• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

I'm inventing nothing.

You're saying that under no circumstances, no matter how heinous or barbaric the enemy is in making a school a military target, it is never acceptable to bomb a school, ever.

I came up with a relatively mundane hypothetical which doesn't assume much barabarism, just a natural reaction by an even mildly unscrupulous enemy to the knowledge that we would never bomb a school under any circumstances, and you dismiss it out of hand.

The Soviets planted bombs on toys to blow the limbs off Afghani kids in order to demoralize their parents, and they were boy scouts compared to some people in the world. Do you really think someone simply housing a missile launcher in a school is beyond the pale? If so, your lack of imagination is staggering.

Oh, and . . .

Gaza Schoolyard Missile Launchers Discovered - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News
 
Last edited:
IOW Obama is saying-

Terrorism works.

Well, hasn't it? After 20 years of terrorism by Hamas (and many years of terrorism before that by related groups), Hamas is still there.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. After years of arrests, assassinations, and occupations, nothing has changed. How would YOU suggest Hamas be handled? If it was easy to just eliminate them by force, don't you think the Israelis would've done so a long time ago?
 
Barack Obama administration 'prepared to talk to Hamas' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Yeah, look at that, Obama wanting to reverse the decision to isolate Hamas. Just freaking brilliant. I'm sure the Israelis just feel all kinds of safe with this genius coming to the WH. He starts this crap up and the first notion they have Iran is gonna get a Bomb out they'll attack, cause were I them, I sure as **** wouldn't put my trust in Obama.
Good for Obama. it is time to start talking and problem solving instead of killing and dying.

Hooray for Obama and Hooray for the USA.
 
I'm inventing nothing.

You're saying that under no circumstances, no matter how heinous or barbaric the enemy is in making a school a military target, it is never acceptable to bomb a school, ever.

I came up with a relatively mundane hypothetical which doesn't assume much barabarism, just a natural reaction by an even mildly unscrupulous enemy to the knowledge that we would never bomb a school under any circumstances, and you dismiss it out of hand.

The Soviets planted bombs on toys to blow the limbs off Afghani kids in order to demoralize their parents, and they were boy scouts compared to some people in the world. Do you really think someone simply housing a missile launcher in a school is beyond the pale? If so, your lack of imagination is staggering.

Oh, and . . .

Gaza Schoolyard Missile Launchers Discovered - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Let me reiterate since you seem to think a portable missile launcher qualifies:

If it is so probable, could you give me one, just ONE single solitary example of a legitimate threat being housed in a school. Just one.


You have yet to show me a legitimate threat existing that would warrant a school being blown up.

Here, so that you are happy, let me change my original statment:

Unless we enter Harshaws make-believe land of bubble-gum princes and gumdrop dragons, where schools are really transformers that change from schools into missile silos, there is never sufficient justification for bombing a school, no matter how heinous the opponent is in their cowardly attempts to use that school to protect themselves.

You see, my statement did not delve into the land of make-believe. It dealt with reality. If you think a piss-ant little RPG is enough of a reason to slaughter children, then you are as bad as the terrorists.

Until you show me a legitimate threat (Keyword: Legitimate) coming from a school, you might as well be talking about bubble-gum prince vs. the gumdrop dragon, because you're playing in the land of make-believe in order to justify killing children.
 
Let me reiterate since you seem to think a portable missile launcher qualifies:




You have yet to show me a legitimate threat existing that would warrant a school being blown up.

Here, so that you are happy, let me change my original statment:



You see, my statement did not delve into the land of make-believe. It dealt with reality. If you think a piss-ant little RPG is enough of a reason to slaughter children, then you are as bad as the terrorists.

Until you show me a legitimate threat (Keyword: Legitimate) coming from a school, you might as well be talking about bubble-gum prince vs. the gumdrop dragon, because you're playing in the land of make-believe in order to justify killing children.

OK.

At this point, you're just avoiding answering the (as I said, relatively mundane) hypothetical. That's fine. It's your choice.

But don't pretend you're doing anything other than that. You are demonstrating a textbook example of "protesting too much."
 
Last edited:
OK.

At this point, you're just avoiding answering the (as I said, relatively mundane) hypothetical. That's fine. It's your choice.

But don't pretend you're doing anything other than that. You are demonstrating a textbook example of "protesting too much."

I'm asking for proof of it's "relative mundane" status. You cannot provide proof. Therefore, you have created strawman argument. That's a textbook example of not being able to refute the claim with realistic means so you rely on imaginary ones.

It does nto weaken my point that you cannot prove yours.

Not acknowledging that you have failed to provide anything close to a legitimate argument is fine, that's your choice, but don't pretend you have given evidence of your hypothetical being a reality.

Originally I said "there IS never a justification". Not that one couldn't be invented, just that it does not exist. If you provide evidence that such a legitimate threat exists, that justifies blowing up a school, I will relent and admit error.

All I ask for is one real world example where a ground force is not a reasonable response instead of killing civilians. Only one example is all I require. If you cannto provide it, or refuse to do so, I'll accept that as you admitting that you created a straw-man argument by trying to apply my real world rationale to make-believe land.
 
Tucker. Dude.

You're seriously arguing that by saying "there is never a justification," you're simply saying "there isn't one at this moment in time"? Really?

Are you REALLY saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? I mean, really?

It does not take much imagination to figure that an enemy will put weapons in a school if it knows we'll never bomb it. I give you more than enough credit that you understand that. Please give me the same respect back and just answer the damn hypo.

Or, as I said, don't. It is your choice. But come ON. Really.
 
Hamas is known to launch attacks from atop houses and civilian buildings, transport terrorist inside abulences. They know that people in the west will freak out when Israel takes out these targets.

Hamas 1, Israel 0 in the PR war.
 
Hamas is known to launch attacks from atop houses and civilian buildings, transport terrorist inside abulences. They know that people in the west will freak out when Israel takes out these targets.

Hamas 1, Israel 0 in the PR war.

So what is YOUR solution to the conflict? Or did you just create this thread to bitch about someone ELSE trying to solve it?
 
Tucker. Dude.

You're seriously arguing that by saying "there is never a justification," you're simply saying "there isn't one at this moment in time"? Really?

Are you REALLY saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? I mean, really?

It does not take much imagination to figure that an enemy will put weapons in a school if it knows we'll never bomb it. I give you more than enough credit that you understand that. Please give me the same respect back and just answer the damn hypo.

Or, as I said, don't. It is your choice. But come ON. Really.

You've stated that the Hypothetical is plausible, my contention is that it will never happen. I am willing to change my view if you show me that it is probable by showing a legitimate threat coming from a school.

As far as the hypothetical goes, I honestly don't see it as plausible, so I can't answer it with honesty without defeating my own logic which I based on what I think is plausible.

I truly do not think it is plausible for a legitimate threat to come form a school that cannot be defeated with ground forces instead of blowing up the school.

If such a threat were to exist, I would need to change my logic as then it would have been based on a faulty premise (i.e. that it isn't plausible for a legitimate threat to come from a school).

Perhaps, I overstated things by not clarifying that this is my initial premise. this is an over-heated discussion, and I apologize for any disrespect I may have given.

Let me simply answer the hypothetical that you've described, but please the fact that I don't think that is a plausible scenario in mind:

If a legitimate threat existed, that had a high probability of efficacy, such as a missile silo would, at a school, that school would cease to be a school in my opinion. It would become a legitimate military target specifically because it would become a legitimate military threat.

That being said (conceded, if you will), the hypothetical does NOT apply to this particular situation for a multitude of reasons nor does it have any basis in reality in that it has never been seen to date.

If I am wrong, and such a legitimate threat has ever existed within a school, I will retract my comments that there is never a justification to bomb a school. But as I have not been faced with that, only a hypothetical scenario I find implausible, I cannot in good conscious retract, since the scenario is not based on reality but only what I deem to be an implausible hypothetical that has never been reached to date.
 
Hamas is known to launch attacks from atop houses and civilian buildings, transport terrorist inside abulences. They know that people in the west will freak out when Israel takes out these targets.

Hamas 1, Israel 0 in the PR war.

I actually agree with this statement, Vicchio. But, if Hamas had technology great enough to become a legitimate threat to Israeli sovereignty, I don't think these methods would be employed. that's because they would ACTUALLY be a threat, not simply a gnat on the ass of a lion.

The ONLY real weapon Hamas has is the PR weapon, so why does Israel play into their hands by performing like they are TRAINED to respond according to Hamas' game plan?
 
So what is YOUR solution to the conflict? Or did you just create this thread to bitch about someone ELSE trying to solve it?

Well, we could keep doing the same failed method as before.

Hamas launches rockets into Israel, by the thousands, Israel responds, the world seeks "a way to end the violence!" and Israel is forced to stop. Hamas regroups, wash rinse repeat.

OR we could make Israel give up more land, so that the Palestinians can find peace... wait did that, that just keeps bringing more rockets closer to Israeli cities.

We could just let Israel achieve it's objective of smashing Hamas into nothing and seeing if that works, crazy notion, taking out the group that keeps launching rockets at Israel.

Peace is an objective most often achieved not with words, but swords.
 
Well, we could keep doing the same failed method as before.

Hamas launches rockets into Israel, by the thousands, Israel responds, the world seeks "a way to end the violence!" and Israel is forced to stop. Hamas regroups, wash rinse repeat.

OR we could make Israel give up more land, so that the Palestinians can find peace... wait did that, that just keeps bringing more rockets closer to Israeli cities.

We could just let Israel achieve it's objective of smashing Hamas into nothing and seeing if that works, crazy notion, taking out the group that keeps launching rockets at Israel.

Peace is an objective most often achieved not with words, but swords.

Israel has been fighting Hamas for 20 years, and other associated Palestinian groups for 40 years before that. If this peace could be achieved with swords, it would've happened a long time ago. What makes you think that THIS war will finally be the one that ends the conflict? I'm hard-pressed to see anything special or unique about this particular war compared with all the previous ones.

It's time that Israel (and the United States) deals with Hamas. It is not a monolithic entity. The leadership is very much divided over whether to fight to the death or negotiate some kind of peace with Israel. The pragmatists within Hamas can be negotiated with.
 
Last edited:
It's time that Israel (and the United States) deals with Hamas. It is not a monolithic entity. The leadership is very much divided over whether to fight to the death or negotiate some kind of peace with Israel. The pragmatists within Hamas can be negotiated with.

OK. I'd like for that to happen.

But what can Hamas be given that will satisfy it, considering it specifically exists to destroy Israel?
 
OK. I'd like for that to happen.

But what can Hamas be given that will satisfy it, considering it specifically exists to destroy Israel?

Well, first, you must get them to cut that **** out. Tell them no agreement can be reached until they publically admit Israel has a fundamental right to existance. That would be the primary condition needed to be met in order to move forward.

Make that clear to them, and then start negotiations AFTER that condition has been laid out. they get not being bombed as their incentive for that condition.
 
OK. I'd like for that to happen.

But what can Hamas be given that will satisfy it,

Israel and the pragmatists within Hamas can negotiate for an end to the blockade, assurances that Israel will never overthrow Hamas in Gaza or assist Fatah in doing so, control over the borders to Gaza, and the release of some low-level Hamas prisoners.

Harshaw said:
considering it specifically exists to destroy Israel?

That is incorrect. Hamas is partially a political party, partially a charitable social services organization, and partially a terrorist group. It has other purposes besides the destruction of Israel, and there are many members within Hamas who are willing to jettison that goal under the right circumstances.
 
My apologies to Jmak and Harshaw, etc, if I got a little heated and disrespectful during this discussion.
 
Well, first, you must get them to cut that **** out. Tell them no agreement can be reached until they publically admit Israel has a fundamental right to existance. That would be the primary condition needed to be met in order to move forward.

Make that clear to them, and then start negotiations AFTER that condition has been laid out. they get not being bombed as their incentive for that condition.

OK. How are you going to do that? What can you offer them?

This isn't rhetorical. What do you do?
 
OK. How are you going to do that? What can you offer them?

This isn't rhetorical. What do you do?

It's just a starting point, really. An complete end to the blockade would be of primacy form their perspective.

I agree with Kandahar that there are less militant members that may be willing to talk and jettison the failed mentalities of the past.
 
Israel and the pragmatists within Hamas can negotiate for an end to the blockade, assurances that Israel will never overthrow Hamas in Gaza or assist Fatah in doing so, control over the borders to Gaza, and the release of some low-level Hamas prisoners.

That is incorrect. Hamas is partially a political party, partially a charitable social services organization, and partially a terrorist group. It has other purposes besides the destruction of Israel, and there are many members within Hamas who are willing to jettison that goal under the right circumstances.

It does other incidental things, but its central purpose is the destruction of Israel.

Having observed this situation for several decades now, it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory result from "Palestinian" side of things will be the end of Israel. As long as Israel exists, this conflict will continue.

The only thing Israel can give which will "work" is its own suicide.

Much of the rest of the world seems to be pretty OK with that. Should we be? If not, what should we do?
 
The "I don't like you so I'm going to call you bad names and not going to talk to you" foreign policy of the Bush administration didn't produce great results.

But that hasn't been the Bush policy; its the make believe world of Liberals who have no use for the truth and wallow in lies, distortions, innuendo and hyperbole.

Here's a clue for you; who was the FIRST President to come out and publicly support the creation of a Palestinian nation?

The idea that the Bush administration has done what you suggest is more of your absurd hyperbole and partisan Bush bashing rhetoric and has no place in honest debate.

You are; of course, free to prove me wrong by providing links to your "stated" Bush policy.

Carry on. :roll:
 
Got a peace agreement between Israel and Jordon in 1993.

This is trite and laughable; Clinton failed to get the Palestinians and Israeli's to sign a peace agreement, he failed to take the threat of Osama Bin Laden seriously, he failed to bring peace to Bosnia-Herzegovina, he failed to stop Korea's nuclear program although he thought he had, he refused to take Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors even kicking them out of Iraq, he failed miserably in Somalia, and you want present his Middle East efforts as being successful?

Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the agreement between Israel and Jordan to "normalize" relations, how BIG of a threat was Jordan to Israel? Jordan was already moderate and this agreement was merely "coordinated" by the US, not negotiated. What does Jordan's recognition of Israel have to do with the Palestinian problem between them and the Jewish State?

What's Bush accomplished. Other than starting the wrong war by mistake, I mean.

What does the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan and enforcement of UN resolutions against the dictator Saddam Hussein have to do with the Palestinians and Israeli's agreeing to peace?

What has ANY President accomplished to bring an end to the bloodshed between the Jews and Arabs?

The answer is obvious to all who are not wallowing in denial; it is NOTHING.

Bush is the FIRST President to publicly announce his support of the creation of an independent Palestinian State.

Now here's the trick question; why did this fail?

Bush backs Palestinian state

Last Updated: 9:08PM BST 24 Jun 2002

President George W. Bush said tonight the United States supports creation of a provisional Palestinian state but only if a "new and different Palestinian leadership" is found other than Yasser Arafat.

"When the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions, and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state," Bush said in a long-awaited and delayed statement of his Middle East policy, given even as violence wracked the region.

Bush backs Palestinian state - Telegraph


ANNAPOLIS, Nov 27: US President George W. Bush announced on Tuesday that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed to a joint document that might ultimately lead to the creation of a Palestinian state and hoped that the two sides will be able to reach a peace treaty before the end of next year.

“We meet to lay the foundations for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security,” Mr Bush said at a news conference in Annapolis, near Washington.

At the opening ceremony, Mr Bush stood at a lectern with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on his right and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on his left.

After Mr Bush read the joint statement signed by two sides, Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas reached across the lectern and clasped hands in front of the US leader, then took their seats. Later, the two leaders also embraced each other.

Bush sees Palestinian state next year -DAWN - Top Stories; November 28, 2007

Bush's big Mideast mistake

Posted: May 01, 2002
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

On Oct. 2, 2001, just 21 days after America was attacked by Islamic terrorists long allied with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization, President Bush went further than any president before him in calling for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Bush's big Mideast mistake
 
Obama shouldn't even get involved, let Hamas and Israel kill each other.

And this is why Ron Paul will NEVER be elected President of the United States.
 
It does other incidental things, but its central purpose is the destruction of Israel.

Hamas has many members - at all levels of the organization - who aren't particularly interested in destroying Israel.

Harshaw said:
Having observed this situation for several decades now, it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory result from "Palestinian" side of things will be the end of Israel. As long as Israel exists, this conflict will continue.

There are certainly some extremists who will never accept Israel, but they can be marginalized by negotiating with the pragmatists.

Harshaw said:
The only thing Israel can give which will "work" is its own suicide.

Much of the rest of the world seems to be pretty OK with that. Should we be? If not, what should we do?

Like I said, Israel has plenty of bargaining chips: The blockade, the border crossings, the Hamas prisoners, an assurance that they won't overthrow Hamas in Gaza, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom