PA Names Public Square After Homicide Terrorist

[P F Tinmore]

Irgun existed three-quarters of a century ago and consisted of a couple hundred members who were condemned by the Zionist leadership.

Hundreds of millions of Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers exist TODAY whose actions are condoned and advocated by the Quran.

Now, even YOU know, birdbrain.

Hi hon, we've missed you. Did you remember to wash your hands?


Now, you might want to take a moment and actually read the thread...then maybe you can explain why your buddy Mike applauds Irgun's actions?

Irgun's actions were completely justifiable, sweet cheeks, given the British armies' decision to undermine the creation of the Jewish National Home they were obligated to help establish under the terms of the binding Palestine Mandate over which they were trustees. The British forces were, in effect, armed enemies of the Jews whose presence in the King David Hotel made the hotel a legitimate military target under the law of armed conflict.

Your history and legal lesson for the day, pinhead.

Gee, marc points to the mandate as the creation of Israel. He thinks it was a done deal.

Why the disconnect?

 

[Marc39]

Hi hon, we've missed you. Did you remember to wash your hands?


Now, you might want to take a moment and actually read the thread...then maybe you can explain why your buddy Mike applauds Irgun's actions?

Irgun's actions were completely justifiable, sweet cheeks, given the British armies' decision to undermine the creation of the Jewish National Home they were obligated to help establish under the terms of the binding Palestine Mandate over which they were trustees. The British forces were, in effect, armed enemies of the Jews whose presence in the King David Hotel made the hotel a legitimate military target under the law of armed conflict.

Your history and legal lesson for the day, pinhead.

Gee, marc points to the mandate as the creation of Israel. He thinks it was a done deal.

Why the disconnect?

You're the Forum Dunce. You know nothing of the subject matter.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So does Israel: Israel celebrates Irgun hotel bombers - Telegraph

A bit hypocritical to get all upset about it.

Not even close. The bombing of the King David Hotel was a strike against the British colonial government in Palestine and was a part of an ongoing campaign to drive the British out after Britain's 1939 announcement that it would not allow the establishment of Jewish homeland in Palestine, reneging on its own 1917 pledge to help the Jews to establish a homeland there and in violation of its obligations under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. This decision by the British was in response to the Arab uprising of the late 1930's. While some civilians died in the attack, it was the colonial government that was targeted in a reasonable expectation that this strike would materially advance the cause of Jewish nationalism.

By contrast, Dalal Mughrabi did not target the Israeli government, military or civilian, but random Jews she and her gang happened to come across, and there could not have been a reasonable expectation that these 37 random killings could have advanced the cause of Arab nationalism. The people she killed were not killed because of what they had done but because of who they were: Jews. Calling these killings acts of terrorism ascribes to them a sense of purpose no reasonable person could expect them to achieve: they were hate crimes, nothing more.

To try to justify, or even to explain them, by saying Mughrabi killed 37 random Jews because of feelings of anger or pain over the perceived injustices to Arabs is the moral equivalent of trying to justify or explain acts of violence against random gays because of fears gays may be seducing or molesting children or acts of violence against random African Americans because of a belief they are raping white women. All of these are hate crimes and none of them were committed in a reasonable expectation of advancing a cause. The moral and political equivalent of dedicating a square in Ramallah to Mughrabi on the anniversary of her killing of 37 random Jews would not be the bombing of the King David Hotel but if the Israeli government named a square in Jerusalem after Baruch Goldstein and dedicated it on the anniversary of his massacre of 29 Arabs at the Cave of the Patriarchs.

This action by the Abbas government amounts to an official and public embrace of hate crimes against Jews and makes the notion that the Palestinians are prepared to live in peace next to Israel bizarre and the idea that there can be a peaceful single state solution even more bizarre. If this action stands, it will be impossible to take the Abbas government seriously when it talks about peace, and the fact that the Obama administration chose to ignore Israeli requests to urge Abbas to cancel this incitement to hatred of and violence against Jews makes it equally impossible to take the Obama administration seriously when it talks about peace.

I'm not "justifying" any of it. Irgun was a terrorist organization little different from the Palestinians who feel they are driving out an occupyer. Right or wrong - the only real difference is that the victor gets to label who is a terrorist and who is a "freedom fighter". The victor writes (or rights) history and to hell with the 91 (mostly hotel staff and civilians) were murdered in the King David Hotel by the bombing and the many innocents killed by Irgun's market place bombs, bus explosions etc etc.

Celebrating or commemerating the King David Hotel bombing is commomerating the actions of a terrorist organization because you approve of their cause. The Palestinians, acting in a similar manner for a similar cause - do not have that approval.

There is no logic to it. Only emotion.

Of course, there is logic to it. While Irgun's policy of retaliation against Arabs for attacks against Jews might arguably be called terrorist acts, the attack on the King David Hotel was not despite the loss of civilian life. The Geneva Conventions recognize that collateral damage to civilian life and property in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective is acceptable, and a headquarters of the British colonial government, which was now committed to preventing the Jews from establishing a homeland in the Mandate in violation of Britain's authority under the Mandate, was a legitimate target in an ongoing campaign to either persuade the British to end their opposition to a Jewish Homeland in the Mandate or to leave, and this action and this campaign had a reasonable expectation of achieving that goal and of advancing the Jewish nationalist cause. It was a calculated military action against a legitimate military objective by a non state political entity.

On the other hand, Mughrabi was embarked on a suicide mission the sole purpose of which was the mass murder of Jews. The killing of 37 random Jews along a highway carried no reasonable expectation of advancing any Palestinian military or political objective. That makes it a hate crime, just as acts of violence against random gays or African Americans are hate crimes; the only difference between these crimes and Mughrabi's being that her hate crimes were endorsed and celebrated by Arab governments and the Palestinians then as they are being endorsed and celebrated by the Abbas government now.

 

[del]

Not even close. The bombing of the King David Hotel was a strike against the British colonial government in Palestine and was a part of an ongoing campaign to drive the British out after Britain's 1939 announcement that it would not allow the establishment of Jewish homeland in Palestine, reneging on its own 1917 pledge to help the Jews to establish a homeland there and in violation of its obligations under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. This decision by the British was in response to the Arab uprising of the late 1930's. While some civilians died in the attack, it was the colonial government that was targeted in a reasonable expectation that this strike would materially advance the cause of Jewish nationalism.

By contrast, Dalal Mughrabi did not target the Israeli government, military or civilian, but random Jews she and her gang happened to come across, and there could not have been a reasonable expectation that these 37 random killings could have advanced the cause of Arab nationalism. The people she killed were not killed because of what they had done but because of who they were: Jews. Calling these killings acts of terrorism ascribes to them a sense of purpose no reasonable person could expect them to achieve: they were hate crimes, nothing more.

To try to justify, or even to explain them, by saying Mughrabi killed 37 random Jews because of feelings of anger or pain over the perceived injustices to Arabs is the moral equivalent of trying to justify or explain acts of violence against random gays because of fears gays may be seducing or molesting children or acts of violence against random African Americans because of a belief they are raping white women. All of these are hate crimes and none of them were committed in a reasonable expectation of advancing a cause. The moral and political equivalent of dedicating a square in Ramallah to Mughrabi on the anniversary of her killing of 37 random Jews would not be the bombing of the King David Hotel but if the Israeli government named a square in Jerusalem after Baruch Goldstein and dedicated it on the anniversary of his massacre of 29 Arabs at the Cave of the Patriarchs.

This action by the Abbas government amounts to an official and public embrace of hate crimes against Jews and makes the notion that the Palestinians are prepared to live in peace next to Israel bizarre and the idea that there can be a peaceful single state solution even more bizarre. If this action stands, it will be impossible to take the Abbas government seriously when it talks about peace, and the fact that the Obama administration chose to ignore Israeli requests to urge Abbas to cancel this incitement to hatred of and violence against Jews makes it equally impossible to take the Obama administration seriously when it talks about peace.

I'm not "justifying" any of it. Irgun was a terrorist organization little different from the Palestinians who feel they are driving out an occupyer. Right or wrong - the only real difference is that the victor gets to label who is a terrorist and who is a "freedom fighter". The victor writes (or rights) history and to hell with the 91 (mostly hotel staff and civilians) were murdered in the King David Hotel by the bombing and the many innocents killed by Irgun's market place bombs, bus explosions etc etc.

Celebrating or commemerating the King David Hotel bombing is commomerating the actions of a terrorist organization because you approve of their cause. The Palestinians, acting in a similar manner for a similar cause - do not have that approval.

There is no logic to it. Only emotion.

Of course, there is logic to it. While Irgun's policy of retaliation against Arabs for attacks against Jews might arguably be called terrorist acts, the attack on the King David Hotel was not despite the loss of civilian life. The Geneva Conventions recognize that collateral damage to civilian life and property in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective is acceptable, and a headquarters of the British colonial government, which was now committed to preventing the Jews from establishing a homeland in the Mandate in violation of Britain's authority under the Mandate, was a legitimate target in an ongoing campaign to either persuade the British to end their opposition to a Jewish Homeland in the Mandate or to leave, and this action and this campaign had a reasonable expectation of achieving that goal and of advancing the Jewish nationalist cause. It was a calculated military action against a legitimate military objective by a non state political entity.

On the other hand, Mughrabi was embarked on a suicide mission the sole purpose of which was the mass murder of Jews. The killing of 37 random Jews along a highway carried no reasonable expectation of advancing any Palestinian military or political objective. That makes it a hate crime, just as acts of violence against random gays or African Americans are hate crimes; the only difference between these crimes and Mughrabi's being that her hate crimes were endorsed and celebrated by Arab governments and the Palestinians then as they are being endorsed and celebrated by the Abbas government now.

why don't we just cut to the chase, eh?

it was okay when irgun did it, because you support them.

it's not okay when a pali does it because you don't support them.

there's no need to dress your hypocrisy up in versace, dude.

 

[Marc39]

I'm not "justifying" any of it. Irgun was a terrorist organization little different from the Palestinians who feel they are driving out an occupyer. Right or wrong - the only real difference is that the victor gets to label who is a terrorist and who is a "freedom fighter". The victor writes (or rights) history and to hell with the 91 (mostly hotel staff and civilians) were murdered in the King David Hotel by the bombing and the many innocents killed by Irgun's market place bombs, bus explosions etc etc.

Celebrating or commemerating the King David Hotel bombing is commomerating the actions of a terrorist organization because you approve of their cause. The Palestinians, acting in a similar manner for a similar cause - do not have that approval.

There is no logic to it. Only emotion.

Of course, there is logic to it. While Irgun's policy of retaliation against Arabs for attacks against Jews might arguably be called terrorist acts, the attack on the King David Hotel was not despite the loss of civilian life. The Geneva Conventions recognize that collateral damage to civilian life and property in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective is acceptable, and a headquarters of the British colonial government, which was now committed to preventing the Jews from establishing a homeland in the Mandate in violation of Britain's authority under the Mandate, was a legitimate target in an ongoing campaign to either persuade the British to end their opposition to a Jewish Homeland in the Mandate or to leave, and this action and this campaign had a reasonable expectation of achieving that goal and of advancing the Jewish nationalist cause. It was a calculated military action against a legitimate military objective by a non state political entity.

On the other hand, Mughrabi was embarked on a suicide mission the sole purpose of which was the mass murder of Jews. The killing of 37 random Jews along a highway carried no reasonable expectation of advancing any Palestinian military or political objective. That makes it a hate crime, just as acts of violence against random gays or African Americans are hate crimes; the only difference between these crimes and Mughrabi's being that her hate crimes were endorsed and celebrated by Arab governments and the Palestinians then as they are being endorsed and celebrated by the Abbas government now.

why don't we just cut to the chase, eh?

it was okay when irgun did it, because you support them.

it's not okay when a pali does it because you don't support them.

there's no need to dress your hypocrisy up in versace, dude.

Irgun targeted military objectives, permissable under the law of armed conflict.
Pallies target civilians, not permissable under the law of armed conflict.

Understand, chat room flunkie?

 

[del]

Of course, there is logic to it. While Irgun's policy of retaliation against Arabs for attacks against Jews might arguably be called terrorist acts, the attack on the King David Hotel was not despite the loss of civilian life. The Geneva Conventions recognize that collateral damage to civilian life and property in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective is acceptable, and a headquarters of the British colonial government, which was now committed to preventing the Jews from establishing a homeland in the Mandate in violation of Britain's authority under the Mandate, was a legitimate target in an ongoing campaign to either persuade the British to end their opposition to a Jewish Homeland in the Mandate or to leave, and this action and this campaign had a reasonable expectation of achieving that goal and of advancing the Jewish nationalist cause. It was a calculated military action against a legitimate military objective by a non state political entity.

On the other hand, Mughrabi was embarked on a suicide mission the sole purpose of which was the mass murder of Jews. The killing of 37 random Jews along a highway carried no reasonable expectation of advancing any Palestinian military or political objective. That makes it a hate crime, just as acts of violence against random gays or African Americans are hate crimes; the only difference between these crimes and Mughrabi's being that her hate crimes were endorsed and celebrated by Arab governments and the Palestinians then as they are being endorsed and celebrated by the Abbas government now.

why don't we just cut to the chase, eh?

it was okay when irgun did it, because you support them.

it's not okay when a pali does it because you don't support them.

there's no need to dress your hypocrisy up in versace, dude.

Irgun targeted military objectives, permissable under the law of armed conflict.
Pallies target civilians, not permissable under the law of armed conflict.

Understand, chat room flunkie?

keep telling yourself that, pedo

 

[Marc39]

why don't we just cut to the chase, eh?

it was okay when irgun did it, because you support them.

it's not okay when a pali does it because you don't support them.

there's no need to dress your hypocrisy up in versace, dude.

Irgun targeted military objectives, permissable under the law of armed conflict.
Pallies target civilians, not permissable under the law of armed conflict.

Understand, chat room flunkie?

keep telling yourself that, pedo

Pwned, chat room flunkie.

 

[Kalam]

You should be. The article was based on direct observations by Time's correspondent who was present at these events. According to Time, he was the only jounalist who was present.

Yes, I read that. In that case, may I assume that you consider Al Jazeera's reports on the Gaza massacre reliable? After all, they were the only media organization reporting from within Gaza during the conflict.

 

[Marc39]

You should be. The article was based on direct observations by Time's correspondent who was present at these events. According to Time, he was the only jounalist who was present.

Yes, I read that. In that case, may I assume that you consider Al Jazeera's reports on the Gaza massacre reliable? After all, they were the only media organization reporting from within Gaza during the conflict.

The imaginary Gaza massacre, like the Jenin massacre hoax?

Arab Muslim massacres of each other, on the other hand, are factual, such as the million massacred in the Iran Iraq War, the 20,000 Syrians massacred by Assad at Hama and the millions of Christians and Muslims massacred in Darfur and southern Sudan.

But, Arabs and Muslims don't like to acknowledge their own massacres because Allah forbids Muslims killing each other. Fucking hypocrites.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You should be. The article was based on direct observations by Time's correspondent who was present at these events. According to Time, he was the only journalist who was present.

Yes, I read that. In that case, may I assume that you consider Al Jazeera's reports on the Gaza massacre reliable? After all, they were the only media organization reporting from within Gaza during the conflict.

I haven't seen al Jazeera's reports on Cast Lead, but in general, I think al Jazeera's reporting of facts are reliable even when their editorial policy is slanted. If you have a link to al Jazeera's reports of the facts, as opposed to opinion pieces, please post it.

 

[Marc39]

You should be. The article was based on direct observations by Time's correspondent who was present at these events. According to Time, he was the only journalist who was present.

Yes, I read that. In that case, may I assume that you consider Al Jazeera's reports on the Gaza massacre reliable? After all, they were the only media organization reporting from within Gaza during the conflict.

I haven't seen al Jazeera's reports on Cast Lead, but in general, I think al Jazeera's reporting of facts are reliable even when their editorial policy is slanted. If you have a link to al Jazeera's reports of the facts, as opposed to opinion pieces, please post it.

An al Jazeera reporter hailing a convicted Muslim terrorist as a hero tends to diminish that organization's credibility.

 

[Coyote]

You should be. The article was based on direct observations by Time's correspondent who was present at these events. According to Time, he was the only jounalist who was present.

Yes, I read that. In that case, may I assume that you consider Al Jazeera's reports on the Gaza massacre reliable? After all, they were the only media organization reporting from within Gaza during the conflict.

The imaginary Gaza massacre, like the Jenin massacre hoax?

Arab Muslim massacres of each other, on the other hand, are factual, such as the million massacred in the Iran Iraq War, the 20,000 Syrians massacred by Assad at Hama and the millions of Christians and Muslims massacred in Darfur and southern Sudan.

But, Arabs and Muslims don't like to acknowledge their own massacres because Allah forbids Muslims killing each other. Fucking hypocrites.

Wow. Utterly amazing. You completely failed to answer the question.

F for addressing the points
A+ for deflection and obfuscation
D- for utter waste of bandwidth

Nice try though, don't let the initial results discourage you

 

[Marc39]

Yes, I read that. In that case, may I assume that you consider Al Jazeera's reports on the Gaza massacre reliable? After all, they were the only media organization reporting from within Gaza during the conflict.

The imaginary Gaza massacre, like the Jenin massacre hoax?

Arab Muslim massacres of each other, on the other hand, are factual, such as the million massacred in the Iran Iraq War, the 20,000 Syrians massacred by Assad at Hama and the millions of Christians and Muslims massacred in Darfur and southern Sudan.

But, Arabs and Muslims don't like to acknowledge their own massacres because Allah forbids Muslims killing each other. Fucking hypocrites.

Wow. Utterly amazing. You completely failed to answer the question.

F for addressing the points
A+ for deflection and obfuscation
D- for utter waste of bandwidth

Nice try though, don't let the initial results discourage you

Did mom or dad help you with the alphabet, in no particular order?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tinmore, Israel exists and will long after you and me are worm meat.

The Arabs have attacked the Israelis several times, the Israelis kick Arab butt up between its collective ears so that it can hear Israelis beating on it.

Nothing is going to change. East Jerusalem to the Jews, no right of return, and a disarmed independent PA.

 

[Coyote]

The imaginary Gaza massacre, like the Jenin massacre hoax?

Arab Muslim massacres of each other, on the other hand, are factual, such as the million massacred in the Iran Iraq War, the 20,000 Syrians massacred by Assad at Hama and the millions of Christians and Muslims massacred in Darfur and southern Sudan.

But, Arabs and Muslims don't like to acknowledge their own massacres because Allah forbids Muslims killing each other. Fucking hypocrites.

Wow. Utterly amazing. You completely failed to answer the question.

F for addressing the points
A+ for deflection and obfuscation
D- for utter waste of bandwidth

Nice try though, don't let the initial results discourage you

Did mom or dad help you with the alphabet, in no particular order?

C+ for wit

Keep up the good work!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, Israel exists and will long after you and me are worm meat.

The Arabs have attacked the Israelis several times, the Israelis kick Arab butt up between its collective ears so that it can hear Israelis beating on it.

Nothing is going to change. East Jerusalem to the Jews, no right of return, and a disarmed independent PA.

Israel has not won anything yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It has won everything: the respect and support of the US.

Any nation that threatens the life of Israel will end up a radioactive melted parking lot.

 

[Marc39]

Wow. Utterly amazing. You completely failed to answer the question.

F for addressing the points
A+ for deflection and obfuscation
D- for utter waste of bandwidth

Nice try though, don't let the initial results discourage you

Did mom or dad help you with the alphabet, in no particular order?

C+ for wit

Keep up the good work!

Dad taught you a new letter of the alphabet? Congrats. Now, try adding 2+2.

 

[Coyote]

Did mom or dad help you with the alphabet, in no particular order?

C+ for wit

Keep up the good work!

Dad taught you a new letter of the alphabet? Congrats. Now, try adding 2+2.

Still stuck on the basics eh? That's ok - a good foundation is everything, even if it does take....well...years.

Now...on to more pertinant issues....you didn't do to well on "plays well with others" Marc...can we anticipate some improvement there in the future?