Slashdot Mirror
Legislators Call On Twitter To Ban Hamas
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from The Hill:
"The past week's violence in Gaza has rekindled calls for Twitter to shutter the accounts of U.S.-labeled terror groups such as Hamas. Seven House Republicans asked the FBI in September to demand that Twitter take down the accounts of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Somalia's al Shabaab. The letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller was spearheaded by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), who said Wednesday that the recent events vindicated the request. 'Allowing foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas to operate on Twitter is enabling the enemy,' [Poe said] 'Failure to block access arms them with the ability to freely spread their violent propaganda and mobilize in their War on Israel.'"
What bullshit...
I'm an Israeli citizen and I oppose Hamas in every possible way (they frickin' shot rockets at me and my family just a week ago!)
But terminating their officials' Twitter accounts will do nothing to help the cause.
The only effect will be that they'll start communicating in other channels - which will make it more difficult to spy on their future intentions.
If you really want to do something against Hamas in Twitter - don't follow them!
(BTW, the captcha "i" looks like an 8)
Is free-speech the last i heard.
Twitter can of course take it down on their own as they dont have to adhere to the US Constitution in this matter, but our government should NOT be involved in requesting that a individuals ( or group ) speech to be curtailed.
Yes, i realize they are not Americans and may not have that right in their home country, but an American governmental agency asking bothers me greatly.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Even if enacted, it will do nothing. They can use a different name or such, Also, we are all for free speech, as long as it our free speech, not the free speech of others. Furthermore, being on Twitter probably allows for more productive intelligence gathering, for better or for worse.
Meanwhile, it just continues the hate and distrust and racism and anti-muslim sentiment.
I thought that that freedom [of speech] extended to those you might not necessarily agree with as well, right?
I'm sure there are those who'd label the USA as a country of terror...not that I agree with them, but how about that basic freedom of speech?
Definition of the word being, "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."
And the definition of terrorism. "Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes."
The FBI should consider updating their list of "designated terrorist groups".
Cyber-democracy doesn't work if government's can arbitrarily censor participants.
In their own words, doing what they want would be "letting the terrorists win".
Yes, we want free speech, but only if it says something we approve of.
Can they ban Donald Trump, too?
It's early in the morning Sunday where I am reading this and I thought the title said something about Banana Hammocks
So should Twitter also ban groups labeled as terrorists by other groups ? Eg: should we ban the Israeli government because Hamas thinks that they are terrorising them ? I think not. Twitter would be uniwse to accede to to this and put itself at the center of someone else's fight.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Hamas was elected to govern Gaza. The Israelis have had Gaza under siege for years, preventing food etc. from coming in, and they're now bombing the hell out of it. I guess the US government moving to silence their voices would just be the icing on the cake - after all, the US is directly/indirectly financing the shelling of Gaza as well.
Of course, one thing that caused Hamas to grow was US and Israeli financing. The US and Israel were always more scared of secular, left-leaning pan-Arab movements like the PLO - during the Cold War, and after the Cold War as well. Hamas is very much a creation of Israeli financing. Now Israel and the US deem this organization they helped create terrorist. Just like Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the Taliban were seen as heroic, fighting against the secular Afghanis who were Russian-sympathetic in the 1970s and 1980s. Rambo even went to fight along with the heroic mujahideen, fighting against secular Afghanis and their Russian allies. When the US army occupied Saudi Arabia for a decade, they suddenly found Saudi patriots like Osama and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers didn't like their country occupied by a foreign military. So they went from freedom fighters to terrorists in a blink as well. Of course the US withdrew its military from Saudi Arabia within two years of 9/11 - the US is essentially just a bully, and will always run from those who will actually stand and fight against it (Vietnamese, Saudis etc.)
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I've read the articles vertically - which I mostly do with American reporting about Israel as it so unbelievable one sided - and I noticed some parts that they mention "Anti-Americanism". The only part that is missing is freedom fries. The ironic thing is that this kind of one side view that really fuels Anti-Americanism in a lot of Arab states and even within my Arab friends that in no way I would describe as "extremists", "terrorist", or that typical bullshit. Even very moderate or even intellectuel bright people in that group tend to create more and more anti American feelings.
You can pat yourself on the back en think that ridiculous claim that the hatred comes from the "hatred of your freedom", but is really these kind of signals that creates more extremism. The ironic thing is that the border of this "freedom" stops in what America likes and don't like.
I know the Israelian lobby is very powerful in the states and there goes a lot of money round, but it baffles me that there are not that many critical voices within the US.
So what about state terrorism ? Shouldn't the IDF also be banned then since they also use social media for their propaganda ? One's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
It's apparent the terrorist won.
Such a small group of people have managed to drastically change the polices of the USA in a way no politicians could ever do.
Look, we are scared of them tweeting, how could they not have won?
Be seeing you...
that idea amuses me
your honor, I was exercising free speech when I notified my Hamas buddies I was launching that mortar
to have his hate speeches broadcast in American?
Absurd.
So the hamas has won the war against isreal and the US of A. How can you tell, all their enemies are "frightened" of hearing of them. They shake in their boots. They are arming their families with weapons, they are siliencing their critics, Gee, let me see, Where did hamas start, who funded them, and who is giving them the freedom of the "underground" when they are banned from "twitter", . Thats so pathetic, and scarred into peeing your pants,, I believe that it would happen. Nice brave republicans.
OK, then people from the US (or anywhere else) can't say they have Free Speech any more. I was reluctantly fine with redefining free speech as free political speech, so you could exclude things like slander and the DVD CSS codes etc. Now we can only talk about how bad the restrictions are and compare countries.
Additionally, it's not particularly brilliant of Hamas to rely on a company from an allied of their enemy to disseminate information
why the USA blindly jumps to the defense of Israel for everything all the time? I mean... Israel comes across as Tommy DeVito as played by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. Crazy little guy on a hair trigger who keeps fucking everything up for everyone. And the USA without fail jumps in with WE STAND WITH THE CRAZY LITTLE NATION ON A HAIR TRIGGER.
I don't get it.
The goverment can not ask this.
If we won't respect our own laws.. Why in the fuck would anyone else on the planet?
Flat out goverment censorship. I don't care who you're doing it to.
Twitter can do it on their own if they wish to. They are a private company and are not bound by the rules of free speech. The goverment needs to fuck off tho.
But then again.. Just one of the many problems our goverment has now. Gotta stick its nose into everyones business. And fuck it up.
Letting Hamas and other terrorist organizations use Twitter keeps them in reach. Do you really want them to make their own, harder to find, twitter. At least this way, everyone can know what they are thinking.
This is my sig.
Way to go, Republicans. Look stupid again. Make Texas and America look bad, again.
The people behind this out of order demand are all Republicans. And the leader, this Ted Poe, is from Texas. I don't want the US to be a one party nation, but the Republicans seem suicidally intent on cornering the market on stupidity. Royal courts used to have fools. Helped the monarchy avoid really stupid moves. Court fools had a good deal of license, but no real power. I would prefer that the Republicans behave like a serious party, and quit making auditions for this vacant post that shouldn't be needed, now that we have dozens of editorial cartoonists, Saturday Night Live's tradition of mocking candidates and debates, and comedy news such as the Daily Show.
But if Republicans continue to be unable to help it, unable to comprehend that such a demand tramples upon the 1st Amendment and that they ought to be ashamed of themselves, it's time for them to be pushed aside. We haven't had a big party shift since the Whigs waffled on slavery and self destructed in the 1850s. The 4 Whig Presidents, ending with Millard Fillmore, are among our lowest rated presidents. The last really good Republican president we had was not Reagan, it was Eisenhower. Time for some fresh blood.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
First off, while I seldom agree with the left, we are not at war with the Palestinians, so we should not be censoring anything. With that said, the world only has two options; keep the status quo and prevent a hot war in the Middle East (maybe) or leave the combatants alone, which will inevitably lead to nuclear war. Hamas and radical Islam (I am looking at you Iran) are bent on the destruction of Israel, and Israel will defend itself to the end. When Islamic clerics begin to preach peace with Israel, I will eat these words. Of course there is the possibility that the Israelis will simply give up and move away - sure they will.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Can't touch this!
I think we should let the Israelis ban Hamas. All of them.
an ill wind that blows no good
They are cruel, brutal bloodthirsty beasts who purportedly call themselves human.
They are masters of the art of 'al taqqiyah' (Islamically-sanctioned lying to advance the cause of Islam) -- deceit to trick people into letting them assume positions of power. They masqueraded as a benign political party, won elections, then promptly abolished all free elections as 'un-Islamic', and then started throwing people they didn't like off buildings.
However, being Islamists, they are arrogant and stupid, and think with their dicks, and like to brag and bluster. They should be allowed to keep sprouting their propaganda, because at least we know that when they're spewing their poisonous filth, that they're trying to do 'al taqqiyah' or sneak or worm their way into power somewhere.
Short of eliminating these khanzir Islamist pigs completely (my preferred final solution), they need to be watched very, very closely and our welfare is not served by muting them.
The West, collectively is big enough to take on Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Arab countries all at the same time.
Why doesn't somebody simply call a general mobilization, and round up every political Islamist in the region, and put them up against a wall? We'd solve about a dozen problems at a stroke.
Where all the freshly scrubbed white liberal middle class college kids who are totally in favor of peace love free weed Marxism and gay marriage call for a new holocaust against the Jews in the name of peace and tolerance?
Awesome.
Wikileaks releases a great deal of classified information. The government claims the act is aiding the enemy while at the same time getting a judge to say its ok for the government to continue treating the now public information as though its still secret.
In sum, head in sand while claiming violation of head in sand.
So it seems the government, the referenced legislators really don't want to understand reality. Here reality is not putting your head in the sand but rather realizing twitter simply does not work in such a way to enable identifing all past, present and future twitter accounts of those the government claims are on their terrorist list.
Besides, don't you think with all the monitoring the military, CIA, FBI, HLS of the internet social medias, they would want to monitor such accounts?
It is very clear they do not want to observe reality but rather see only what they want to see and claim what they want to claim.
And isn't it interesting how their vision is with blood colored military industrial complex supporting tunnel vision glasses.
Educated Americans know that the only appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech.
I have quite a few Israeli friends; most are concerned with civil and social issues, not with military issues, and I am told that is basically what politics in Israel are like. There were major protests in Israel last year; they were over the price of food, the rent, etc. Israel is not terribly different from other countries: the people are mostly concerned with things that immediately affect them like the cost of living.
Of course, most able-bodied Israelis serve in the army. Here, for example, is an Israeli soldier's view of what it was like in West Bank:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/oded_naaman_israeli_defense_forces_palestinians_occupation.php
For what it's worth, I met many Israelis at an academic conference this past summer. I also met Egyptians, and my Iranian coworker was there with me. We all had dinner together, and there was no tension, no arguing about politics, none of that -- most of these people thought the situation was absurd and that the violence was unnecessary (the Iranian recently finished her immigration paperwork and will soon be a US citizen; the Egyptians were glad to have not been in Egypt during the revolution).
Palm trees and 8
Lets get this straight up front.
I am all for getting rid of hamas militarily
I am all for getting rid of hezbolla militarilly
Same with Al-Qaeda, this shabbab,
None of these Islamic based militancy groups strike me as anything more than petty despots marginally worse than our own breed of fundamentalist assholes I don't like.
That said, when we start censoring the internet, who do we put in charge, what safe guards do we have, and what prevents this from setting a terrible precedent.
Just like home-grown extremists give them enough rope to hang themselves and let them know what terrible assholes they are.
Kicking them off twitter is not going to stop them from doing anything, except describe to everyone not with their group who they are.
Ironically, "they hate us for our freedoms" is ultimately the reason for most of the anti-American sentiment around the world.
What Americans need to start asking themselves is where did they ever get the idea that freedoms are theirs and no-one else's.
The ignorance of what happened less than a decade ago is astounding.
Actually, it's a really great lesson on groupthink. If you listen to even the most *educated* people from both sides of the conflict--the ones who know every detail since the '47 war and before--it is AMAZING how different their story is based on which side they're on. And it's (usually) not that they're wrong, it's just that their vision is so incredibly polarized.
I once listened to a lecture by the director of the Israeli counter-terror institute and then a lecture by a Palestinian Professor from either NYU or Columbia. They talked about the same peace treaties and the same events, but the stories they told and the perspectives they had on those events were *radically* different. Obi Wan Kenobi was right--a great many of the truths we cling to depend a great deal on our own point of view.
Both sides do things that are really uncool, and both sides have things done to them that are really terrible. It makes it easy for both sides to perpetuate their narratives of hate. As long as that happens--as long as there is no real incentive and genuine effort on *both* sides to see the conflict from the other's point of view and to *stop* it--the conflict will continue.
It has continued for fifty years so far.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Is it just me, or does a lot of this remind you of a Honeypot?
I mean, really.. What sense would it make for Hamas to use a U.S-based social networking service? What sense would it make for "Anonymous" to get involved in anyway, when they're already struggling to shake any "Terrorist" label the right-wing conservatives are trying to brand them with?
It all sounds so ridiculously naive to me. I've always wondered the kind of damage "Anonymous" could do to the internet by being the excuse for world-wide censorship initiatives to, you know, "protect us" from "Anonymous" :|
Hamas is using a completely public, insecure medium for communication. Why wouldn't that be a good thing for Israel? Seems to me Mr. Poe should want Hamas to continue using Twitter!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA ... ..."
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200401--.htm
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism, and on a scale that puts its rivals to shame.
By that standard, there are a lot more twitter feeds the US government should be shutting down if it wants to shut down any feed that can remotely be construed as supporting "terrorism". That could begin with, if one accepts Chomsky's argument (and he is a professional linguist), some of the feeds put put by the US government. Where does it end? Freedom of speech is an ideal for a reason. How about a parallel twitter feed run by the US State Department that rebuts the Hamas feed point-by-point and tweet-by-tweet?
See also:
http://warprayer.org/
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The Israel, state government kills far more civilians by "accident" than Hamas kills on "purpose". States rationalize their violence by stated intentions of self defence. Then I guess you would want to be sure to keep tabs on Twitter, to rack Hamas's stated intentions of "self defence"
If we are disregarding the reality of whom is killing whom, and in what numbers, and base purely on the stated intentions, then there may be no "terrorism" anywhere.
Then again, there would never be 1st degree murders or any truly egregious actions self interest, since stated intention predicates reality.
Or...we call out violence wherever we see it, and start the actual work to adress real mutual grievances and suffering , marginalize extremists and make thouse very hard political bargains to move peace forward.
Free speech is a sacred right, even murderers have it.
However encouraging people to commit crimes when there is good reason to believe someone will act upon your words
is illegal pretty much anywhere.
Hamas should not be censored because they are evil (they are as evil as they come),
They should be censored when they call for terror or other illegal activity.
I myself have not read too many of their twitter posts so I don't know if they use them to spread general propoganda (false or other)
or if they overtly call for terrorism.
All of this is purely on the moral aspects of censorship, ignoring the effectiveness of censoring twitter.
I suspect censoring Hamas effectively may prove difficult.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably." (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Aaron_Satie).
Though I believe that both sides have done their share of wrong to the other over the years, I believe that shutting down Twitter accounts run by Hamas would be totally wrong. As a country that is supposed to respect freedom of speech, the US should be setting an example for the world.
It's easy to stand behind freedom when it's easy. It only counts when it's hard.
This reminds me of the 'voice ban placed on Sinn Féin by Margaret Thatcher in 1988. (Sinn Féin is, or was, the political wing of the Provisional IRA).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams#Voice_ban
I remember Gerry Adams being interviewed on TV during the ban. He was silent, and they had an actor reading out his words, rather like a ventriloquist dummy! It was very bizarre.
The ban applied to both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness (and others).
Interestingly, since then we've had the Good Friday Agreement, and Martin McGuinness is now deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Peace can win out in the end.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
1. why does israel go after flies with a rocket launcher? its pretty shitty. there is no reason they can't send in some [much better trained] special ops forces instead of raining down hell. and that's just when they are going after a particular individual.
2. is hamas like al-qaeda where anyone can be a member? over the course of gaza's history, how many of the rocket attacks were sanctioned by hamas and how many were individuals, that may or may not have been members? it really does matter.
proof that the US government and its corporate owners are completely unfit to have any control of any part of the internet.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
a) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
b) The country with the largest and best financed military force in the world is now afraid of twitter posts? WTF?!
c) What's next, war on Twitter? War on Facebook? Hmm, that last one might not be such a bad thing. :)
d) Profit!
They've been getting pretty uppity... and they do speak French (if you can call it that)... I mean, what the hell? If we're going to delve into the absurd, let's go all the way.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In related news,Twitter asks FBI to identify them, and then explain why, if they know the identities, and these people are truly terrorist, why they haven't done something about them instead of just trying to shut down their computer accounts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=-4Wn2wlOwSU
+1, sad but true.
i thought republicans were supposed to believe in and uphold the constitution? what happened to freedom of speech? it applies to 'us' but not fellow human beings outside of our borders?
if we can censor any group at will, who decides who is filtered or not? politicians? given actions like redistricting or voter suppression, i'm not comfortable with state censorship.
who was there to protect us against our own state sponsored terrorism and propaganda? citing imminent danger and the use of WMD was a means of inducing fear to motivate congress to military action to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11.
yay... let's all be fascists.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/14-defining-characteristics-of-fascism.html
Ted Poe & friends... please stop destroying my country.
In a televised address following 9/11 and immediately prior to the invasion of Afghanistan:
"You're either with us, or you're against us."
There is no room for interpretation or neutrality here. Bush Jr. represented a clear a present danger to the entire civilised world (which is shrinking faster than an ice diver's nutsack); I'm glad he's no longer the Voice of America yet his legacy remains. People are still dying out there, and now they're testing new unmanned weapons systems just to mitigate that slight feeling of guilt when one man murders another man he's never even met let alone know exactly why he's doing it. Now, it's a video game. He doesn't even see his victims.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
First of all: I do not agree with eitehr Hamas or Israel, in IMHO they are both acting like idiots, but that said, this recent rash of "We need to censor the internet and what can and cannot be said" is very troubling. As usual our moronic politicians are treating almost everything with two different yard sticks. If *WE* or our allies say something its "freedom of speech" if somebody else says something we do not agree with we need to censor what they can say. On another thought: WHY exactly do we protect Israel all the time? They have created a shitstorm for themselves, now that they are reaping the fruits US politicians have to take sides? Oh, yeah, I know, thats free speech, that goes only one way.
The proponents of this stupid petition are too cowardly to list their names anywhere (and none of the linked stories do either), while the petition itself is a lame, "click to support" type thing, where you can't even see what the petition says without "registering your support." Odious, undemocratic, and obviously a prong in the AIPAC/IDF "social media" campaigns going on now.
I'd be interested to know whether the seven Congresspeople are having the screws put to them in response to only narrowly being (re-) elected this past campaign cycle. Of course we don't know who they are, as above.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I'm opposed to limiting free speech. A brain damaged populace/news media willing to uncritically accept the photoshopped images and hate speech of Hamas as truth, is a bigger problem than just one terrorist group.
That said, there something very important to consider:
Free speech doesn't mean much without the rule of law. If Twitter says that you can post anything, but Hamas/Iran/[insert despotic regime here] responds by tapping the local cellphone network and hunting down and killing local dissidents who post on Twitter, there is really not a level playing field (and islamists can -- and do -- do the same thing with international critics -- for example, see Salman Rushdie, and, well, what remains of the Lebanese political process).
In a vacuum, free speech would be a nice idea. To allow access to groups of people who murder dissidents -- and people who hold opposing viewpoints in general -- strikes me as rather unfair and counter productive. You can't have a fruitful conversation when one side is afraid to speak up, for fear of violent physical attacks, as a retaliation.
On that basis alone, I would ban Hamas.
Now, this can be a slippery slope, leading to bans on Al Qaeda pages on facebook and on Twitter, censoring members of the New Black Panthers, and maybe even you, if you're retweeting the latest picture of a dead syrian kid faked to look like a dead palestinian kid. At some point, it can be abused, but allowing access to thugs who who bully and threaten their critics into submission, is already abuse, in my humble opinion.
...Republican hypocrisy. They're all about "smaller government" until they want government to control this that group of people. And they wonder why they're being marginalized among people who actually appreciate the value of our civil rights.
I see one word missing from this debate - "settlers".
You cannot declare the boundary between Gaza and Israel an international border, and then begin to settle the land you have just declared is not yours.
Ditto for West Bank. Ditto for Jerusalem.
Anything else is fuel for continuing conflict.
That is all.
"Seven House Republicans" = "Goyim", slaves of the Jews. Sickening.
Are you fed up of fighting the Jews' wars yet? Are you fed up of the Jewish Federal Reserve running YOUR country, without a democratic mandate? Are you fed up of the sick Jewish media, promoting depravity and insanity?
www.jewishproblem.com
all that will happen is it will be offshored to somewhere w/o political censorship. this is a real opportunity waiting for someone to make a bundle on.
Here's my perspective as an Israeli (and not a particularly nationalistic or right wing one):
Hamas and their affiliates specifically target civilians.
They shoot rockets at random into civilian population, they bomb buses.
Last year there was a case where an anti-tank missile was shot at a school bus specifically marked as such.
In another case last year two Palestinian men infiltrated a settlement and killed an entire family, they literally slit the throats of and eleven year old, four year old and three months old children.
And when an event like this happens there is dancing and giving out of candy in the streets of Gaza.
These actions have no military purpose, as far as I understand it they are motivated by hate, religious indoctrination and the need of groups like Hamas to gain prestige to perpetuate their rule.
Now, on the Israeli side, rockets are shot into our civilian population and buses explode and the duty of the government is to protect its population, if a rocket launcher in operating from inside a civilian population that's unfortunate but to the government the safety of our population has priority over the safety of theirs, and if it's deemed that a high-level planner of attacks must be killed then an assassination will be planned to minimize collateral damage but you can't wait indefinitely.
I won't deny that on the individual level you won't find soldiers who get off on the power trip of humiliating someone going through their checkpoint or maybe steal in iPod while going through a person's stuff but that does not express the values of the IDF and if they are caught they will be jailed and they will be expelled from the army.
On the Palestinian side, if you perform a suicide bombing, if you're sitting in the Israeli jail for an attack, your family will receive a stipend, you will be considered a hero, there will be pictures of you on billboards and you will get streets and schools named after you.
As for the Settlers, I think they're assholes, my friends who serve in the army and come in contact with them generally express the sentiment of 'Why do I have to come here and protect these assholes for their fucked up ideology?'.
But except for very few cases their actions amount to vandalism at most.
And these actions are considered criminal, there's even a special department in the secret service dedicated to infiltrating them, arresting them, expelling them from the territories an generally thwarting them.
Now if you look at the numbers you'll see more the death ratio in every conflict heavily weighted towards the Palestinian side (due to their methods of attack being less accurate, our side having early warning systems, bomb shelters for every person) but I do believe that one side specifically targeting civilians with the other side trying to avoid civilian casualties doesn't make both sides morally equal.
There's this quote that goes "if the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, but if Israel lays down its weapons there would be no more Israel." .
And while this is a pretty simplistic cliche that ignores historical, geopolitical and what have you claims in the region, I do believe that it is in essence true.
Importing your own population into occupied territory isn't "vandalism at most." It is prohibited by article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention because it is part and parcel of ethnic cleansing.
The agreement was with Mubarak. Mubarak represented Mubarak interests, not Egypt.No agreement he reached can ever be considered to be an 'Egypt' agreement if he didn't have a real mandate to lead.
Death count israel 3 palestinians over 100! do i need to say more? that's what an occupational force does for everyone of theirs killed they kill a manyfold!
these jews that called for the ending of free speech of people they don't like is ridiculous, israel is an apartheid based (they have actual roads that are only for jews!) terrorist nation which was founded by terrorism, the irgun bombed the british and thats how the state came to be, talk about ridiculous hypocrasy.
if israel truly cared for their citizens they would spend the bulk of their budget on DEFENSE and not on offense, instead of protecting their citizens with batteries of patriot missiles they spend all their money on offensive military material to bomb the citizens of gaza, they even bombed police station and hotels where the international media was located!!!
The question keeps coming up again and again, do the Congressmen and Senators work for America or USA?
at first glance, i thought legislators were calling on twitter to ban humans. i'd support that bill.
The politicians believe the Jewish/Evangelicals are behind Israel because Fox tells them it is. They also get considerable inducement to support Israel, something like half a billion of the 2.5 billion you send Israel makes its way back to the USA in the form of lobby money.
The Jewish Americans think other Jewish Americans are behind Israel because Jewish media promotes that idea as peer pressure.
You believe that idea because of shouty astroturfers that promote Israel's interests as though they're American interests.
They lost the biggest plank of suppression, when we started discussing how Jew != Israel and simply disagreeing with Israel's actions, isn't synonymous with antisemitism. The response to that was this 2006 move to ban speech that might give support to terrorists, and in turn defining terrorists as any group Israel didn't like.
So we stand here today where we can't say something that is true, on subjects simply because it opposes Israels interests.
Whenever I think of this situation, I always remember that ant-fungus, that takes over the brain of an ant, forces it to climb a tree and then explodes a seed pod through its head. The ant may be bigger, but it ultimately dies, the fungus shoots off and finds a new host.
Free speech isn't for ideas that you support. Good to see those who swear oaths to the U.S. Constitution defending it so aggressively for even the most marginalized individuals.
These actions have no military purpose, as far as I understand it they are motivated by hate, religious indoctrination and the need of groups like Hamas to gain prestige to perpetuate their rule.
Unfortunately this is true. There is nothing Israel can do (or interestingly, has done) that can change this. The Qur'an and hadiths command faithful muslims to kill all unbelievers. Only 'bad' muslims ignore these commands (just as 'bad' christians and jews ignore the various bits of insanity in their scriptures). So unfortunately as an Israeli there is nothing you can do, except try not to hurt the innocent and always keep your guard up. Always.
Fortunately the rest of the world is slowly waking up to what is actually going on. It used to be the narrative that the Palestinians were poor victims and there were many protests in the West. In the last bout of fighting only the historically ignorant 'new left' diehards still believe in the helpless Palestinian story. What I found remarkable is that there were so few anti-Israeli protests in the West and very many messages of understanding for the Israeli situation on places such as YouTube. If Israel strives to keep the moral high ground (trying not to hurt the innocent, trying to keep its crazy settlers in check) then the World will notice, and is noticing - for what it is worth.
Don't let the rants of the historically ignorant change get you down :)
Them small government Republicans are at it again. Keeping their nose out of everyone's business but their own.
I don't understand how those who describe themselves as tolerant and civilized Liberal/Progressives can possibly support "Palestinians" who blatantly kill gays and beat/stone to death women and treat them as sex-slaves and chattel.
This explains what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCiqdjVHTOI
And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGaXIhT3SRI
So, to recap, Palestinians hang gays and treat women as property, yet Palestinians are supported by the same people and groups who are protesting for gay marriage and pro-women agendas in the US. Is it only US gays that deserve to be allowed to live, not get hung, and get married? Or are "brown" gays different? Is it only non-Arabic women that you get upset over being treated as sub-human chattel and sex-slaves?
I guess I'm just morbidly curious as to how anyone claiming to be tolerant and progressive-minded can rationalize all that rabid support for Palestinians and rabid hatred for Israelis/Jews without their head asploding.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you can't refer to Twitter's own TOS and Twitter Rules, you're just engaged in grinding a political axe. Hamas violates those in multiple ways and should have had their accounts closed as part of Twitter's routine management. It shouldn't take Congressmen to remind Twitter to enforce their own rules.
Unless Twitter has a political agenda....
The palestinians the are sore losers.
They use every media outlet such as twitter to cry about them constantly losing wars.
People, you LOST a war your land got conquered.
That's the reality, instead of burying yourselves further in shit move on and rebuild.
You have land (Gaza Strip, West Bank) use it build some factories, build a theatre, a soccer field.
Renounce all violence and fight Israel with diplomacy.
And most importantly stop crying about it or at least collect all your tears in a jar they taste so sweet.
Because we can totally trust the United States government to designate who and who is not a terrorist.
These actions have no military purpose
Welcome to asymmetric warfare.
Making civilians suffer is a means of exerting political influence. That doesn't make it right, and it may not always be effective, but it does have military value.
Hell, it's led to direct Israeli action, which boosts the profile of the Hamas position and the conditions within the Gaza strip.
I haven't exactly seen Israel going out of its way to alleviate the suffering there.
This is a good example of why, although I have a Twitter account, I never use it, for the most part. It's also why I am opposed to the concept of giant, faceless corporations like Google, Facebook, and Twitter being the developers of, and having control of, the applications which the majority of people on the Internet use.
Twitter in particular is a fascist, corporate usurpation of the decentralised and non-corporate ircII protocol. As far as I am concerned, every principled Internet user should boycott both the application and the corporation into non-existence. We need to bring back IRC, so that we can again have decentralised, non-corporate control of text-based chat.
I honestly hope a Twitter employee reads this. Fuck you. Truly and sincerely, fuck you, and every other individual who works for the company as well. It is companies like yours that have destroyed the Internet as it existed before 2000.
That has not been forgiven, and it will not be forgotten.
I'm sorry, but I clicked through here because I was wondering what the government wanted Twitter to do with Bahamas. I smell a trademark/copyright lawsuit coming somewhere.
#o#
O Moo.
When I said 'vandalism at most' I was referring to their actions, not to their being there.
As far as I know Israel doesn't in any way actively 'import its population into occupied territory'.
I do know that Israel used its own armed forces to remove all Israeli settlers from the Gaza strip and all it got in return was a bunch of angry settlers and some more rocket launches closer to the border.
And it does use it's own armed forces to dismantle new settlements in the west bank that these people keep trying to put up.
I agree that you could consider not evacuating them and providing military protection as tacit agreement but it's not the same as importing and ethnic cleansing and I'm sure that at least some of the settlers have legal claim on their land which would have to be worked out in an agreement between the two sides.
I don't know what you would consider going out of its way but Israel does provide electricity to Gaza, humanitarian aid does goes through, Palestinians in need for specialized medical attention go through to get it in Israel, all this even during the rocket attacks on our cities.
And what you've mentioned are political goals, not military goals, worsening your own population's conditions and getting your headquarters targeted is not a military goal.
Military goals _are_ political goals. Targeting civilians is an overtly political act.
That doesn't mean it's right, or wrong. That's a moral judgement, not a military one.
Israel provides electricity because that is one of its responsibilities as the occupying power. In any event, Gaza wouldn't need electrical assistance if Israel had not bombed their electrical plants (a war crime) or forbid the import of parts and materials needed to repair them. The rocket attacks don't come out of nowhere, Israel has been steadily colonizing the Palestinian's land, starting decades prior to the establishment of Hamas. The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits such colonization but I suppose you think the Palestinians should just submit to their own ethnic cleansing because Israel is exceptional for some reason.
The colonies are explicitly approved by the Israeli government. Most so-called "outposts" are promoted to full "settlement" status. There is nothing tacit about it. Their plan is to colonize and annex as much territory as possible with as few non-Jews as possible. So they can preserve their precious Jewish majority that was created by force. Jewish settlers receive assistance from the Israeli government, protection from the army, special roads that only they can drive on, and are under the Israeli legal system. The indiginous non-Jews can't drive from town to town, are under martial law, and suffer from malnutrition while their crops wither in their fields because they are unable to leave their homes to harvest them. In Gaza, Israel counts their calories and prevents the importation of food leading to stunted growth of children. Israel even prevents the export of food and goods, ensuring that the Palestinians remain under the thumb of Israel. All of this has been going on for decades prior to the establishment of Hamas.
But hey, they shoot rockets back at Israel so it's all OK, right?
My wife kept trying to get me to try it but I refused. Years.. I refused. I told her "I'm not trying that shit, it'll make me gay within microseconds." I finally gave in and, let me tell you buddy, it's the bee knees. Especially with roasted red peppers. I can't get enough.
Makes you fart like a sonofabitch though. Maybe that's why they want to ban it?
Though the banning would be ineffectual, of no real importance, and would cause no pain....The USA should stay out of it.. if Israel wants our help then they can buy it. This BS of doing police work on our bubble is getting old. the USA and others are beginning to make me wonder if this has not become evil religion vs evil religion and common people get caught up in their differences. Let them organize into something we can fight 10-50 years from now until that time comes ignore all of them. We should not waste our money and people chasing every zealot in a scarf with an rpg and ak-47. Let them organize a legit army and try to fight us.
Pla, you are hearby notified of a gathering at LCZ's in Narragansett, RI on Wotan's Day the 19'th of December.
Z would like an RSVP
I would have mailed you but you haven't checked your mail on Entropy since the Sep 23rd and I don't know of any social media that you might participate in outside of here.
--
BMO
Hamas and their affiliates specifically target civilians.
They shoot rockets at random into civilian population, they bomb buses.
So which is it? Do they target civilians or do they shoot rockets at random?
Which rockets does Hamas use that have guidance systems? (hint: none)
Why is it that when three Hamas rockets finally reach as far as Tel Aviv, two of them fall in the sea and the third falls seven kilometers outside of the city?
Face it. Hamas targets "north". Once Israel starts offering to equip Hamas' rockets with advanced guidance systems that will only steer them towards legitimate military targets, and Hamas turns down the offer, only then will you be legitimate in your claims of targeting civilians with rockets.
Or conversely, one might argue that the Israelis are hiding behind civilians. Yes, indeed, cowering behind human shields. Note the relative lack of IDF installations within the range of Hamas' rockets, but the abundance of Jewish "settlements" in these very areas. Perhaps if the Israelis would stop this practice that they accuse Hamas of engaging in, civilian casualties would be limited.
I too don't think both sides are morally equal. I don't see the Palestinians using precision munitions against schools, hospitals, and UN peacekeeping forces. I don't see them using white phosphorus. I can't say the same about the Israelis.
Finally, your absurd quote goes both ways. If the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, indeed. There will also be no more Palestine. If Israel lays down its weapons there will be no more Israel. And no more war.
But you are right. 'Allowing foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas to operate on Twitter is enabling the enemy,' said Poe. Someone needs to tell this twit to STFU. We don't care to stumble into yet another war started by a Texan Republican with a big mouth.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
The Christians lost the Crusades. Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.