I gotta tell you, this is so much more refreshing than that smarmy double-speak we have gotten from Arafat and Abbas. At least these guys are up-front about their objective.
So here he is, the newly appointed Hamas Commander-in-chief of the Palestinian Security Forces, Jamal Abu Samhadana:
“We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.”
Anybody want to debate the morality of targeted killings?
Latest posts by themiddle (see all)
Thank you for nice information. Please visit our web:
UHAMKA
Thank You For Nice Information
Please Visit Our Website
https://uhamka.ac.id/
https://uhamka.ac.id/
The Jews have no right to claim equality with us. If they wish to speak on the streets, in lines outside shops or in public transportation, they should be ignored, not only because their are simply wrong, but because they are Jews who have no right to a voice in the community.
—Joseph “I was a Hamasnik before it was cool” Goebbels
Mobius, let me understand this. If their leaders promote and lead the murder of Jews, and receive up to 73% of the Palestinian public supporting suicide bombings, then the Israelis should not target them because Palestinian support will increase?
So what?
As I point out above, they are no different than Arafat or Abbas. Fatah has perpetrated many more attacks on Israeli civilians than Hamas.
These guys sound like a broken record. They have three speeches and have been using them since forever. They just chance the sequence.
Their kids are allready memorizing them just to irritate us in the future.
right, but there’s also a backlash from the targetted killings and they often lead to increased sympathy and support for terrorist organizations. after yassin & rantissi were killed, public support for hamas tripled.
Well, Kelsey, we at Jewlicious have already had the efficacy debate. Turns out they’re effective and those targeted are killed.
(in the previous comment, it should read “OR if a translating journalist–OOPS, sorry).
I’m curious how accurate the translation is, in that the English version says “They are Jews.” It craftily doesn’t say “They are the Jews.” I’m curious whether that is a distinction that shows where he is aware he still needs to draw a line of double-speak, of it a translating journalist decided to insulate him against charges of genocidal intent. (without the word “the”, the attempt will be made to claim it is only identifying that most Israelis are Jews. With the word the, it is more globally threatening). Nasty in either case, but it is just an odd phrasing.
“Anybody want to debate the morality of targeted killings?”
Nope. Just the efficacy. On a case by case basis.