The Mainstreaming of Hamas

[P F Tinmore]

That's not a ceasefire. That's an Arab Hudna.

Of course that is not true.

But hey, that's just you.

No, that's the Palestinians who sign cease-fires and turn them into Hudnas where they regroup and ready another attack.

The difference between Peace in Islam and the West shows clearly and in Islam a ceasefire is considered a tactical maneuver.

In the Western terms of definition, a ceasefire is considered a cessation of hostilities.

You can't be serious. Who told you that?

 

[Ropey]

Of course that is not true.

But hey, that's just you.

No, that's the Palestinians who sign cease-fires and turn them into Hudnas where they regroup and ready another attack.

The difference between Peace in Islam and the West shows clearly and in Islam a ceasefire is considered a tactical maneuver.

In the Western terms of definition, a ceasefire is considered a cessation of hostilities.

You can't be serious. Who told you that?

They have been holding a one sided ceasefire with Israel for most of the last 6 years.

You did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, that's the Palestinians who sign cease-fires and turn them into Hudnas where they regroup and ready another attack.

The difference between Peace in Islam and the West shows clearly and in Islam a ceasefire is considered a tactical maneuver.

In the Western terms of definition, a ceasefire is considered a cessation of hostilities.

You can't be serious. Who told you that?

They have been holding a one sided ceasefire with Israel for most of the last 6 years.

You did.

And?

 

[Ropey]

You can't be serious. Who told you that?

They have been holding a one sided ceasefire with Israel for most of the last 6 years.

You did.

And?

Then you showed why the Palestinians can't keep cease-fire agreements because they don't understand that a cease-fire is not a tactic.

It's a method to move to a stronger ending of hostilities. You showed that you don't even understand what peace and a cease-fire means to Western eyes.

You think that keeping a cease-fire until one decides to attack is a cease-fire.

It's not when they don't keep it. Then it becomes a tactic. That the Palestinians use along with putting their young and women in harms way in order to use their resultant deaths as media fodder for sympathy.

While you call for the death of Israel on one hand and attempt to elicit sympathy on the other.

 

[Wolverine1984]

What is so dumb about the rule of law? Palestine's constitution lays out a set of procedures that must be followed before a citizen can be arrested. Evidence that a person committed a crime is submitted to the court. The court reviews the evidence and decides whether to issue a warrant or not. Without a warrant it is illegal to arrest someone.

Riight ...Rule of law ? Please, that's hilarious!
warrant ? court ? law ? really ?
The caption says:"Execution of the pig at the hands of the al-Qassam Brigades."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjI_5A7z0u4&feature=player_embedded"]‫[/ame]
And besides, what the rule of the law has to do with Hamas "holding a ceasefire" ? It's totally unrelated.

Me

They have been holding a one sided ceasefire with Israel for most of the last 6 years.

Wolverine1984

You claim that the Hamas initiated one sided truce with Israel and that it lasted for the last 6 years.

I see, 'most' of the last 6 years ... meaning when they are not attacking Israel they are holding an one sided ceasefire right ?
It's like saying that for most of the last 6 years I have not been eating, or sleeping ... sure it's true , but it's meaninglessl.

I can say that Israel have been holding a one sided ceasefire with Hamas for most of the last 12 years. (They are holding a cease fire as long they are not attacking Hamas , same as your logic for saying that the Hamas is holding a one sided ceasefire for most of the last 6 years)

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is so dumb about the rule of law? Palestine's constitution lays out a set of procedures that must be followed before a citizen can be arrested. Evidence that a person committed a crime is submitted to the court. The court reviews the evidence and decides whether to issue a warrant or not. Without a warrant it is illegal to arrest someone.

Riight ...Rule of law ? Please, that's hilarious!
warrant ? court ? law ? really ?
The caption says:"Execution of the pig at the hands of the al-Qassam Brigades."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjI_5A7z0u4&feature=player_embedded"]‫[/ame]
And besides, what the rule of the law has to do with Hamas "holding a ceasefire" ? It's totally unrelated.

Me

Wolverine1984

You claim that the Hamas initiated one sided truce with Israel and that it lasted for the last 6 years.

I see, 'most' of the last 6 years ... meaning when they are not attacking Israel they are holding an one sided ceasefire right ?
It's like saying that for most of the last 6 years I have not been eating, or sleeping ... sure it's true , but it's meaninglessl.

I can say that Israel have been holding a one sided ceasefire with Hamas for most of the last 12 years. (They are holding a cease fire as long they are not attacking Hamas , same as your logic for saying that the Hamas is holding a one sided ceasefire for most of the last 6 years)

WOW, how can I respond to a pantload like that. I mean...ah...where do I start?

Let's look at Bush's phony Roadmap to Peace. Everyone signed on and the Palestinians called for a ceasefire so that negotiations could commence without hostilities. The Palestinians were holding their hand out to Israel and Israel spit in it. The very next day Israel went into Palestine and murdered three Palestinians.

All cease fires have been one sided because Israel has never stopped its aggression.

 

[Wolverine1984]

WOW, how can I respond to a pantload like that. I mean...ah...where do I start?

It's not that diffucult ... You said that there is a rule of law in gaza , I showed you a proof of the contrinary. You said 'one sided ceasefire' I proved you wrong.

Your response to this should be very simple, You should say ... :"Oh wow it seems I've might have been wrong."
But you are incapable to admit your mistakes ,or consider the fact that you might be wrong.

Ceasefire means - no fire.
As long there are missiles fired at Israel,any claim you make about prologned 'one sided ceasefire' from the hamas is a lie.
It's not one sided ceasefire and not a half sided ceasefire...
(Your bush rant has no relevance to the case in hand).

 

[P F Tinmore]

WOW, how can I respond to a pantload like that. I mean...ah...where do I start?

It's not that diffucult ... You said that there is a rule of law in gaza , I showed you a proof of the contrinary. You said 'one sided ceasefire' I proved you wrong.

Your response to this should be very simple, You should say ... :"Oh wow it seems I've might have been wrong."
But you are incapable to admit your mistakes ,or consider the fact that you might be wrong.

Ceasefire means - no fire.
As long there are missiles fired at Israel,any claim you make about prologned 'one sided ceasefire' from the hamas is a lie.
It's not one sided ceasefire and not a half sided ceasefire...
(Your bush rant has no relevance to the case in hand).

Not really. A siege or blockade is an act of war. Israel insists on maintaining this aggression ceasefire or no.

 

[Wolverine1984]

WOW, how can I respond to a pantload like that. I mean...ah...where do I start?

It's not that diffucult ... You said that there is a rule of law in gaza , I showed you a proof of the contrinary. You said 'one sided ceasefire' I proved you wrong.

Your response to this should be very simple, You should say ... :"Oh wow it seems I've might have been wrong."
But you are incapable to admit your mistakes ,or consider the fact that you might be wrong.

Ceasefire means - no fire.
As long there are missiles fired at Israel,any claim you make about prologned 'one sided ceasefire' from the hamas is a lie.
It's not one sided ceasefire and not a half sided ceasefire...
(Your bush rant has no relevance to the case in hand).

Not really. A siege or blockade is an act of war. Israel insists on maintaining this aggression ceasefire or no.

Not really what ?
You are saying Hamas is maitianing one sided ceasefire ...
If there are rockets fired from Gaza into Israel , you can't say that Hamas is maitianing a one sided ceasefire ,It doesn't matter even if Israel nukes Gaza every day.
So your statement about the ceasefire is a lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It's not that diffucult ... You said that there is a rule of law in gaza , I showed you a proof of the contrinary. You said 'one sided ceasefire' I proved you wrong.

Your response to this should be very simple, You should say ... :"Oh wow it seems I've might have been wrong."
But you are incapable to admit your mistakes ,or consider the fact that you might be wrong.

Ceasefire means - no fire.
As long there are missiles fired at Israel,any claim you make about prologned 'one sided ceasefire' from the hamas is a lie.
It's not one sided ceasefire and not a half sided ceasefire...
(Your bush rant has no relevance to the case in hand).

Not really. A siege or blockade is an act of war. Israel insists on maintaining this aggression ceasefire or no.

Not really what ?
You are saying Hamas is maitianing one sided ceasefire ...
If there are rockets fired from Gaza into Israel , you can't say that Hamas is maitianing a one sided ceasefire ,It doesn't matter even if Israel nukes Gaza every day.
So your statement about the ceasefire is a lie.

Is Hamas firing those rockets? Palestinian ceasefires are an attempt to get Israel to reciprocate. Israel does not reciprocate. If Israel ever reciprocated you might have a point.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not really. A siege or blockade is an act of war. Israel insists on maintaining this aggression ceasefire or no.

Not really what ?
You are saying Hamas is maitianing one sided ceasefire ...
If there are rockets fired from Gaza into Israel , you can't say that Hamas is maitianing a one sided ceasefire ,It doesn't matter even if Israel nukes Gaza every day.
So your statement about the ceasefire is a lie.

Is Hamas firing those rockets? Palestinian ceasefires are an attempt to get Israel to reciprocate. Israel does not reciprocate. If Israel ever reciprocated you might have a point.

Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza, and if they are not actively trying to stop the rockets from being fired, they are not maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. Either Hamas is responsible for the rocket firings or they are irrelevant.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not really what ?
You are saying Hamas is maitianing one sided ceasefire ...
If there are rockets fired from Gaza into Israel , you can't say that Hamas is maitianing a one sided ceasefire ,It doesn't matter even if Israel nukes Gaza every day.
So your statement about the ceasefire is a lie.

Is Hamas firing those rockets? Palestinian ceasefires are an attempt to get Israel to reciprocate. Israel does not reciprocate. If Israel ever reciprocated you might have a point.

Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza, and if they are not actively trying to stop the rockets from being fired, they are not maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. Either Hamas is responsible for the rocket firings or they are irrelevant.

OK but the government can only work within its legal bounds laid out in the constitution. Hamas has made great strides in getting other factions into ceasefires. The problem is that when Israel kills members of Islamic Jihad, for example, Islamic Jihad responds with rockets.

Rockets have always been a response to Israeli aggression. In reality the problem is in Israel's court. Israel can stop the rockets simply by changing its policies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Is Hamas firing those rockets? Palestinian ceasefires are an attempt to get Israel to reciprocate. Israel does not reciprocate. If Israel ever reciprocated you might have a point.

Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza, and if they are not actively trying to stop the rockets from being fired, they are not maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. Either Hamas is responsible for the rocket firings or they are irrelevant.

OK but the government can only work within its legal bounds laid out in the constitution. Hamas has made great strides in getting other factions into ceasefires. The problem is that when Israel kills members of Islamic Jihad, for example, Islamic Jihad responds with rockets.

Rockets have always been a response to Israeli aggression. In reality the problem is in Israel's court. Israel can stop the rockets simply by changing its policies.

So what you're either saying is that Hamas is irrelevant to maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel or Hamas approves of the rocket firing by Islamic Jihad and is therefore as the government of Gaza responsible for it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza, and if they are not actively trying to stop the rockets from being fired, they are not maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel. Either Hamas is responsible for the rocket firings or they are irrelevant.

OK but the government can only work within its legal bounds laid out in the constitution. Hamas has made great strides in getting other factions into ceasefires. The problem is that when Israel kills members of Islamic Jihad, for example, Islamic Jihad responds with rockets.

Rockets have always been a response to Israeli aggression. In reality the problem is in Israel's court. Israel can stop the rockets simply by changing its policies.

So what you're either saying is that Hamas is irrelevant to maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel or Hamas approves of the rocket firing by Islamic Jihad and is therefore as the government of Gaza responsible for it.

No I didn't say that.

 

[Wolverine1984]

OK but the government can only work within its legal bounds laid out in the constitution. Hamas has made great strides in getting other factions into ceasefires. The problem is that when Israel kills members of Islamic Jihad, for example, Islamic Jihad responds with rockets.

Rockets have always been a response to Israeli aggression. In reality the problem is in Israel's court. Israel can stop the rockets simply by changing its policies.

So what you're either saying is that Hamas is irrelevant to maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel or Hamas approves of the rocket firing by Islamic Jihad and is therefore as the government of Gaza responsible for it.

No I didn't say that.

Well you didn't explicitly say this ... but this is could be deduced directly from your comments ...
Either Hamas is not responsible for the rocket attacks , and thus they are irrelevant to maintaining a ceasefire, or they are responsible and your comment about a ceasefire is a complete lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what you're either saying is that Hamas is irrelevant to maintaining a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel or Hamas approves of the rocket firing by Islamic Jihad and is therefore as the government of Gaza responsible for it.

No I didn't say that.

Well you didn't explicitly say this ... but this is could be deduced directly from your comments ...
Either Hamas is not responsible for the rocket attacks , and thus they are irrelevant to maintaining a ceasefire, or they are responsible and your comment about a ceasefire is a complete lie.

Could be.

If you wanted to twist things around.