251–260 of 362 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insane that Apple allows this!
Do you really want Apple to ban more apps based on political actions? The HN can be really regressive sometimes =/
Why is Israel allowed to have an app to censor their victims? That’s bias.
calling them "defenders" of human right implies that there is a war being fought (by Israel) against human rights. I don't believe that this has been adequately demonstrated, therefore i think the title is inflammatory and misleading. Please can you change it, Dang
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Israel, a country that terrorizes Palestinians on the daily accuses They don't. Sending a Police Riot control unit against a group of people throwing stones and molotovs does not qualify as being terrorized. > accuses everyone that fights it as terrorists. If they hurt bystanding civilians (and they do) or funnel money for it (and they do) there is nothing wrong with that. > Maybe some are They are, Hamas, Hezbolla…
> They don't. Sending a Police Riot control unit against a group of people throwing stones and molotovs does not qualify as being terrorized. Is it a police operation if it is conducted in occupied foreign territory or would that count as military action? > They are, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and many more... not some and not maybe. Is every Palestinian who voted for Hamas in the last elections permitted in Palestine in…
No. But at the same time, If Hamas hides military equipment in a news building where other civilians work, then Hamas is committing a war crime.
And Israel has the right to attack this building while taking every action to minimize civilians bystanders casualties. As they did by giving 1hr notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mandela was offered an early release if he renounced violence. He did not take that offer. I don't know about after his release, but for most of his life he believed in achieving his aims with violence, if need be. As for the violence the ANC perpetrated: It would definitely be considered terrorism today.
Super disingenuous in my view to have some purity test around renouncing violence against a white supremacist state. Is political violence not justified in that context? Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic? Honestly surprised to see so many apartheid apologists in these replies.
Unfortunately the answer is something like "yes but we don't want to speak about that because it makes us feel uncomfortable" most of the time. Thing is western society has been doing well the past 20/30 years regarding civil-war like violence at a large scale and for a hard to fix issue, and no one wants to talk about how or why but everyone wants to believe days of violent civil uprising are long gone.
calling them "defenders" of human right implies that there is a war being fought (by Israel) against human rights. I don't believe that this has been adequately demonstrated, therefore i think the title is inflammatory and misleading. Please can you change it, Dang
wow. my preceding comment got flagged despite having 6 upvotes. all I said was that Palestinians live in an apartheid state and that it constitutes a human rights issue.
To be fair, it is quite murky to what extent groups like Al-Haq are associated with the PFLP (which, with its history of aircraft hijackings and suicide bombings, is undoubtedly a terrorist group). There is plenty of purported evidence of financial and personnel links out there, and I really doubt HN is the right forum to decide either way (unless someone is an expert).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Molotov != Protest Molotov is not only a protest, it is a peaceful protest without weapon which is a human right. > Hamas takeover of Gaza You do know, that Hamas is an ally of Israel in Gaza, don't you?
> You do know, that Hamas is an ally of Israel in Gaza Now how do you argue with someone who has the very basics of the conflict wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's not what aboutism, it's the introduction of reality to your 'logic'. You are asking why you don't have access to the evidence into an investigation into a designated terrorist group, and being told 'tough', and now demanding standards of evidence in other countries meet your needs. Again, no country in the world cares about your wish to have access to terror investigation evidence. None. Zero.
Again, please follow the rules of this forum. You’re pushing the norms of politeness here very, very hard.
> You are asking why you don't have access to the evidence into an investigation into a designated terrorist group
I actually never asked that question.
What I actually said was “if the state doesn’t provide evidence, then we’re under no obligation to take its assertions seriously”. The rest of your point in this paragraph makes no sense in the context of what I actually said.
> Again, no country in the world cares about your wish to have access to terror investigation evidence. None. Zero.
It seems like you’re getting weirdly personal about this. This isn’t about “my wish”, and that’s honestly a bad faith interpretation of what I’m saying.
If we strip out the personal attacks, the core of this argument is actually clearly false. Governments don’t want to give out evidence, yes, but they care a lot about swaying public opinion. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t even bother justifying their actions as anti-terrorism. If the public in general demanded a higher standard of evidence, then governments absolutely would begin sharing more of it. My “wish” alone isn’t enough, obviously, but in aggregate our wishes do matter a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel launched over 900 attacks on Gaza in May, killed hundreds of Palestinians, and displaced tens of thousands of Palestinians. The UN estimate is 461 housing and commercial units were destroyed by Israel's bombing of Gaza. I don't dispute even more could have been killed by Israel and more destroyed by Israel if the United Nations Security Council did not call for an ending to it and that if that did not happen "…
> Israel launched over 900 attacks on Gaza This has a super simple solution. 5 minutes after Gaza (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, whoever is in charge) stops bombing Israel with missiles and rockets (which it has done since 2007), there will be no more conflict in Gaza.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a beneficial although controversial deal for both parts. How did the US benefit? Did that benefit go to the US population as a whole, or to a few oil companies? Does that benefit exceed the astronomical cost of the many middle eastern conflicts the US has gotten tangled in?
Intel has a significant presence there as has probably a number of other American companies and since they stay there despite the logistic and PR issues there must be some advantages. A whole lot of other products and tech originate in Israel it seems, so much that every boycott Israel campaign only get so far before everyone figure out it isn't worth the trouble. Besides Israel has been invaluable in getting intelli…
That's a bit tail wagging the dog, isn't it? Intel has no trouble getting engineers to immigrate to the US when it comes to other countries.
> boycott Israel
There's a lot of room between "unquestioning military support" and "boycott".