Web Game Takes Israeli Side in Gaza Conflict

As GamePolitics reported last week, Israel’s invasion of Gaza has spawned protests in Second Life as well as a Flash game with a distinctly pro-Palestinian view.

The latest online game inspired by the conflict, however, is very much pro-Israeli.

Save Israel is a simplified, Missile Command-like game which seems very difficult to win – and that appears to be the designer’s point. When it’s "game over," a splash screen advises the player:

It’s very hard to save Israeli citys from Hamas’s rocket, so we must defend ourselfs

User comments to the game on its Kongregate page reflect the strong division of opinion generated by the conflict.

Via: Enduring America

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Im_Blue says:

    I simply meant to suggest that such "other factors" mean that Israel has a large responsibility in causing a situation under which terrorism flourishes. Not that that Hamas are doing a good thing.

  2. Mnementh2230 says:

    I think in the end, we have to place most of the blame for this on Hamas – part of their tactic is to make Israel commit these acts of violence to gain public favor.  They call it their "CNN Strategy" – make Israel look barbaric to curry world favor.  How should Israel respond?


    Let them fire more missiles?

    That’s an un-answered act of agression, and invites further attacks.


    Send in ground troops?

    That would be a meat grinder for soldiers.



    Hamas has in its mission statement the complete and utter destruction of Israel.  You can’t negotiate with that.


    Air Strikes?

    This saves Israeli lives, and defends their soverignty, at least, but still causes what we’re seeing on TV today.  It’s the best possible choice for Israel, but it’s still a bad one.

  3. Mnementh2230 says:

    The only problem is that moving border fences is very difficult…


    Otherwise, I think you’re being too generous to Hamas.  You’d allow them to get away with 99 missiles a month and still be making gains?  I can see perhaps 20 missiles, to allow for some crazy elements, but 99 missiles a month is a bit extreme.

  4. Mnementh2230 says:

    After doing a little more research, I’m forced to take the Israeli side in the conflict.  Basically, Hamas says in their founding documents (a mission statement, if you will) they want the complete and utter distruction of Israel, and they also state the strategy of hiding in civilian areas to hinder Israel’s efforts (which violates geneva conventions, BTW).


    Yeah, there are other factors in there, but in the end, we have a established, functioning nation (Israel) being attacked by rockets from the governing body of a neighboring nation (who Israel is supporting with electricity, gas, and other utilities) who have stated they want to see Israel wiped out.  In that context, the supposed reasons for the rocket attacks don’t really matter – Hamas would find reasons to fire them anyway, because their end goal is the destruction of Israel!


    Gaza wants to be seen as its own indipendent nation, yeah?  Until they can start behaving like RATIONAL ADULTS instead of whiny children, why should they be seen that way?  Gaza is almost entirely dependent on Israel’s electricity, water, and other utilities for its survival (not that much electricity is flowing right now, but whatever).  The people in Gaza elected Hamas, and now they’re reaping the rewards of their ill-advised choice.  It’s harsh, but it’s true.  At least the opposition (can’t remember thier name) was secular and just wanted peace.

  5. shady8x says:

    I have to agree with you. Nothing will be accomplished.

    What Israel should do is move the border fence 10 yards into gaza after every hundred missiles… and move it back up until its current location about 1 yard for every month with less then a hundred and 5 yards for every month with no missiles…

    eventually either the missiles will stop or they wont be able to reach anyone… obviously people will scream LAND GRABBERS… but as long as they don’t build anything on that land it should be fine…

  6. shady8x says:

    He has changed his standpoint so many times that from the begining could only mean the current standpoint… hmm didn’t he go senile recently? considering how often his ‘facts’ are wrong I would think the answer would be yes he is senile…

  7. Grombar says:

    The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for everyone involved.

    Hamas fights dirty, attacks in civilian clothes, hides weapon caches in schoolyards and hospitals, and surrounds itself with human shields whenever possible. Their tactics are cowardly and low, and the sooner they’re out of power, the better off the Palestinians will be.

    That said, Israel won’t succeed in that by blasting through the human shields, which is what they’ve been doing. Twice last week, they blew up marked schools full of refugees to take out one guy on the roof. And the second time, the guy wasn’t even there. In the last two weeks, Israel has killed over 850 Palestinians — and by Doctors Without Borders’ count, half of them have been women and children. To put that into perspective, Hamas’ rockets have killed 17 Israelis since 2002. Even if you assume that all the men killed in Israel’s campaign were blackhearted terrorists, that still means that Israel has killed 141 times as many civilians — in the past two weeks — as Hamas kills in a year. "Trigger-happy" doesn’t begin to describe it.

    And Hamas’ leaders are kicking back and laughing about it, because as bad as they are, this bombing campaign makes Israel look worse. Israel’s like an angry bull, and Hamas is the matador, waving the red cape, provoking it into charging and trampling everything in its way, and then yanking the cape back and getting away clean.

    What does anyone expect all this violence to accomplish?

  8. Im_Blue says:

    I think one very important aspect which has been overlooked here is the resentment towards western powers (more or less U.S.) in supporting Israel and generally screwing over the entire region. Think about it Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. militatry aid, and the U.S. continuaslly vetoes UN resolutions calling for a halt in Israel opperations in Gaza. Im not meining to point the finger at the U.S. here (although really they need to calm down) but I think its a much overlooked asspect of the conflict. Its not just Hamas getting pissed off with Israel, it’s also Hamas getting pissed off with western imperialism; it’s impact on the region, as well as its support and funding for Israel.

  9. Grombar says:

    Someone in the last discussion said it best: They’re both butt nuggets.

    Hamas always provokes Israel, Israel always takes the bait, people always get killed in the crossfire, and nothing changes.

  10. Austin_Lewis says:

    Your hostage situation analogy is worthless; a hostage situation assumes that they have people that need to be rescued.  Palestine is a country that willingly elected a terrorist government, there’s no innocent hands in this. 

    Why should Israel put their infantry, one of the best in the world, at risk just to find no one?   I don’t know if you understand this, but these operations have gone on so long because one minute a man can heft an RPG and launch it into Israel, and the next the RPG is in a trash can and he’s a citizen. It’s not worth sending infantry into a country that you can’t trust anyone in just so that people like you can say ‘oh, Israel’s doing the right thing’.

  11. Monte says:

     While Israel may need to respond, HOW they respond is a different matter. Once again i say that one of the major problems with the israeli offensive is their use of bombings to attack the militants. 

    If you are dealing with a hostage situation you do not just blow up the hostages along with the enemy… grant it that’s not a perfect analogy; on the downside their is no negotiating with the enemy to free the hostages as they are more like human shields so the militants have no plans to release them, but on the upside, the enemy is not threatening to kill the hostages themselves so that gives you little reason to not resort to forceful methods

    Fact is, if the israeli military was using infantry to take out the militants instead of explosives, their would be far fewer civilian casualties. Just today their is a report that an israeli mortar hit a UN school killing 40 civilians… the reason there was mortar fire landing near the school was because their was militants attacking with mortar fire themselves near the school… Had the israeli’s used infantry to attack the militants, the school would not have gotten caught in the cross fire… ya there is more of a chance those militants might have been able to escape, but the alternative was the lives of those 40 civilians

    The militants are using very cowardly and dispictable tactics, but the israeli military is allowing those tactics to work with their choice of methods… using infantry may not be seen as "effective" as bombings, but you can be sure that there would be far less civilian casualties

  12. shady8x says:

    maybe in your head…

    In everyone else’s, if Israel thought that way then it would start that genocide all of Israel’s opponents always dream and talk about…

    Israel is doing what it can, taking out as many military targets as it can before it once again withdraws… it needs to show its strength before the stronger neighbors with whom it has been at war since they attacked in the 40s decide to test out its defenses themselves instead of just sending their old missiles to hamas… unfortunately in the middle of a war zone civilians get killed and mistakes get made… which is why war is always the wrong choice…

    The thing is that when thousands of missiles rain down upon you, you have to realize that YOU ARE IN A STATE OF WAR, and you have better respond…

    Its not that I agree with Israel’s methods its just that I think they have no choice but to respond… if they don’t then they will get killed…


  13. shady8x says:

    1948-1967 Israelis were called palestinians…

    IF you look at that same map you will notice that the majority of the land area called palestine is currently called JORDAN the vast majority of who’s population is Palestinian….

    How about we look at a map of nations rather then geographical areas before you start talking about the ‘nations’ called Africa, Asia, north America, Sahara and pacific ocean… Oh wait there is no map with a nation bearing the name palestine appearing on it at any time during the last few hundred years…

    but it certainly is fun to come up with percents… hey I have a fact that is about as factual as your, 23% of the population of Martians is green while 89% are grey… hmm that doesn’t add up to a hundred exactly but it is as accurate as your info…


  14. Neeneko says:

    Because their entire mantra is ‘if we hurt and demoralize them enough they will stop fighting back’.

    Killing civilians demoralizes a population.

    They are choosing thier targets carefully, and no general in the field is stupid enough to believe that using a gunship on an apartment building in the middle of the night in order to kill some commander is anything other then an attempt to show how much you can hurt your opponent.

    Israel knows full well they can never win by kiling military targets, just like Hamas knows that they will never be strong enough TOO attack military targets, so both sides are trying to inflict hurt where it gets the best payoff… hit civilians, show how thier government can’t protect them, hope that the outrage causes a shift in politics and ousts the leaders in favor of someone more sympatetic to the other side.

    So yes, it makes perfect strategic sense. 

  15. DarkSaber says:

    I have plenty, I just don’t waste it on the likes of you.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  16. DarkSaber says:

    Really, your bias? We would have never fucking realized if you hadn’t pointed it out. But by admitting your bias, you’ve just tainted all the ‘facts’ you were presenting, but to be honest that already sounded more like propganda than fact anyway.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  17. Snipzor says:

    "they wouldn’t be launching bombs that "accidetnally""

    Well if it is state violence, it’s okay. Wait, no it’s not. If they do use the technology, the neighbouring nations would never standby. Aren’t you aware of M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction)? Israel is doing something wrong, but they know damn well they won’t risk the PR stunt of nuking an entire city. Plus, it is a slow genocide, the kind that is partially allowed by the UN (Not anymore). Look at the territory from 1948-2009, Palestine went from around 50% to having less than 2%. Guess who took the land? This is a suffocation, I just used genocide to get a response.


    I’m biased, if you have a problem with that, take a long hard look at the world and yourself, and shut up.

  18. DarkSaber says:

    Should also bear in mind that Hamas’ definition of a cease-fire is one where Israel stops firing, but Hamas don’t.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  19. Chaltab says:

    Yeah, definitely infecting your brain.

    Israel is certainly <i>overreacting</i> and has become ridiculously trigger happy, but that’s what happens when you’re surrounded by countries that hate your guts.

     But if Israel was trying to commit genocide, they wouldn’t be launching bombs that accidetnally killed 40 civilians. They have the military technology to eradicate the palestinian poulation. There would be no need for all these intermitten cease-fire cycles.

  20. DarkSaber says:

    Yes, it’s SO clear cut opinion is divided more or less 50/50 on the subject. Too fucking right you’re naive.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  21. Snipzor says:

    Not only am I suggesting, I am saying it. Ask yourself, why would they bomb a UN school (Where the UN told the Palestinians to go to a UN area for protection)? Why would they bomb suburbs where there were no reported Hamas "terrorists" (Put in quotations considering they were voted in place).

    Do I know why? Hell no, because I am naive and cannot comprehend why they would, I’m too good a person. But I do know that they goated Hamas into launching the "Devastating" and "Large-Scale" rockets with the trade deal Israel broke.

    A theory though, why they didn’t get away with it this time is the availability of information. Last time they were "pre-emptively" attacked, they did not show the damage in Lebanon or Israel. For good reason too, they did not want to show the scale of damage done. But now, we do have information and video footage. We do have the pictures of the children dying in Gaza, we do have the pictures of the Hamas rockets doing no damage in Israel. We do have that information.


    But most importanly, we have the sequence of events, unlike last time in which we didn’t. But why are they bombing Gaza? I don’t know, they probably want to commit genocide, just to get more land. But the PR battle is a losing one, Israel won’t win because we know too much. Similar to religion, but that is a different story.

  22. DarkSaber says:

    What you are seeing is the whole reason Hamas hide in the middle of civilian areas in the first place.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  23. shady8x says:

    The US has no credibility to criticize Israel

    The US blew up two countries after 3 terrorist attacks…

    There have been thousands upon thousands of terrorist attacks on Israel

    It would be like a terrorist making a beheading video also criticizing the bad treatment of his friends in Guantanamo bay…

  24. shady8x says:

    This is why I said that I support the far lesser of two evils rather than the purely good one…

    Israel isn’t blameless but the main culprits are hamas…


    OH and the only reason I said that he graduated from hamas high was because hamas is bombarding towns within pre-1967 borders… so when he said Israel is guilty of using human shields by building cities in contested territory he could only have meant all of Israel…(unless he is completely ignorant of what is going on that is…)

    That is like saying Israel is committing war crimes by having people live anywhere inside of it… so yes he is a supporter of the stated goals of hamas to wipe out the entire nation of Israel

  25. Monte says:

     "oh yes the power to not get thousands of missiles launched at it while there is a cease fire"

    from what i’ve read, the number of rockets during the ceasefire numbered more in the dozens… once the ceasefire was put into place, the number of rockets being fired was severely reduced to the point that it leads me to believe that Hamas may not have been behind the remaining rocket fire, but other smaller groups as Hamas isn’t the only ones who want to lob rockets into israel… grant it, from what i can tell, Hamas is still guilty of inaction as it seems that they did not do as much as they could to stop the remaining rocket fire (the next ceasefire treaty is gonna need to include mandatory patrolling the border to make certain the smaller groups are caught and stopped)… however it should also be said that Israel was not fullfilling it’s end of the ceasefire agreement either, as they were supposed to send in aid, but only sent in like 20% or 15% of what they promised; as a result life was hard for citizens living in the gaza strip… since i lack a timeline of events, it’s possible the lacking aid was a reaction to the remaining rocket fire, but the point must stand that NEITHER side was actually upholding their end to the bargain fully


    "but everyone basically says that while its horrible that Israel gets bombed, they shouldn’t do anything unless they are giving in to the terrorists"

    No one is claiming israel should do NOTHING… but what Israel is doing right now is not right and they should be taking on different actions… one thing i’ve been going on about is that israel could be doing A LOT more to limit civilian casualties and a lot more to provide aid to the civilians… we should not be so quick to look into these matters as black and white, that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, , have that "if you are not with us, you are against us" mentality, and that to even dare question the actions of one side means to comdemn everything they do and give all your support to the otherside (like putting critics of israel down on a similar level as Hamas supporters)

  26. Monte says:

     Well, that is why Obama did make a speech pointing out that the US needs to set a better example… True, the US due to it’s past actions like the war in iraq could not talk against Israel, however with the coming of the Obama administration, Obama could in theory, criticize Israel’s actions due to the fact that he himself has long said that he never supported the iraq war in the first place… unlike Bush, Obama would not be a hypocrite

    Ofcourse, whether or not Obama would do so is highly suspect… afterall, politically speaking, the move would be bad in that a good portion of the country already have misgivings about him, and much of the country expects him to stand by israel no matter what… to actually criticize the actions of an ally would be very bold, and i’m not sure Obama would do such a thing

    Frankly, many people read criticism as being anti-israel and supportive of terrorism… but fact of the matter is, allies are not necessarily pure. We should not stand by and support everything they do… this is a lot like with russia and georgia; people were very quick to condemn russia and say that georgia was nothing but a victim, but at the same time they ignored what Georgia was doing within it’s own country that lead to the conflict… just because we view them as an ally does not mean we should be blind to their actions… Hell the mentality of giving any ally a free pass is the kind of thinking that brought Sadam into power… When it comes down to it, Israels attacks have been going to far and a ceasefire is gonna be harder to obtain until israel starts pulling their forces back. 

  27. Darmoth says:

    True enough. But when a man chooses the lesser of two evils, he is still choosing evil.

    Something I’ve been thinking about… If the US did for some reason speak up against Israel’s actions, what kind of credibility do we have to tell them to stand down?

    After all, using the Bush Doctrine we invaded a country bent on unseating the leader. It was supposed to be for our safety. We launched a preemptive strike to ‘defend ourselves’ from future attacks.

    I’m no trying to push any political agenda here, my point was what ever we say as a nation, the rest of the world rolls its eyes and says "uh huh… yeah, right."

  28. shady8x says:


    hamas – ‘Lets massacre all jews’

    Israel – ‘Let’s make sure we don’t get killed’

    Both sides use weapons to fight…

    Oh yes take away why people are fighting and all that is left is ‘both sides use weapons to fight’…


    If Israel wants land so much then why has it been offering all the land it took to all the nations it took it from after every war in return for peace treaties?!?!?!?


    Just what insane kind of power could Israel get by taking out hamas? oh yes the power to not get thousands of missiles launched at it while there is a cease fire and the world tells it to take like Jews in Auschwitz… yes those devious Israelis…

    (the Auschwitz part is going to far but everyone basically says that while its horrible that Israel gets bombed, they shouldn’t do anything unless they are giving in to the terrorists… so its not really that far off..)


    So Hamas is using human shields by firing from inside civilians homes and Israel is using human shields by having people live within the borders of Israel… yes, perfect sense there… I am sure you graduated from hamas high with honors… (Israel withdrew all ‘illegal’ settlements within gaza years ago, the ones left are in west bank on the other side of the country and well outside the range of hamas fire… not to mention that they have no intention of shooting there…when they get the weapons, its tel aviv they will be targeting…)



    While I do understand not seeing either side as the right one, the fact of the matter is, you are going to great lengths to make Israelis look as evil as you can… and no I am not saying that that I am being objective I have chosen the far lesser of two evils…

  29. Grombar says:

    Religion’s part of it, but it’s also about territory, which both sides believe they have a right to, and about living conditions (the Gaza strip is a squalid and densely populated place, and both sides have some of the blame for that), and about the right of sovereignty, and about revenge, from both sides to both sides, for all the past violence.

  30. Monte says:

    Now where the hell did you even remotely get the idea that i have no problem with the methods Hamas uses and that i do not have any outrage over what they do? Do go putting words in my mouth and jumping to such ridiculous conclusions… unlike some people i do not paint this situation as so cleanly black and white over who is right and who is wrong and take the more gray position that both sides have problems… But just because Hamas targets cilivians and does nothing to lower those casualties DOES NOT mean the israeli military should do the same. The israeli military should be trying to be the better man if they want to keep feeling justified in their attacks… by stooping to a lower level they show themselves to be no better than the enemies they fight against

    As for the cilivians, based on comments from cilivians in Gaza, many feel as though they do not have any place to run too… The Militants are wide spread and all over Gaza, and if the only safe place is anywhere where those militants are not, then that leaves them no place in Gaza to run to… I imagine the only place where people could hope to run to and feel safe would be being able to cross over the border into egypt and seek refuge there… but we are talking about a population of a million people here… that is not gonna make for a quick evacuation; not to emntion that much of Gaza is without power much less other luxuries that would make moving easier… you can be sure a lot of cilivians are likely trying to run but they got little place to run to; Hell, there are even reports that say that shelters set aside for cilivians are being hit with bombs.

    the method of bomb first and clean up with infantry works well… the same could say with just dropping a nuke on an entire city. Just because a methods "works well" does not make the method right. Especially not when you are delaing with guerillas that blend in well with the general population, in a densely populated urban environment and with no known bases… by using such bombardmnet methods in this kind situation you end up hitting a lot of cilivians; hell you might end up wiping out a whole building of cilivians beacuse a few militants ran inside making you think it was being used as an outpost… the method of bomb first then send in ground troops, is best to be used when you know for a fact that the enemy is the only ones you are targeting…

  31. Unruly says:

    Actually, in Israel, you don’t sign up for the military. Every Jewish person is required to serve for a minimum of two years active duty and several years of reserves. So your comment about Israeli soldiers signing up is pretty much turned on its head there whereas it fits perfectly with militant group recruitment.

    Also, Hamas have always used random fire rockets and mortars, as well as suicide bombings of public places to get their point across. They have no qualms with sending a suicide bomber into a crowded hotel lobby or marketplace, somewhere that isn’t politically active, and killing civilians. Israel may bomb a few civilian structures and there may be some civilian casualties, but suicide bombers and random fire rockets are usually all civilian casualties. Where is the outcry at their tactics? They specifically choose a crowded civilian area for their suicide bombings. Why aren’t you saying that they should limit their civilian casualties?

    I agree that ground troops should be sent in, but only after the hot spots have been softened by bombings. Issue an ultimatum, then bombard, then send in ground forces. That method tends to work quite well for area seiges. Besides, if the non-militant civilians haven’t left by now, or aren’t attempting to leave, then its their choice to stay and they probably aren’t going to change their mind.

  32. Monte says:

    A necessary risk… Yes a militant might run and manage to get away, but the alternative would be using bombings and killing about a dozen civilians just to get that militant.

    And sure, maybe by using soldiers the israeli soldiers might take some  casualties, but that’s what they signed up to do… they signed up to fight for their nation, to follow the orders of their leaders, and that they may very well die doing so… this is unlike the civilians who are often just bystanders, who may or may not even support their own government’s actions; unlike the soliders, they are not prepared to die fighting for the cause of their government.

    Use of bombing is effective, but so are nukes; you are much more certain to take out your target…but there is a damn good reason we don’t just drop nukes on a nation we are fighting… In war, people die, but that doesn’t mean we should not do everything within our power to limit those casualties, especially amognst those that do not fight

  33. Monte says:

    Ah the old "they do it too" defence… the same argument used to support the actions such as the use of torture, or revenge killings that only help keep a cycle of violence going.

    The better man does not stoop down to the level of their enemies… to do so makes you just as bad as they are…

  34. Neeneko says:

    Stated goals are not worth the leaflets they are printed on.

    What a ruling class is doing and what they use to rally the people are realy in sync.  Take away the retoric that both sides use to fire up the population and the goals start being very similiar.  Both sides want land, power, and the other side being elsewhere.  This was the case long before even the disolvement of the ottoman empire.

    (also keep in mind, both sides are making heavy use of human shields, both are putting civilians in the line of fire for their own political gains,.. hamas through fine-grained locations of fire and storage, israel by building towns in the middle of contested land in order to change ‘the realities on the ground’)

  35. Dragoon1376 says:

    I think that’s not even remotely the case here.  

    You have to examine the stated goals of each side and the means by which they approach those goals.  Hamas has stated several times that they seek the destruction of Israel.  In order to carry this out they launch attacks not at the Israeli infrastructure like government or military but besiege their civilian population with rocket/mortar fire.  And I would say I’m not even sure that it is a matter of rich/poor armed forces.  There are particular armaments like mortars and rpgs that are better suited for the kind of urban warfare favored by Hamas that allows them to blend with civilian shields (which the Palestinian population is) while striking with nigh impunity in the realm of world opinion. 


  36. Neeneko says:

    One side is rich and the other isn’t?

    It’s terrorism is you are poor and weak.

    It’s a military action of you are rich and powerful.

  37. DarkSaber says:

    Hamas have it coming.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  38. hayabusa75 says:

    How are the Israeli bombings different from the Hamas rocket attacks?

    "There is no sin except stupidity." – Oscar Wilde

  39. DarkSaber says:

    Bit hard to use soldiers when any terrorist can leg it round a corner into an alley, chuck his gun over a wall and emerge the other side a ‘blameless victim’


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  40. Monte says:

    yes, but one of the problems is with Israeli methods of attack… such as the use of bombing targets instead of sending in soliders. Using infantry they could get inside the building and take out the enemy with minimal civilian casualties… by using bombing methods, the attacks become more indiscriminate and target not just the militants but anything near by them…

    Furtharmore, the UN and the red cross have been making numerous reports about ways in which the israeli army has been harming methods to provide aid and relief to the citizens…

  41. Sigma 7 says:

    A known tactic used by the militant groups in order to obtain sympathy is to use civilian buildings to launch rockets, and claim the retaliation was meant to target civilians.  This is known as blaming the victim, and you can confirm this because there are very few protests concerning the use of suicide bombers on civilian targets.

    Also, the most recent cease fire wasn’t broken by Isreal.

  42. Im_Blue says:

    Yeah your right.

    "Then he saw one of the officers take aim at him."

    Should really be something like

    "Then he saw 50 of the officers fire machine guns into the crowd."


    "All people watched in horror when they saw the little girl getting hit by the policebullet that was meant for the criminal …"

    Should really be something like "All the people watched in horror when they saw the 100+ civilians get hit by the 500000 bullets ‘meant’ for the criminal….."

  43. Snipzor says:

     No, you think too small. Not only was it a gross oversimplification, it was a disgusting series of leaving out facts. Mainly considering why the man would fire fireworks into the crowd. Also the fact that the people in the town died is the biggest lie in the story. Plus there is another problem, why would only one girl die why dozens in the town did. It doesn’t work that way.

  44. Im_Blue says:

    That entire story was a GROSS over simplification of the situation, and in no way supports your previous claims.

  45. DarkSaber says:

    Close. The Man is Hamas, the Sister is the Civlians in Gaza, and ‘the other town’ is meant to be Gaza.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  46. Monte says:

    Well i would say that Hamas themselves are behind most of the rocket attacks from before and towards the end of the cease fire… the rockets that continued during the ceasefire however were the work of smaller groups which, while not part of Hamas, are still under the responcibility of Hamas seeing as they are the government in that area

    If this is indeed the case, then in a sense it would be unfair to blame Hamas for the rocket attacks during the ceasefire without first understanding what level of control hamas is capable of… if they are incapable of dealing with the rockets then it is unfair to blame them, but if they are capable (or atleast capable of doing more) but unwilling then their inaction is enough to earn them blame. They are the local government and as such it is their responcibility to police the small groups for the sake of maintain their promises in the treaty… frankly, Hamas being unwilling to patrol the border is enough for me to jump to the conclusion that Hamas COULD have done more about the rocket attacks but were unwilling; they simply sat on their hand and let the smaller groups do as they pleased and only got up to say they condemn what those groups do


    I am curious about the possibility of having the same ceasefire treaty as before but have UN troops assist in the patrol of the border to make sure to an end of the rocket attacks… with the UN troops there, then israel could get some level of security that Hamas is not launching rockets themselves and that methods are in place to halt the continued rocket attacks… but how much the UN troops are capable of doing or whether or not Hamas would even allow their troops in just to patrol the border are complete unknowns to me.

    [edit] seems i got my answer… turns out Hamas will not except any kind of foreign troops… though grant it, that was in regards to policing the egyptian border for smuggling, but i think it’s safe to assume that the same would be said for the israeli border to stop rockets… though i should also add the egypt aswell will not allow foriegn forces to help stop the smuggling… and also that Israeli officials do not think an international force could get the job done

  47. Neeneko says:

    You are probably on to something there.

    I get the impression the rockets never really stopped, but there was not much Hamas could do about that.  I think people tend to forget just how little power Hamas really has.  We are so used to governments that have pretty absolute authority over their territory that we have trouble grasping how you would have to operate within a government that does not, esp with a people who are used to tribal rule (and thus have no concept of central authority in the first place).

    I would wager that Hamas has next to no real control over the rockets, but keeps out of their way in order to not conflict with the small groups that are sending them out (thus further weakening thier hold) and at the same time taking credit so they can boost their approval ratings with their own people.

    Heh.  This would make a great game to build a simulation around.

  48. Monte says:

    One thing i’m trying to work out is a timeline of the events… what accured first, the lacking aid, or the continued rocket attacks. From what i’ve read i don’t think the rocket attacks ever fully stopped; they were severly reduced, but never stopped completely… while it’s true that Hamas militant themselves may not have been responcible for the attacks that remained, it seemed clear they were not doing enough to stop them; i think i recall it being said that Hamas refused to patrol the borders… essentially rockets were still flying and Hamas wasn’t doing anything to stop them… Depending on what happened when, the lacking aid and such was a reaction to the continued rocket attacks; but that is something i could be wrong abou

  49. Snipzor says:

     Actually it was part of the ceasefire. Part of the agreement incuded Israel sending in humanitarian aid into Gaza without blockades. Israel did not follow that part exactly, considering they only sent in a portion of what was needed and agreed upon.

  50. Neeneko says:

    Peaceful protets would not have done much.  

    Israel was pretty clear that they would blockade Gaza till the population overthrew thier duely elected goverment.

    I’m guessing next time there is a cease fire, Hamas will remember to add ‘blockade counts as a violation’ to the text since that is their current gripe.

  51. DarkSaber says:

    Wanna bet? I’m a familiar-ish person round here, not to mention the fact I’ve been in a flame war with him stalking me for the last week. Sorry if once again reality seems to be contradicting your fluffy little fantasy world.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  52. MrKlorox says:

    Oh religion… you never fail me. Well except for that one time you failed me… and every moment since then. Hmm, lemme retry.


    Oh religion… what a massive failure.

    Yep, that’s about right.

  53. Ashla says:

    Dude, You probably didn’t realize this, but you just quoted the logic behind the 9/11 attacks.

    Last I checked, the US didn’t roll over and play dead.

  54. Vake Xeacons says:

     You know, by fighting over this game, we’re pretty much dropping ourselves to their level. 

    This a several thousand year old conflict. It was stupid to begin with, and that hasn’t changed. They both need to quit fighting. So do we.

  55. Sigma 7 says:

    It’s an infinite length game.  You can’t win it, since the player needs to get as high of a score as possible with the difficulty ramping upwards as the game progresses. 

  56. SounDemon says:

    The reason this game is difficult is you have to click directly on the rocket, and it has very poor collision detection; I had trouble actually clicking the rocket when I was directly on it; the game is designed to be impossible to win.

  57. gamadaya says:

    So is the guy Hamas? And is his sister Gaza? That makes sense I guess, buy why is he "from another town"? And who are the other people from this other town?

    Oh shit, I’m overanalyzing this, aren’t I? The moral of the story is don’t play with fireworks, or little girls will get killed.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  58. DarkSaber says:

    One day there was a guy who took his sister to town. "We are going to have fun", he said to her. In his bag he had all kinds of fireworks.
    Once they were inside the city, he looked for a crowd. "Now watch this", he said to his little sister. "Those explosions you will see in a moment don’t really hurt people. They screem because they are having fun!"
    After a couple of rockets fired into the crowd, people ran away and others lay on the ground bleeding. Policeofficers started coming to the scene. The guy did not think long and started firing his rockets at them. "Stop doing that!" yelled the officers at him. One of the officers got a rocket in his eyes. He lay bleeding on the ground, asking for medics. Still the guy would not stop. His sister started to cry, she understood this was no game. "Stop or we will shoot!" the policeofficers yelled at the man. Still he continued firing his rockets. Then he saw one of the officers take aim at him. The moment the gun fired he grabbed his sister and held her in front of him. All people watched in horror when they saw the little girl getting hit by the policebullet that was meant for the criminal …
    Since the criminal was from another town, immediately some people who came from the same town as he, started screaming that the policeofficer killed his sister on purpose. "He only wanted to defend his sister by holding her close to him", so they shouted … forgetting about all the people on the ground wounded and one killed by the fireworks.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  59. gamadaya says:

    Hell yeah! I normally don’t take one side exclusively in any conflict, especially not one as complicated as this, but I’m with Israel all the way. Somebody has to win this, because neither side is backing down, and I hope it’s Israel.


    Internet troll > internet paladin

  60. Arell says:

    I don’t see that either side has the moral high ground anymore.  It’s like a Bully and a Thug doing whatever they can to hurt the other, in the name of "protecting" themselves.  It’s just escalating violence at its finest.  There will be no winners, no "right" side.  They only have the option of both accepting responsibility, or keep blaming each other.  And even if they can agree to share guilt, they have generations of resentment ahead of them regardless.

  61. Neeneko says:

    The rocket attacks are not designed to do much, at least from an offensive perspective.

    But they do keep certian people in power, and they do give people the feeling that they are doing SOMETHING.

    One of the problems with dealing with Hamas is thier leadership has been pretty much wiped out, so you’ve got lots of little leaders trying to build up political capital through ‘doing things’.  Classic instablity once you remove the ruling class of a group.   This is also why, in general, durring war you do not go after the leaders.. a headless beast is too unstable and difficult to build any kind of peace with.  In order for peace to EVER build with Hamas they will need new rulers to bubble up and feel secure in their place.. then THOSE rulers will have an interest in peace.  Right now none of Hamas’s leadership has anything to gain from peace and not much to loose (at all).

  62. DarkSaber says:

    I don’t think Israel is over-responding at all. Hamas being no good at making attacks particularly effective shouldn’t excuse them what they are doing, the intention to cause death and damage is there, they just suck at it.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  63. Snipzor says:

     Well I don’t support Hamas, they are idiots and they don’t deserve to be in power. BUT!!! I can understand why they are doing what they are doing. Imagine being trapped inside a prison, the population only grows, but the prison gets smaller. You have been trapped in said prison for 60 years, and the warden decides now is a good time to thin the population and neglect them from having any luxury. You get where I am going with this. Would you want to help a group that wants to try to get rid of the warden? Naturally.

    Palestinians had two choices, one is a peaceful protest while the other is to strike back. Note how I said strike back (Because Israel was the first to fire rockets into Gaza, specifically the tunnels which brought supplies into Gaza). A peaceful protest would work, though Israel would likely try to kill the protesters, the world would denounce Israel and eventually strike in unison against the tyrannical being of Israel. Though I myself denounce violence, I denounce Israel’s action against the Palestinian people.


    Let’s not reply to DarkSaber, it is obvious that it is Devo with another name.

  64. Mnementh2230 says:

     I’ll agree with that, the rockets aren’t accomplishing anything at all.  They make the Israelies afraid, and so the Israeli army responds (overreacts?).


    It’s a huge Charlie Foxtrot, IMO.


  65. DarkSaber says:

    Well maybve the 100 or so survivors will have learnt a valuable lesson when it comes to rebuilding their government: Don’t put terrorists in charge.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  66. Chaltab says:

    I don’t have a problem with you having an opinion, I just don’t agree with said opinion. Be biased; be my guest. But blaming Israel for everything not only ignores the history of the situation, but is a position that will never lead to peace. Neither side is soley responsible for the violence, but most of it could be avoided if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel.

    Whether Israel ‘goated’ them into it or not, the rockets *don’t acomplish anything*–they just bring more violence down on the Palestinian heads. And it’s the civilians who elected Hamas that bear the brunt of it.

  67. DarkSaber says:

    EZK: I am cutting this discussion here.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  68. Mnementh2230 says:

     Oh yeah, I do.  That’s FAKE death.  You can’t laugh and say "Oh Ho!  I died again!" in real life.

  69. DarkSaber says:

    Celebrating death is morbid, but I bet you play violent computer games, right?


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  70. Mnementh2230 says:

     Just my score.  I’m too far removed and far too indifferent to pick a side in the conflict, and celebrating death is morbid, especially when neither side is entirely "right" IMO.


    Can you beat 1850?

  71. DarkSaber says:

    Is that your score or an update on how many Arabs Israel has killed so far? 


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  72. Chaltab says:

    Okay, wait… Are you suggesting that Israel is *intentionally* targeting civilians?

    What the hell purpose would that serve? To target civillians, Israel would bring international scorn on themselves and forfeit the moral highground. It makes no strategic sense, unless the Israelis just have a craving for wanton murder.

    You’re so full of crap it must be infecting your brain.

  73. DarkSaber says:

    Yeah, but we can forgive them all that because they are blowing up arabs.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  74. Snipzor says:

    Dammit, I hate it when a Pro-Israeli person says that. "We have to defend ourselves" is such a bull**** especially with the missile defence systems Israel has. Something is clearly ommitted from the game is when Israel bombed Palestinian tunnels breaking the ceasefire. The other thing that is ommitted is Israel goating Hamas into sending rockets their way (Part of the ceasefire was to send in supplies to Gaza, and Israel only delivered 20%, then 15%). They also don’t show Israeli planes dropping leaflets telling people to go to a UN school, in which Israel would bomb said school. They don’t show that. They don’t show the murder of the Red Cross’ truck drivers. They don’t show the children in Gaza being amputated from a bomb that was supposedly going to hit a Hamas target, even though there were none there from the start. They don’t show all of this, and I wonder why (Sarcasm for those who don’t know).

    Plus this game sucks.

  75. Alteffor says:

    Not really. Saying Israel is defending itself whilst it kills and injures hundreds of civilians is just wrong.

    Neither side is in the right, so a game supporting either side cannot be in the right either.

Comments are closed.