYou

Active Member
Arabs and Israelites could have been living together peacefully in the same and one country. They could have lived together without any religious or racial fanaticism. Even, some of the political leaders of the country could have been Arabs. But unfortunately, religious and racial fanaticism, fed by the Religious leaders, have caused this stupid and foolish disunity between human race.
I am not going to take sides here.
It has no benefit for the Palestinians or Israelites. It only brings hatred and war.
I see the fault is with the Religious Leaders. They are the ones that always caused hate and war to people.
I also see, people at fault. Because they blindly follow their Religious Leaders and scholars. Thus, they are lead to hell fire , by their Religious Leaders
I agree with you that we should live live peacefully together. But you have to recognize that this conflict didn’t started because of religion. Because under ottoman’s empire Jews and Muslims lived peacefully side by side. This conflict is about people being violently removed from their homes.
The one that is responsible is UK when they decided to leave without giving justice to those who are being misplaced. We people tend to forget history when Jewish terrorist organizations committed suicide attack for example the David hotel where diffferent people where killed, Jews, Muslims and even even soldiers of Great Britain. And this was happening when while British were still there. We all want peace but there is no peace without justice.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I agree with you that we should live live peacefully together. But you have to recognize that this conflict didn’t started because of religion. Because under ottoman’s empire Jews and Muslims lived peacefully side by side. This conflict is about people being violently removed from their homes.
The one that is responsible is UK when they decided to leave without giving justice to those who are being misplaced. We people tend to forget history when Jewish terrorist organizations committed suicide attack for example the David hotel where diffferent people where killed, Jews, Muslims and even even soldiers of Great Britain. And this was happening when while British were still there. We all want peace but there is no peace without justice.

We cannot go back in time. The Jews would say, 3000 years ago, we were living in the land, with Moses.
Beside this, any other country can back in time, and say, our neighbor 500 years ago, forcefully took some of our land, and attached it to their country.

If you look at the map, these boarders between countries, were not there from beginning. God did not put them there. They are as a result of wars. Whoever could get more land from the other, would change the map.

We now live in a new Age. Humanity must have learned by now, they are one and the same. It does not matter if some are Jews, some Christians, some Muslims, some Arabs, some black, some white, etc.
For as long as we don’t set aside our Prejudice, and fanaticism, these wars and bloodsheds will continue.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'm not sure what other way I could describe the massacre of civilians, including little children

Unless.. it's not a massacre at all. And the number of little children is actually low. Hamas recruits young. 14. 15. 16 is still technically a child, but they can also be soldiers. Same with women. Hamas very clearly in their charter and later official documents includes women as soldiers.

But, what I'm reading from you, is, you don't know what it is, so you've applied a label to it, a massacre. But the information is coming from the enemies of israel. All of them. The casualties, the stories, they're all coming from only one side. And since you, ( and many others, it's not only you ) already have a negative opinion about what happened in Afghanistan, for example, all the propagandist needs to do is paint a picture which matches Afghanistan. You don't need a lot of evidence, just a gentle push towards the pre-judged opinion.

Each of these massacre stories that you've heard. May I please ask? Do you know: who, what. where-and-when, how and most important why? Why is the most important because "why" determines whether or not it's evil, and you have concluded that I am supporting evil deeds.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Reporters Without Borders and the Committe to Protect Journalists have both published on the matter.

Did you apply critical analysis to their findings?

This pattern isn't new either. The IDF have been killing journalists with impunity for quite some time. The frequency, though, is new.

I see the links you posted. I'll review them, if you are willing to discuss them. Are you? Have you read them in detail, or just the "headlines"?

No, I haven't but I am glad that they are free. If this is true it doesn't surprise me.

Good. It doesn't surprise you.

All the homes destroyed, the hospitals, the schools, the refugee camps.

Please correct me? You are including the collateral damage of homes, hospitals, schools, and refuge camps in the evaluations and judgement against israel? Right?

OK. There's a war going on.

If a battle is occurring in a home, the home becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a hospital, the hospital becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a school, the school becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a refugee camp, the refugee camp becomes rubble.

Who is choosing the these locations for the battle?

Who is choosing to hide and attack from residential homes?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from hospitals?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from the schools?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from refugee camps?

It's not Israel, but, you have very easily blamed Israel for it. Why is that?
 

MayPeaceBeUpOnYou

Active Member
We cannot go back in time. The Jews would say, 3000 years ago, we were living in the land, with Moses.
Beside this, any other country can back in time, and say, our neighbor 500 years ago, forcefully took some of our land, and attached it to their country.

If you look at the map, these boarders between countries, were not there from beginning. God did not put them there. They are as a result of wars. Whoever could get more land from the other, would change the map.

We now live in a new Age. Humanity must have learned by now, they are one and the same. It does not matter if some are Jews, some Christians, some Muslims, some Arabs, some black, some white, etc.
For as long as we don’t set aside our Prejudice, and fanaticism, these wars and bloodsheds will continue.
I agree with you that we live in a new era. Which started after WW2 when international agencies was formed. This conflict was one of the first conflict they encountered and they did a horrible job and Palestinians are still suffering for that. But we shouldn’t point fingers and we should force those in power to cooperate for peace. But I don’t think this will happen since there I will be countries that wanna hold on this conflict so they can benefit
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Unless.. it's not a massacre at all. And the number of little children is actually low. Hamas recruits young. 14. 15. 16 is still technically a child, but they can also be soldiers. Same with women. Hamas very clearly in their charter and later official documents includes women as soldiers.

But, what I'm reading from you, is, you don't know what it is, so you've applied a label to it, a massacre. But the information is coming from the enemies of israel. All of them. The casualties, the stories, they're all coming from only one side. And since you, ( and many others, it's not only you ) already have a negative opinion about what happened in Afghanistan, for example, all the propagandist needs to do is paint a picture which matches Afghanistan. You don't need a lot of evidence, just a gentle push towards the pre-judged opinion.

Each of these massacre stories that you've heard. May I please ask? Do you know: who, what. where-and-when, how and most important why? Why is the most important because "why" determines whether or not it's evil, and you have concluded that I am supporting evil deeds.
If by propagandists you mean the entire world's press, then I suppose that I'd have to concede that, I am listening to propagandists.

If by "not a lot of evidence" you mean footage of destroyed neighbourhoods, packed hospital wards and morgues as well as hundreds of correspondent reports from every outlet conceiveable - including Israeli ones, then yes I would have to concede I "don't need a lot of evidence".

It strikes me that we are both seeing this. Maybe I'm being gullible and buying propaganda from Israel's enemies. But then, it seems that we'd have to describe every journalist with an interest, and public minister as an enemy of Israel. Which seems to be much less likely than another account: the Israeli military is doing what we can both see it is doing and instead of accepting the evidence that is being displayed to you by the world's media you are wilfully accepting propaganda from officials.

This may come as a shock to you, but your country isn't special. Your government and military are run by self-interested people for their own ends, just like all the other countries. The soldiers of the IDF are just as liable to unjust violence, rape and murder as every other military. Your politicians are motivated by power and money just like politicians everywhere else. They are just as vindictive, greedy, opportunistic and chauvinistic.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Did you apply critical analysis to their findings?
Here's a handy heuristic that rarely fails: Press investigations are a more reliable source of truth than security services.

I've read the accounts. I can see the number of dead journalists. I've seen the IDF kill journalists in cold blood before. A criritcal analysis leads me to beleive that it is significantly more likely that the journalists who are claiming that the press are being targetted are speaking truth.

I see the links you posted. I'll review them, if you are willing to discuss them. Are you?
Certainly.

Please correct me? You are including the collateral damage of homes, hospitals, schools, and refuge camps in the evaluations and judgement against israel? Right?

OK. There's a war going on.

If a battle is occurring in a home, the home becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a hospital, the hospital becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a school, the school becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a refugee camp, the refugee camp becomes rubble.

Who is choosing the these locations for the battle?

Who is choosing to hide and attack from residential homes?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from hospitals?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from the schools?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from refugee camps?

It's not Israel, but, you have very easily blamed Israel for it. Why is that?
Because it is Israel that has dropped tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives onto dense urban areas. You blame the people doing the act, for the act. This is elememtary moral reasoning. If someone kills my brother and then hides in a community centre I don't get to kill every family in there without blame.

So for using people as human shields I am happy to blame Hamas. Even for provoking this Israel into this response, though I suspect that was partly the intention. It isn't a secret that Islamist groups try to provoke their enemies into ruinous warfare.

For killing tens of thousands of people who have nowhere to escape to, blocking food and medicine, cutting off water supplies, wrecking Gaza, and terrorising a displaced, stateless population, I'm going to continue to blame Israel.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Here's a handy heuristic that rarely fails: Press investigations are a more reliable source of truth than security services.

I've read the accounts. I can see the number of dead journalists. I've seen the IDF kill journalists in cold blood before. A criritcal analysis leads me to beleive that it is significantly more likely that the journalists who are claiming that the press are being targetted are speaking truth.


Certainly.


Because it is Israel that has dropped tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives onto dense urban areas. You blame the people doing the act, for the act. This is elememtary moral reasoning. If someone kills my brother and then hides in a community centre I don't get to kill every family in there without blame.

So for using people as human shields I am happy to blame Hamas. Even for provoking this Israel into this response, though I suspect that was partly the intention. It isn't a secret that Islamist groups try to provoke their enemies into ruinous warfare.

For killing tens of thousands of people who have nowhere to escape to, blocking food and medicine, cutting off water supplies, wrecking Gaza, and terrorising a displaced, stateless population, I'm going to continue to blame Israel.
Certain people seem suspiciously incapable of grasping this simple moral principle:

The act of a terrorist (or anyone else) using a civilian as a human shield = wrong.
The act of shooting a terrorist (or anyone else) through a human shield = wrong.


To too many people, it seems the logic goes like this:

The act of a terrorist (or anyone else) using a civilian as a human shield = wrong.
THEREFORE shooting a terrorist (or anyone else) through a human shield = PERFECTLY OKAY AND REASONABLE IN ALL CASES AND AT ALL LEVELS


It's only ever just slightly downwind of the real position they hold, which is "Killing civilians is wrong, unless those civilians belong to X group, or they are being killed by Y group, then it is reasonably justified". That's why trying to reason with such people is impossible. They don't have a consistent moral principle against killing civilians; they just want to justify or downplay the killing of certain civilians. They will rarely ever acknowledge this openly, but it is their position.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Certain people seem suspiciously incapable of grasping this simple moral principle:

The act of a terrorist (or anyone else) using a civilian as a human shield = wrong.
The act of shooting a terrorist (or anyone else) through a human shield = wrong.


To too many people, it seems the logic goes like this:

The act of a terrorist (or anyone else) using a civilian as a human shield = wrong.
THEREFORE shooting a terrorist (or anyone else) through a human shield = PERFECTLY OKAY AND REASONABLE IN ALL CASES AND AT ALL LEVELS


It's only ever just slightly downwind of the real position they hold, which is "Killing civilians is wrong, unless those civilians belong to X group, or they are being killed by Y group, then it is reasonably justified". That's why trying to reason with such people is impossible. They don't have a consistent moral principle against killing civilians; they just want to justify or downplay the killing of certain civilians. They will rarely ever acknowledge this openly, but it is their position.
Well, which would most likely promote the using of human shields - do not attack since the shield might be harmed or ignore such and just go for the target? Given that the UN codes on such does not apparently give them the right to hide behind human shields and so as not to be targeted.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Well, which would most likely promote the using of human shields - do not attack since the shield might be harmed or ignore such and just go for the target?
How about, only attack legitimate targets rather than indiscriminately bombing civilian areas?

There's a difference between shooting a human shield because you had no choice other than to not respond at all, and showing absolutely zero concern or consideration for the lives of people being used as human shields. In my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of the world and the UN, Israel is engaging in the latter. It is in fact possible to say both "The way that terrorist hid behind a human shield is bad" and "the way that marksman completely disregarded the life of that human shield (and the tens of thousands of other human shields prior to them) is bad". There is zero inconsistency in this position.

If you genuinely believe the only possible response in this situation is to commit war crimes, then I can't help you.

Given that the UN codes on such does not apparently give them the right to hide behind human shields and so as not to be targeted.
Do you believe the state has the right to kill you or your family if a terrorist is hiding behind you?

It's called war crimes. Just because terrorists may be hiding among a civilian population doesn't give you the right commit war crimes. This should be obvious.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Please correct me? You are including the collateral damage of homes, hospitals, schools, and refuge camps in the evaluations and judgement against israel? Right?

OK. There's a war going on.

If a battle is occurring in a home, the home becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a hospital, the hospital becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a school, the school becomes rubble.
If a battle is occurring in a refugee camp, the refugee camp becomes rubble.

Who is choosing the these locations for the battle?

Who is choosing to hide and attack from residential homes?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from hospitals?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from the schools?
Who is choosing to hide and attack from refugee camps?

It's not Israel, but, you have very easily blamed Israel for it. Why is that?

Because Israel has the option to refuse to turn homes, hospitals, schools and refugee camps into rubble. Israel could simply stop the attacks at any moment.
 

MayPeaceBeUpOnYou

Active Member
I large part it does because of what's in the Hadith which also is found in Hamas' charter.
What ridiculous statement. When you steal people houses and slaughter them daily for decades and then when they decide to fight back it’s because of religion. So anyone who fight for their rights it’s because religion.
What if a person isn’t religious and is fighting for their rights, what are they motivated with?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
How about, only attack legitimate targets rather than indiscriminately bombing civilian areas?

There's a difference between shooting a human shield because you had no choice other than to not respond at all, and showing absolutely zero concern or consideration for the lives of people being used as human shields. In my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of the world and the UN, Israel is engaging in the latter. It is in fact possible to say both "The way that terrorist hid behind a human shield is bad" and "the way that marksman completely disregarded the life of that human shield (and the tens of thousands of other human shields prior to them) is bad". There is zero inconsistency in this position.

If you genuinely believe the only possible response in this situation is to commit war crimes, then I can't help you.
I don't need your help. If you think some can commit war crimes and gain an advantage then you are essentially condoning such actions. War is messy and always has been. The Allies in WWII committed loads of war crimes too according to your rules - as to carpet bombing of cities and the use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population, along with the same type of bombing happening in Vietnam.
Do you believe the state has the right to kill you or your family if a terrorist is hiding behind you?

It's called war crimes. Just because terrorists may be hiding among a civilian population doesn't give you the right commit war crimes. This should be obvious.
It's obvious that many will start off with war crimes - like Hamas and other terrorists. I have no answers as to what those retaliating should do, but what the Israelis are doing can hardly be called indiscriminate - when much worse could have happened.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I don't need your help. If you think some can commit war crimes and gain an advantage then you are essentially condoning such actions.
Are you serious? You think my position, which is anti-war crimes, justifies war crimes?

Are you genuinely stating that you believe war crimes are a reasonable response to war crimes? You actually, seriously want to argue that?

You realise you're justifying Hamas, right?

War is messy and always has been.
Equating "war" and "war crimes" is false equivalence. My issue isn't with Israel committing to war in these circumstances, nor is it with the existence of collateral damage as a consequence. It is with the specific ways in which Israel has conducted its operations in Gaza (and the West Bank) that equate to WAR CRIMES. If you are incapable of making the distinction, you definitely DO need help.


See this? This is the stuff you have to justify. Believe it or not, these things don't naturally happen as an inevitable consequence of just every war ever. They happen as a direct consequence of decisions made to either disregard the safety and lives of civilians, or an active decision to put civilians in the line of fire. You cannot, and I will not allow you to, suggest that these count as perfectly legitimate acts of war any more than I would accept Hamas' terrorist incursion on 10/7 as "a justified retaliatory act of violent resistance".

The Allies in WWII committed loads of war crimes too according to your rules - as to carpet bombing of cities and the use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population, along with the same type of bombing happening in Vietnam.
Yes, they did.

And...? Do you think I believe those war crimes were reasonably justified?

Stop engaging in whataboutism.

It's obvious that many will start off with war crimes - like Hamas and other terrorists.
But you believe committing war crimes can be justified, at least if you've had war crimes committed against you. So, considering the history of Israel's war crimes against Palestine and Gaza, you should believe that Hamas did nothing wrong. Right?

I have no answers as to what those retaliating should do, but what the Israelis are doing can hardly be called indiscriminate - when much worse could have happened.
"What they're doing isn't bad, because it could have been worse."

Great logic. Who cares if they've killed tens of thousands of civilians, missile-struck the homes of journalists, attacked aid convoys, shot starving civilians, killed their own hostages, bombed schools and hospitals and refugee camps, engage in collective punishment by cutting off water and power to a densely populated civilian area, and repeated and brazenly break international law. As long as they're not LITERALLY DROPPING NUKES then it's all a-okay!

The logic some people will use to excuse and justify war crimes is sickening.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What ridiculous statement. When you steal people houses and slaughter them daily for decades and then when they decide to fight back it’s because of religion. So anyone who fight for their rights it’s because religion.
What if a person isn’t religious and is fighting for their rights, what are they motivated with?
Obviously, you don't know what I'm referring to that's in the Hadith, which frankly doesn't surprise me.

So, when you start out saying I'm being "ridiculous" whereas you don't even have the common decency to ask what's is in the Hadith that plays a significant role with Hamas and their backing from Iran, then there's simply no reason for me to deal with someone who uses such a tactic.
 

MayPeaceBeUpOnYou

Active Member
Obviously, you don't know what I'm referring to that's in the Hadith, which frankly doesn't surprise me.

So, when you start out saying I'm being "ridiculous" whereas you don't even have the common decency to ask what's is in the Hadith that plays a significant role with Hamas and their backing from Iran, then there's simply no reason for me to deal with someone who uses such a tactic.
Nice try, but the reason why I am saying it’s ridiculous is because your premise where you are starting is false.
If a atheist is thrown out of their house and decided to fight back, for what justification is he using to fight back?
 
Top