Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

jank

wes wrote: »

I am confused, I taught those who were killed for being spies, specifically aiding the IDF in killing Palestinians? If they were murdered for just protesting, then that is war crime, and should be condemned.

If they were killed for being spies, then that should be condemned due to the lack of a fair trial, but if its due to spying, then the 2 examples are not comparable.

Yes, every anti-war protestor in Gaza is a 'spy'. Kangaroo courts and extra judicial justice is the norm in Gaza. I guess we will never find out the real story cause all the accused are already dead. Sure didn't they confess before a bullet blew their heads off.

RustyNut

bboybaboy19 wrote: »

I'm just wondering why you'd consider one mass murder and not the other one..it's a simple yes/no answer.

Where did I say that?

wes

jank wrote: »

So you refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. Wow, just wow!

Terrorists are non-state actors, Hamas's are the defacto authority in Gaza (they even won an election, and are also a part of will be part of a unity Palestinian government), and as such they are not terrorists.

Having said that, there is certainly a great deal of evidence that Hamas are committing war crimes during the present conflict, but the same can be said of the IDF to a far greater extent.

bboybaboy19

RustyNut wrote: »

Where did I say that?

I didn't say you did but your refusal to answer it speaks volumes.

So, do you consider the killing of the innocent afghans to be mass murder, yes or no?

notfromhere

Excellent precision shooting by the IDF in that video.

wes

jank wrote: »

Yes, every anti-war protestor in Gaza is a 'spy'.

Well, the way that the story is written it was very unclear what they were saying to me.

jank wrote: »

Kangaroo courts and extra judicial justice is the norm in Gaza. I guess we will never find out the real story cause all the accused are already dead. Sure didn't they confess before a bullet blew their heads off.

If what is being claimed is true, then as I said earlier its a crime, as no proper trials were conducted.

Tuisceanch

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

He has converted to Islam and - against the advice of the local friendly cockney Muslims - has gone to Nigeria to fight with Boko Haram

or

He has become an Orthodox Jew and refuses to shake hands with women that he cannot be sure are not on their menstrual cycle, creating unexpected problems for the scriptwriters and VT editors.

Wild unfounded speculation with the sole purpose of ruining my enjoyment of the wonders of TV reality.

Gringo180

Nodin wrote: »

It's a pointless label that's been utterly devalued. They called Mandela a terrorist ffs. I'll call them a loathsome organisation, a nasty bunch and so on, but "terrorist" is meaningless.

"And you dare to call me a terrorist as you look down your gun"

jank

FTA69 wrote: »

By the same criteria Israel are also terrorists; hence the pointlessness of the label. Nodin is correct, it's a pejorative term used to automatically discredit any non-state opposition to the status quo.

They perjury themselves with their actions and their charter that denies the holocaust, calls for the killing of Jews and the genocide of Israelis.

KahBoom

The word 'terrorist' means "anyone the US/western-powers labels a terrorist", and little more than that - there is no consistency to the term at all, it is pretty much meaningless.

If the label had any consistency, then US drone bombings of funerals, and Israeli war crimes against civilians, can equally be labelled terrorist acts.

wes

jank wrote: »

They perjury themselves with their actions and their charter that denies the holocaust, calls for the killing of Jews and the genocide of Israelis.

And the settler colonial project is actively doing exactly that to Palestinians as we speak. I fail to see how the Israeli government is any better.

BTW, the Israeli government were at this sort of carry on before Hamas even existed, and they used the same tired excuses they use now.

notfromhere

Is that a Wolf Tone song u dare to call me a terrorist

Tuisceanch

Are we controlled by alien forces? YES or NO. I demand an answer as I'm sick of your prevarication on this subject.

RustyNut

bboybaboy19 wrote: »

I didn't say you did but your refusal to answer it speaks volumes.

So, do you consider the killing of the innocent afghans to be mass murder, yes or no?

If you start another thread instead of trying to derail this one you might get an answer.

Do you think targeting kids playing on a beech is murder ?

Nodin

notfromhere wrote: »

Is that a Wolf Tone song u dare to call me a terrorist

Yep.

Tuisceanch

Spring Onion wrote: »

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/An_Taoiseach_Enda_Kenny_Expel_the_Israeli_Ambassador_to_Ireland

There's people signing up to that at a phenomenal rate. Thanks for posting. Perhaps they could use his residence as a hostel for the homeless.

eeepaulo

KahBoom wrote: »

The word 'terrorist' means "anyone the US/western-powers labels a terrorist", and little more than that - there is no consistency to the term at all, it is pretty much meaningless.

If the label had any consistency, then US drone bombings of funerals, and Israeli war crimes against civilians, can equally be labelled terrorist acts.

I listened to a wonderful piece on bbc radio 4 yesterday about newspeak, orwells idea of controlling us by changing the language and using soundbites, I do think the 'civilized' western world's label terrorist falls into this category


Merriam webster definition of terrorist

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

hatrickpatrick

Gringo180 wrote: »

I said unless your stupid

Gringo180 wrote: »

unless your stupid

Gringo180 wrote: »

your stupid

LorMal

Nodin wrote: »

?


"terrorist" is a label forked out on non-state actors by their opponents. It's a meaningless title that's been fired at everyone from the IRA to the ANC in order to demonise the opposition.

Ah come on, Nodin. The IRA and Hamas are not terrorists?

I Heart Internet

Nodin wrote: »

It's a pointless label that's been utterly devalued. They called Mandela a terrorist ffs. I'll call them a loathsome organisation, a nasty bunch and so on, but "terrorist" is meaningless.

No it's not.

It may be used incorrectly, but it means a person or group who employs terror as a tactic to get its way.

Is Hamas a terrorist organisation?

Tuisceanch

LorMal wrote: »

Ah come on, Nodin. The IRA and Hamas are not terrorists?

There is no accepted legal definition of 'Terrorism' and the Collins concise definition of the term,if used,would have to be applied to Israel,Us,Russia etc and so where would that leave you in terms of your understanding.

Tuisceanch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not.

It may be used incorrectly, but it means a person or group who employs terror as a tactic to get its way.

Is Hamas a terrorist organisation?

Seriously please quote the accepted definition of 'Terrorist'.

Gringo180

LorMal wrote: »

Ah come on, Nodin. The IRA and Hamas are not terrorists?

If there terrorists so is every army that engages in war on a civilian population, ie the american, british and israeli army are also terrorists.

hatrickpatrick

LorMal wrote: »

Ah come on, Nodin. The IRA and Hamas are not terrorists?

It's not that they're not terrorists, it's that when the term is only selectively applied to non-state actors it loses all credibility. The modern definition of terrorism is using violence against civilians to force political change. It is not further specified as "non state actors using violence... Etc".

An organisations actions define whether or not it is engaging in terrorism. Not whether it's "official" or not, and not which side that organisation happens to be on.

The actions of the IDF here constitute a blindingly obvious reprisal against civilians for the actions of Hamas. They are punishing the civilians of Gaza to break their political will and punish them for electing Hamas. So even if you believe as I do that Hamas are absolute scum, it doesn't change the fact that the IDF is engaging in a terrorist operation.

bumper234

eeepaulo wrote: »

I listened to a wonderful piece on bbc radio 4 yesterday about newspeak, orwells idea of controlling us by changing the language and using soundbites, I do think the 'civilized' western world's label terrorist falls into this category


Merriam webster definition of terrorist

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Certainly sounds like what the IDF are doing at the moment.

eeepaulo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not that they're not terrorists, it's that when the term is only selectively applied to non-state actors it loses all credibility. The modern definition of terrorism is using violence against civilians to force political change. It is not further specified as "non state actors using violence... Etc".

An organisations actions define whether or not it is engaging in terrorism. Not whether it's "official" or not, and not which side that organisation happens to be on.

The actions of the IDF here constitute a blindingly obvious reprisal against civilians for the actions of Hamas. They are punishing the civilians of Gaza to break their political will and punish them for electing Hamas. So even if you believe as I do that Hamas are absolute scum, it doesn't change the fact that the IDF is engaging in a terrorist operation.

This

I Heart Internet

bumper234 wrote: »

Certainly sounds like what the IDF are doing at the moment.

That may be the case, but do you not also agree that Hamas use terror? People seem terrified of admitting that Hamas might be terrorists, interesting.

bumper234

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not.

It may be used incorrectly, but it means a person or group who employs terror as a tactic to get its way.

Is Hamas a terrorist organisation?

So we are in agreement that the IDF are a terrorist organisation.

Tuisceanch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMxwcRck9TI

Looks like it might be a good film to watch.

RustyNut

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not.

It may be used incorrectly, but it means a person or group who employs terror as a tactic to get its way.

Is Hamas a terrorist organisation?

How do you think that definition sits with the IDF actions recently?

I Heart Internet

bumper234 wrote: »

So we are in agreement that the IDF are a terrorist organisation.

I think it's certainly using terror to destabilise Hamas' control of Gaza.

Gringo180

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That may be the case, but do you not also agree that Hamas use terror? People seem terrified of admitting that Hamas might be terrorists, interesting.

I have yet to hear one person say they support Hamas on here, your conflating our support for the innocent civilians in Gaza with support for Hamas.

I Heart Internet

RustyNut wrote: »

How do you think that definition sits with the IDF actions recently?

They've certainly employed a terrorist tactic on top of their defensive tactics.

bumper234

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That may be the case, but do you not also agree that Hamas use terror? People seem terrified of admitting that Hamas might be terrorists, interesting.

when Hamas kill innocent women and children then i will condemn them.for their actions, you seem to have difficulty in condemning the IDF for their terrorist activities though.

RustyNut

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think it's certainly using terror to destabilise Hamas' control of Gaza.

So you would agree that they are terrorists then ?

I Heart Internet

Gringo180 wrote: »

I have yet to hear one person say they support Hamas on here, your conflating our support for the innocent civilians in Gaza with support for Hamas.

And you can't agree that they are terrorists? Even if the word, as has been pointed out, can be misused. You still don't think Hamas are terrorists?

user2011

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That may be the case, but do you not also agree that Hamas use terror? People seem terrified of admitting that Hamas might be terrorists, interesting.

:rolleyes:

People also seem terrified to call the IDF terrorists.

11) All serious analysts agree it was Hamas, and not Israel, that started this current conflict

Nathan Thrall, senior Mid East analyst at the International Crisis Group, writing in the New York Times: "The current escalation in Gaza is a direct result of the choice by Israel and the West to obstruct the implementation of the April 2014 Palestinian reconciliation agreement." Henry Siegman, former national director, American Jewish Congress, writing for Politico: "Israel's assault on Gaza.. was not triggered by Hamas' rockets directed at Israel but by Israel's determination to bring down the Palestinian unity government that was formed in early June, even though that government was committed to honoring all of the conditions imposed by the international community for recognition of its legitimacy."

Political change being imposed by force. Terrorist!

Edit: link http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/gaza-israel_b_5624401.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

hatrickpatrick

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That may be the case, but do you not also agree that Hamas use terror? People seem terrified of admitting that Hamas might be terrorists, interesting.

Can you cite an example of anyone in this thread actually praising or defending atrocities carried out by Hamas, or even Hamas themselves?

bumper234

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think it's certainly using terror to destabilise Hamas' control of Gaza.

Using terror tactics against innocent civilians is the EPITOME of terrorism :rolleyes:

Gringo180

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And you can't agree that they are terrorists? Even if the word, as has been pointed out, can be misused. You still don't think Hamas are terrorists?

Never once have I said Hamas were not terrorists, I was using the point that if people think the IDF were not terrorists then they cant call Hamas terrorists unless there hypocrites of the highest order.

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And you can't agree that they are terrorists? Even if the word, as has been pointed out, can be misused. You still don't think Hamas are terrorists?

The term is so misused as to be meaningless. While I've no time for them, I'm not going to go throwing around a label which has come to symbolise hypocrisy.

I Heart Internet

bumper234 wrote: »

when Hamas kill innocent women and children then i will condemn them.for their actions, you seem to have difficulty in condemning the IDF for their terrorist activities though.

I certainly condemn any terrorist attacks, any attacks deliberately targeting civilians or wholly irresponsible attacks.

hatrickpatrick

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And you can't agree that they are terrorists? Even if the word, as has been pointed out, can be misused. You still don't think Hamas are terrorists?

This wasn't addressed to me but I just want to clarify my own position, lest there be any confusion: Hamas are terrorists, the IDF are terrorists, and the IDF is the more evil of the two by a million miles.

RustyNut

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I certainly condemn any terrorist attacks, any attacks deliberately targeting civilians or wholly irresponsible attacks.

So we are agreed both Hamas and the IDF are terrorists ?

I Heart Internet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can you cite an example of anyone in this thread actually praising or defending atrocities carried out by Hamas, or even Hamas themselves?

No. I don't believe anyone on this thread is in favour of atrocities. I never claimed there were.

KahBoom

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I certainly condemn any terrorist attacks, any attacks deliberately targeting civilians or wholly irresponsible attacks.

So given that Israel's actions qualify as a form of intent, you condemn that too?

Anglo-American law has long recognized that gross recklessness is a form of intent (“Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”). That’s why reckless behavior even if unaccompanied by a desire to kill people – e.g., randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people – has long been viewed as sufficient to establish criminal intent.

One can say many things about a military operation that results in more than 75 percent of the dead being civilians, many of them children, aimed at a population trapped in a tiny area with no escape. The claim that there is no intent to kill civilians but rather an intent to protect them is most assuredly not among them. Even stalwart Israel supporter Thomas Friedman has previously acknowledged that Israeli assaults on Lebanon, and possibly in Gaza, are intended ”to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties” because “the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians” (which, to the extent it exists, is the classic definition of “terrorism”). The most generous claim one can make about what Israel is now doing in Gaza is that it is driven by complete recklessness toward the civilian population it is massacring, a form of intent under centuries of well-settled western law.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/

I Heart Internet

RustyNut wrote: »

So we are agreed both Hamas and the IDF are terrorists ?

No. Hamas are terrorists. The IDF occasionally use unacceptable terrorist means to achieve legitimate goals.

I Heart Internet

KahBoom wrote: »

So given that Israel's actions qualify as a form of intent, you condemn that too?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/

Certainly. Any wilful targeting of civilians or failure to take proper care in targeting weapons is entirely unacceptable.

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Hamas are terrorists. The IDF occasionally use unacceptable terrorist means to achieve legitimate goals.

Given the ratio of civilian casualties caused by both sides, you might want to reverse the order of that.

Tuisceanch

I don't think you will reach an acceptable agreement on the consensual definition of 'Terrorism' so how about discussing:

so·ci·o·path

[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.