- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,865
- 4,177
- 1,815
A good explanation of terrorism.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Israeli Firsters that post here are on Hannity's wavelength. They are as moronic as he is.
(COMMENT)A good explanation of terrorism.
Cool, let's start with some facts.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).
(COMMENT)A good explanation of terrorism.
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.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).
(COMMENT)A good explanation of terrorism.
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
Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.
Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
(COMMENT)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.
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.
Most Respectfully,
R
That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are confusing your terminology.
(COMMENT)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.
Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)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)That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are confusing your terminology.
(COMMENT)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.
Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."
The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.
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
Israel never defined any land in its declaration of independence.P F Tinmore, et al,
I've argued this point many times. You just don't recognize it.
(COMMENT)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.
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.
You should know that statehood or the exercise of sovereignty are not necessary for a people to have rights.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
P F Tinmore, et al,
You get partial credit.
(COMMENT)That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are confusing your terminology.
(COMMENT)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.
Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."
The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.
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
(COMMENT)Israel never defined any land in its declaration of independence.
(COMMENT)How does this jive with the Palestinians inalienable right to territorial integrity?
(COMMENT)You never did say how foreigners got superior land rights to the natives.
(COMMENT)You should know that statehood or the exercise of sovereignty are not necessary for a people to have rights.