Terrorist ???

[P F Tinmore]

A good explanation of terrorism.

 

[Beelzebub]

You have to wait for it, but it is put in about the most lucid manner I have yet seen.

 

[member]

caught you watching FOXNEWS...... !

"a good explanation of terrorism."
"You have to wait for it, but it is put in about the most lucid manner I have yet seen."

no surprise you hate foxnews....you two are out of it...a couple of terrorist-supporting creeps...

 

[montelatici]

The Israeli Firsters that post here are on Hannity's wavelength. They are as moronic as he is.

 

[teddyearp]

And that is eleven minutes and thirty-eight seconds I will never get back. Hilarious.

You cannot compare a scenario of the United States being surrounded to what is happening in Gaza. Apples and Oranges. But it got even better when Yousef refused to answer a simple yes or no question and wanted to go on a who knows how long diatribe. And then when the Cenk(?) dude said that the definition of a "terrorist" is simply based upon killing civilians; and then said all sides were terrorists in WWII, well I LOL'd.

I do see that the word now is a very charged word:

Terrorism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So I do suppose that its definition now is being used too widely.

 

[toastman]

The Israeli Firsters that post here are on Hannity's wavelength. They are as moronic as he is.

Hahaha look who's talking. You are quite possibly the dumbest if the deluded PaliTards.
You lie, spew propeganda in a daily basis, distort history. And then you have the nerve to talk crap about the pro Israelis here.
You are something else Monti

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not a good explanation of "terrorism." HAMAS is self defining in it the Covenant (1988) and in its published Political Position (2013).

A good explanation of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

Sean Hannity is not a journalist by any way - shape - of form. He is a rabble rouser using current political strife as a means of "infotainment." This was not a serious discussion by either TYT Critics or Hannity.

The Palestinians and CAIR (Council on American–Islamic Relations is a Muslim) are trying to justify Jihadist Action and Armed Insurgency as a legitimate means to address Palestinian grievances; as opposed to peaceful negotiations.

War is not about the statistical analysis of casualty rates; or contentious discourse over the practical use of force against a hostile neighbor. War has many characteristics to it. One of those characteristic is death and destruction. By nature, war has to be ugly and diabolical --- otherwise there would be no reason to oppose war. If war was absent all the ugliness that it embodies, it would be the answer to ever dispute.

HAMAS is a terrorist organization. It has outgrowing connections to other terrorist organizations. The people of GAZA openly serve in and give material support to terrorism. HAMAS itself describes itself as using Jihadism as a means to an end; and criticizes attempts at non-combative negotiations.

It is what it is. But using the critique of the Hannity entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with pro-HAMAS audiences and pro-terrorist consumers is simply grasping at straws. Even I don't like Hannity. But there are many people that appreciate his basic perspective. Why? Because he makes it simple: HAMAS justifies its action as Jihadist response to "initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." According to HAMAS, "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle. ---- ≈ ---- Khaled Meshal, HAMAS Political Leader (March 2013)​

If you are going to start a rational discussion on terrorism, let's start here.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not a good explanation of "terrorism." HAMAS is self defining in it the Covenant (1988) and in its published Political Position (2013).

A good explanation of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

Sean Hannity is not a journalist by any way - shape - of form. He is a rabble rouser using current political strife as a means of "infotainment." This was not a serious discussion by either TYT Critics or Hannity.

The Palestinians and CAIR (Council on American–Islamic Relations is a Muslim) are trying to justify Jihadist Action and Armed Insurgency as a legitimate means to address Palestinian grievances; as opposed to peaceful negotiations.

War is not about the statistical analysis of casualty rates; or contentious discourse over the practical use of force against a hostile neighbor. War has many characteristics to it. One of those characteristic is death and destruction. By nature, war has to be ugly and diabolical --- otherwise there would be no reason to oppose war. If war was absent all the ugliness that it embodies, it would be the answer to ever dispute.

HAMAS is a terrorist organization. It has outgrowing connections to other terrorist organizations. The people of GAZA openly serve in and give material support to terrorism. HAMAS itself describes itself as using Jihadism as a means to an end; and criticizes attempts at non-combative negotiations.

It is what it is. But using the critique of the Hannity entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with pro-HAMAS audiences and pro-terrorist consumers is simply grasping at straws. Even I don't like Hannity. But there are many people that appreciate his basic perspective. Why? Because he makes it simple: HAMAS justifies its action as Jihadist response to "initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." According to HAMAS, "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle. ---- ≈ ---- Khaled Meshal, HAMAS Political Leader (March 2013)​

If you are going to start a rational discussion on terrorism, let's start here.

Most Respectfully,
R

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not a good explanation of "terrorism." HAMAS is self defining in it the Covenant (1988) and in its published Political Position (2013).

A good explanation of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

Sean Hannity is not a journalist by any way - shape - of form. He is a rabble rouser using current political strife as a means of "infotainment." This was not a serious discussion by either TYT Critics or Hannity.

The Palestinians and CAIR (Council on American–Islamic Relations is a Muslim) are trying to justify Jihadist Action and Armed Insurgency as a legitimate means to address Palestinian grievances; as opposed to peaceful negotiations.

War is not about the statistical analysis of casualty rates; or contentious discourse over the practical use of force against a hostile neighbor. War has many characteristics to it. One of those characteristic is death and destruction. By nature, war has to be ugly and diabolical --- otherwise there would be no reason to oppose war. If war was absent all the ugliness that it embodies, it would be the answer to ever dispute.

HAMAS is a terrorist organization. It has outgrowing connections to other terrorist organizations. The people of GAZA openly serve in and give material support to terrorism. HAMAS itself describes itself as using Jihadism as a means to an end; and criticizes attempts at non-combative negotiations.

It is what it is. But using the critique of the Hannity entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with pro-HAMAS audiences and pro-terrorist consumers is simply grasping at straws. Even I don't like Hannity. But there are many people that appreciate his basic perspective. Why? Because he makes it simple: HAMAS justifies its action as Jihadist response to "initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." According to HAMAS, "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle. ---- ≈ ---- Khaled Meshal, HAMAS Political Leader (March 2013)​

If you are going to start a rational discussion on terrorism, let's start here.

Most Respectfully,
R

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What borders? Palestine has no international borders..

Israelis in Israel proper are civilians.

Nothing you said refutes Rocco's post which contains facts and links.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

First, HAMAS has fired into Israel. That is outside of Gaza. We can argue about the fact that the Hostile Arab Palestinians claim ALL the territory of that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. But the claim is not reality.

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

• 
  EXCERPT Article 3: In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
  provisions:
  
  
  (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
  

  • 
    

  To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
  
  

  (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
  (b) taking of hostages;
  (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
  (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.​

• 
  EXCERPT: Article 68: Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  

Additionally, it is somewhat disreputable for anyone to suggest that what HAMAS has established in their past criminal behaviors, or what they do now --- for whatever the reason or justification, is acceptable under Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) relative to the Rules of Warfare:

Rule 5. Definition of Civilians

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.​

Rule 11. Indiscriminate Attacks

Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.​

Rule 97. Human Shields

Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Well said Rocco . But you must remember that Tinmore, like Hamas, considers all of Israel to be occupied territory ( even though that's an absolutely ridiculous allegation). Which means that non combatants in Israel according to him are not civilians.

 

[HenryBHough]

Terrorist: Any individual who disagrees in any way with any action of The Obama Regime.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.


(COMMENT)

First, HAMAS has fired into Israel. That is outside of Gaza. We can argue about the fact that the Hostile Arab Palestinians claim ALL the territory of that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. But the claim is not reality.

You have never refuted that claim. Every time I have asked you to document Israel's legal acquisition of the land it sits on you duck the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've argued this point many times. You just don't recognize it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

(COMMENT)

First, HAMAS has fired into Israel. That is outside of Gaza. We can argue about the fact that the Hostile Arab Palestinians claim ALL the territory of that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. But the claim is not reality.

You have never refuted that claim. Every time I have asked you to document Israel's legal acquisition of the land it sits on you duck the question.

(COMMENT)

My position is that Israel did not "acquire" the land; but, instead --- declared independence over the territory in accordance with the General Assembly approved "Step Preparatory to Independence." Israel used its right to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinian has never exercised self-determination or established effective control over any of the territory formerly under the Mandate.

There is no document or history anywhere that recognizes any Arab Palestinian Government prior to 1988; with the exception of the failed Egyptian Client State called the All Palestine Government (dissolved in 1959 by Egypt); which did not follow General Assembly Guidance.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.


(COMMENT)

First, HAMAS has fired into Israel. That is outside of Gaza. We can argue about the fact that the Hostile Arab Palestinians claim ALL the territory of that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. But the claim is not reality.

You have never refuted that claim. Every time I have asked you to document Israel's legal acquisition of the land it sits on you duck the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

What claim Tinmore? How can a sovereign state that is a member of the U.N with internationally recognized borders be a completely occupied country?
You make no sense and when you say to Rocco that he never 'refuted your claim' . Your claim is complete nonsense

And once again, the Israel never 'acquired territory' is a completely non relevant issue. It is a 'Tinmore pre requisite' to declaring independence'
For fucks sake, even the PA recognizes. Israels land beyond the '67 lines.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've argued this point many times. You just don't recognize it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

(COMMENT)

First, HAMAS has fired into Israel. That is outside of Gaza. We can argue about the fact that the Hostile Arab Palestinians claim ALL the territory of that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. But the claim is not reality.

You have never refuted that claim. Every time I have asked you to document Israel's legal acquisition of the land it sits on you duck the question.

(COMMENT)

My position is that Israel did not "acquire" the land; but, instead --- declared independence over the territory in accordance with the General Assembly approved "Step Preparatory to Independence." Israel used its right to self-determination.

Israel never defined any land in its declaration of independence.

How does this jive with the Palestinians inalienable right to territorial integrity?

You never did say how foreigners got superior land rights to the natives.

The Arab Palestinian has never exercised self-determination or established effective control over any of the territory formerly under the Mandate.

There is no document or history anywhere that recognizes any Arab Palestinian Government prior to 1988; with the exception of the failed Egyptian Client State called the All Palestine Government (dissolved in 1959 by Egypt); which did not follow General Assembly Guidance.

You should know that statehood or the exercise of sovereignty are not necessary for a people to have rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, again, you get only partial credit.

Israel never defined any land in its declaration of independence.

(COMMENT)

No, it establish sovereign control over the territory via a War, against the aggressor Arab Armies.

How does this jive with the Palestinians inalienable right to territorial integrity?

(COMMENT)


There is a difference between "having a right" and that of "exercising the right." The Hostile Arab Palestinians exercised their right to self-determination when they voted in the Jordanian Parliament and acquest to Jordanian Annexation (first time). Then later, in 1988, when they declared independence.

You never did say how foreigners got superior land rights to the natives.

(COMMENT)


Foreigners did not get superior land rights. Land rights are a civil legal matter of a Real Estate nature. It has nothing to do with sovereignty and independence. You are again mixing up your terminology.

Secondly, the Israeli territory expanded beyond the as an outcome of failed Arab military aggression to overcome the Independence of Israel. As the Forward Edge of the Battle (FEBA) moved in favor of the Israelis, more positive territory control was extended.

You should know that statehood or the exercise of sovereignty are not necessary for a people to have rights.

(COMMENT)


Oh I know this. It is time that the Arab Palestinian learned it. The Arab Palestinian has no rights over the sovereignty of Israeli territory. In fact, they can just barely maintain their rights over they territory they have declared independent.

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R