Terrorist ???

[P F Tinmore]

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

Load of crap, Rocco.

Show me when the Palestinians lost a war with Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is simple.

Why would they specify that exclution?

(COMMENT)

The citizens of the "Occupation Power" are not former enemy nationals; and as such --- fall under the national law of the "Occupying Power" already and already have the protections of the state. The GCIV was concerned with the all the other persons, including enemy aliens in the zone of occupation.

When the US Occupies an area, the GCIV covers everyone in that area except the Americans, which fall under US Federal Laws and Protections. The GCIV tells the "Occupying Power" how to hand all the other people (protected persons).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

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

Load of crap, Rocco.

Show me when the Palestinians lost a war with Israel.

It's been shown to you many times, but you are simply not able to acknowledge the truth because it contradicts your 'agenda'

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is simple.

Why would they specify that exclution?

(COMMENT)

The citizens of the "Occupation Power" are not former enemy nationals; and as such --- fall under the national law of the "Occupying Power" already and already have the protections of the state. The GCIV was concerned with the all the other persons, including enemy aliens in the zone of occupation.

When the US Occupies an area, the GCIV covers everyone in that area except the Americans, which fall under US Federal Laws and Protections. The GCIV tells the "Occupying Power" how to hand all the other people (protected persons).

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think an occupying power can impose its own laws on an occupied territory.

Do you have something to prove your assertion?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, I did not say anyone "won" or "lost" a war. (Go back and read it again.)

Load of crap, Rocco.

Show me when the Palestinians lost a war with Israel.

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the various Armistice Agreements (and even subsequent treaties):

• Israel had effective control of certain areas, plus the territory they declare independence over.
• The Jordanians had effective control over a certain area.
• The Egyptians had effective control over a certain area.
• The Lebanese had effective control over a certain area.
• The Syrians had effective control over a certain area.

You will notice that, no matter where you look, you will not find where the Arab Palestinians had effective control over any territory. Where, if they had accepted the Partition Plan, and the Arab League had not attacked --- there would have been an Arab Palestinian allocation. Now --- whether or not you consider that a "win" or a "loss" --- or any other status --- is unimportant to me. The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinian came away with no territorial allocation, or control.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, I did not say anyone "won" or "lost" a war. (Go back and read it again.)

Load of crap, Rocco.

Show me when the Palestinians lost a war with Israel.

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the various Armistice Agreements (and even subsequent treaties):

• Israel had effective control of certain areas, plus the territory they declare independence over.
• The Jordanians had effective control over a certain area.
• The Egyptians had effective control over a certain area.
• The Lebanese had effective control over a certain area.
• The Syrians had effective control over a certain area.

You will notice that, no matter where you look, you will not find where the Arab Palestinians had effective control over any territory. Where, if they had accepted the Partition Plan, and the Arab League had not attacked --- there would have been an Arab Palestinian allocation. Now --- whether or not you consider that a "win" or a "loss" --- or any other status --- is unimportant to me. The fact of the matter is that the Hostile Arab Palestinian came away with no territorial allocation, or control.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not need an allocation. The place was already Palestine.

"Effective control" is a term used to define an occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused. In US Occupied Territory, ALL US Citizens fall under US Federal Laws. It is not territorial. It covers the person.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is simple.

Why would they specify that exclution?

(COMMENT)

The citizens of the "Occupation Power" are not former enemy nationals; and as such --- fall under the national law of the "Occupying Power" already and already have the protections of the state. The GCIV was concerned with the all the other persons, including enemy aliens in the zone of occupation.

When the US Occupies an area, the GCIV covers everyone in that area except the Americans, which fall under US Federal Laws and Protections. The GCIV tells the "Occupying Power" how to hand all the other people (protected persons).

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think an occupying power can impose its own laws on an occupied territory.

Do you have something to prove your assertion?

(COMMENT)

In fact the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that covers all military personnel world-wide, is in fact, part of the United States Code (Law of the Land)(UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47).

Remember, we are not applying US Law to foreign nationals, but US Nationals that do not meet the criteria of a "Protected Person." Again, Article 68 applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are wrong in your interpretation of what it means to say: "Palestine"

The Palestinians did not need an allocation. The place was already Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, Palestine meant either:

• The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; or
• The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied.
• "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.

"Effective control" is a term used to define an occupation.

(COMMENT)

The term "Effective Control" can be used to describe a number of conditions and status. And yes, it is often used as the primary factor in establishing whether or not an "Occupation" is in place. In relation to "Occupations", the complete and correct phrase is "Effective Foreign Control."

It is also used instead of the phrase "Supreme Authority" which is the original language that dates back to Imperialistic times. But it is also the case that you cannot extend "Sovereign Control" unless you have "Effective Control."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused. In US Occupied Territory, ALL US Citizens fall under US Federal Laws. It is not territorial. It covers the person.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is simple.

Why would they specify that exclution?

(COMMENT)

The citizens of the "Occupation Power" are not former enemy nationals; and as such --- fall under the national law of the "Occupying Power" already and already have the protections of the state. The GCIV was concerned with the all the other persons, including enemy aliens in the zone of occupation.

When the US Occupies an area, the GCIV covers everyone in that area except the Americans, which fall under US Federal Laws and Protections. The GCIV tells the "Occupying Power" how to hand all the other people (protected persons).

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think an occupying power can impose its own laws on an occupied territory.

Do you have something to prove your assertion?

(COMMENT)

In fact the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that covers all military personnel world-wide, is in fact, part of the United States Code (Law of the Land)(UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47).

Remember, we are not applying US Law to foreign nationals, but US Nationals that do not meet the criteria of a "Protected Person." Again, Article 68 applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons.

Then the whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are wrong in your interpretation of what it means to say: "Palestine"

The Palestinians did not need an allocation. The place was already Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, Palestine meant either:

• The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; or
• The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied.
• "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.

"Effective control" is a term used to define an occupation.

(COMMENT)

The term "Effective Control" can be used to describe a number of conditions and status. And yes, it is often used as the primary factor in establishing whether or not an "Occupation" is in place. In relation to "Occupations", the complete and correct phrase is "Effective Foreign Control."

It is also used instead of the phrase "Supreme Authority" which is the original language that dates back to Imperialistic times. But it is also the case that you cannot extend "Sovereign Control" unless you have "Effective Control."

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate is irrelevant. Palestine continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

Preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights is a violation of international law.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not read Article 68.

The bottom line is that Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons.

Then the whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 applied to the Palestinians (protected persons) committing crimes against the Occupation Power (Israel).

And, whether or not you approve, it is a fact that HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization.

And whether or not you approve, HAMAS is a self-proclaimed Jihadist organization.

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is what it is.

The mandate is irrelevant. Palestine continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

Preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights is a violation of international law.

(COMMENT)

No one prevented the Arab Palestinian from exercising their right.

The Palestinian exercised their right of self-determination in 1950 and 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Grendelyn]

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

No, Zionist, if you really want a rational discussion on terrorism, let's start with the King David Hotel . . . and if that's not going back far enough, why not start with Moses who was one of the many hit men used by mythical Yahweh to steal land for the Israelites from its rightful, indigenous owners by force. ~ Susan
PS If one has any sense at all, one knows that hypocritical Jewish Zionists have stolen all land ever in their possession in this area since day one . . . now that they have the land ,having stolen it through terrorism, they attempt to convince the simpleminded that the force used by the land's rightful owners in an attempt to rightfully get it back from them is terrorism. Ohhh you Zionist hoodwinkers, you! Shame, shame on you!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not read Article 68.

The bottom line is that Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons.

Then the whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 applied to the Palestinians (protected persons) committing crimes against the Occupation Power (Israel).

And, whether or not you approve, it is a fact that HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization.

And whether or not you approve, HAMAS is a self-proclaimed Jihadist organization.

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

When Palestine was separated from Turkey they had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

Israel violates all of those.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are wrong in your interpretation of what it means to say: "Palestine"

The Palestinians did not need an allocation. The place was already Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, Palestine meant either:

• The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies; or
• The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied.
• "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.

"Effective control" is a term used to define an occupation.

(COMMENT)

The term "Effective Control" can be used to describe a number of conditions and status. And yes, it is often used as the primary factor in establishing whether or not an "Occupation" is in place. In relation to "Occupations", the complete and correct phrase is "Effective Foreign Control."

It is also used instead of the phrase "Supreme Authority" which is the original language that dates back to Imperialistic times. But it is also the case that you cannot extend "Sovereign Control" unless you have "Effective Control."

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate is irrelevant. Palestine continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

Preventing the Palestinians from exercising their rights is a violation of international law.

Q

P F Tinmore, et al,

You did not read Article 68.

The bottom line is that Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons.

Then the whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 applied to the Palestinians (protected persons) committing crimes against the Occupation Power (Israel).

And, whether or not you approve, it is a fact that HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization.

And whether or not you approve, HAMAS is a self-proclaimed Jihadist organization.

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

When Palestine was separated from Turkey they had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

Israel violates all of those.

Please show exactly when Israel violated those and provide a link.

Oh, and Hamas did fight outside its own territory during Operation Protective Edge when they infiltrated Israel by using their tunnels.

 

[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

No, Zionist, if you really want a rational discussion on terrorism, let's start with the King David Hotel . . . and if that's not going back far enough, why not start with Moses who was one of the many hit men used by mythical Yahweh to steal land for the Israelites from its rightful, indigenous owners by force. ~ Susan
PS If one has any sense at all, one knows that hypocritical Jewish Zionists have stolen all land ever in their possession in this area since day one . . . now that they have the land ,having stolen it through terrorism, they attempt to convince the simpleminded that the force used by the land's rightful owners in an attempt to rightfully get it back from them is terrorism. Ohhh you Zionist hoodwinkers, you! Shame, shame on you!

Lol well that was a seriously desperate attempt!

You've already shown us all that you hate Jews, so you have zero credibility when talking about Zionism and Israel.
And if you think Israel is stolen land, you obviously have no idea about anything concerning Israel's history.
Big fail kn your part

 

[teddyearp]

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.

And confirmed below:

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.

 

[Crystalclear]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused. In US Occupied Territory, ALL US Citizens fall under US Federal Laws. It is not territorial. It covers the person.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is simple.

Why would they specify that exclution?

(COMMENT)

The citizens of the "Occupation Power" are not former enemy nationals; and as such --- fall under the national law of the "Occupying Power" already and already have the protections of the state. The GCIV was concerned with the all the other persons, including enemy aliens in the zone of occupation.

When the US Occupies an area, the GCIV covers everyone in that area except the Americans, which fall under US Federal Laws and Protections. The GCIV tells the "Occupying Power" how to hand all the other people (protected persons).

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think an occupying power can impose its own laws on an occupied territory.

Do you have something to prove your assertion?

(COMMENT)

In fact the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that covers all military personnel world-wide, is in fact, part of the United States Code (Law of the Land)(UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47).

Remember, we are not applying US Law to foreign nationals, but US Nationals that do not meet the criteria of a "Protected Person." Again, Article 68 applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons.

Then the whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap.

They dug tunnels into Israel, they have fired rockets into Israel (aimed at civilian areas, Israel never did this without evidence of a military site).

 

[Beelzebub]

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

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

 

[Crystalclear]

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

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.