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.
Well, I am really disappointed in my Jewish friends and neighbors. I have seen that the Palestinians are ONLY trying to establish their space agency and are consistently "reaching for the stars" by launching katusha rockets, which unfortunately, until this time, have fallen back to earth (unfortunately ALWAYS on Jewish settlements or cities). Don't you realize that their space launch efforts are only an undeniable quest for scientific truth? The fact that hundreds of people have died as these rockets mysteriously fall back to earth, is simply a minor setback. The Palestinian Space Agency will continue it's thirst for scientific knowledge and you would think that the state of Israel wouldn't hold such small 'setbacks' against an entire people.
And of course, I would assume that as an American, my Jewish allies in the state of Israel, would see that the Palestinians are only trying to somehow prove or disprove those long held beliefs of that monster Hitler. He murdered 6 million plus Jews and in doing so made some very unscientific statements such as "Jews are like dogs." Well, the Palestinians, being such knowledge seeking people, are only trying to prove or disprove those statements finally. Not sure how many Jews have to die to prove or disprove these theories, but you know, scientific knowledge sometimes equal pain. It's just unfortunate that so much of that pain is placed on the Jewish people.
Next thing you know, the state of Israel will deny climate change! Oh my God, then they really will be ostracized and condemned.
Well, I am really disappointed in my Jewish friends and neighbors. I have seen that the Palestinians are ONLY trying to establish their space agency and are consistently "reaching for the stars" by launching katusha rockets, which unfortunately, until this time, have fallen back to earth (unfortunately ALWAYS on Jewish settlements or cities). Don't you realize that their space launch efforts are only an undeniable quest for scientific truth? The fact that hundreds of people have died as these rockets mysteriously fall back to earth, is simply a minor setback. The Palestinian Space Agency will continue it's thirst for scientific knowledge and you would think that the state of Israel wouldn't hold such small 'setbacks' against an entire people.
And of course, I would assume that as an American, my Jewish allies in the state of Israel, would see that the Palestinians are only trying to somehow prove or disprove those long held beliefs of that monster Hitler. He murdered 6 million plus Jews and in doing so made some very unscientific statements such as "Jews are like dogs." Well, the Palestinians, being such knowledge seeking people, are only trying to prove or disprove those statements finally. Not sure how many Jews have to die to prove or disprove these theories, but you know, scientific knowledge sometimes equal pain. It's just unfortunate that so much of that pain is placed on the Jewish people.
Next thing you know, the state of Israel will deny climate change! Oh my God, then they really will be ostracized and condemned.
Gosh, if only the Palestinian "space agency" had the benefit of all those Nazi rocket scientists who built their Rockets for good old Uncle Sam, they might have landed on the moon by now or have a massive stockpile of ICBMs to protect Palestine from the Zionist menace.
Challenger, et al,
The lack of a civil understanding that targeting civilians is NO EXCUSE for the Arab Palestinian to use it as justification. It merely puts Arab Palestinians in the category as poorly developed nations.
(COMMENT)
You have to think in braoder strokes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Thinking in broader strokes, then.
On the one hand the Zionuts accuse the Palestinian Resistance of targeting civillians, while on the other hand accuse them of using indiscriminate weapons that cannot be targeted. You can't have it both ways.
Secondly who is a "civillian" in Zionist Israel over the age of 18? On the one hand you have IDF reservists who either on or off duty carry arms. Even those opting for Sherut Leumi can participate in internal security programs or other activities that can be defined as contributing to the "war effort" which would make them valid targets of Resistance activity. On the other, there are those retired from the IDF but who may have comitted war crimes while serving so might be a valid target for reprisal action.
Point out to me the genuine non-combatants in the above pictures? Are they not being used as "human shields"?
Where are the civilians in this photo?
If a civillian takes up arms, they lose protected person status, how are the Palestinian Resistance expected to differentiate?
Gee whiz. That cut and paste tirade was drenched in every Islamic terrorist shibboleth, cliché and slogan used to justify acts of Islamic terrorism aimed at killing Israeli civilians.
It's a simple matter to cut and paste propaganda photos from the islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza and the West Bank showing little muhammud, the other little mohamned, the other, other little muhammud and the various other little muhammuds in their Islamic terrorist gee-had attire. As you have defined legitimate combatants, why all the whining about dead little muhammuds?
"cut and paste propaganda"?
Hardly, however, at least there is a contribution being made to the thread rather than your whining because someone has made a constructive post...
Seems to be something that you can't cope with and simply bleat on about "cut and paste"...
Have you EVER made a sensible, constructive post?
Who? Hollie? ....don't ever remember seeing one myself.
Wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes?
The court's findings were reported in the news. You won't believe me anyway so look it up yourself.Did they use the same bogus information they used the first time?Wrong again ratboy as the EU has put hamas back on the list of terrorist organisations, don't you read the posts on here that show this. Or do you just look at ones you can hijack with your Jew hatred and deflect away from the truth
PROOF THAT IT WAS BOGUS then tinny, or admit you are just being a stupid fool again. Attacking civilians and children with illegal weapons is terrorism, that is the only criteria you need to know.
I did and it does not say that the court stated the reasons for hamas being on the terror list were bogus. You get caught every time you LIE and try to worm out of your lies. The courts next findings were also reported in the news and that put hamas straight back on the list once the minor discrepancy was sorted.
a Link
EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list - BBC News
A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
106 As regards the United States decisions taken under section 219 INA, the Council produces no decision adopted later than 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012, taken under section 219 INA and mentioned for the first time in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, the Council provides no evidence that would disclose how the actual reasons on which those decisions were based bears any relationship to the list of acts of violence set out in the statement of reasons for those measures. More generally, and so far as the reasons for the designation made in application of section 219 INA are concerned, the Council produces only a document dated 1997. As regards the United States decision taken in application of Executive Order 13224, the Council produces before the Court only a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no later decision of the United States Government in application of that order. As for the reasons for the designation, the Council produces an undated document originating in the United States Treasury which mentions Hamas in reference to facts the most recent of which dates from June 2003.
107 As for the national decisions to which reference was first made at the hearing, they constitute — quite apart from the fact that they have not been produced — an attempt to submit reasons out of time, which is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2013 in North Drilling v Council, T‑552/12, EU:T:2013:590, paragraph 26, and 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council, T‑58/12, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 36 to 39). It should be observed, incidentally, that there is no mention of those decisions in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, which were adopted after the hearing.
108 The Council claims, on the other hand, in its observations on the supplementary pleading, that it is sufficient to consult the press in order to establish that the applicant regularly acknowledges responsibility for terrorist acts.
109 That consideration, together with the absence of any reference in the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 to decisions of competent authorities more recent than the imputed acts and referring to those acts, clearly shows that the Council did not base its imputation to the applicant of the terrorist acts taken into account for the period after 2004 on appraisals contained in decisions of competent authorities, but on information which it derived from the press.
110 As is apparent from the matters recalled at paragraphs 91 and 92 above, however, Common Position 2001/931 requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
112 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council did not satisfy those requirements of Common Position 2001/931.
113 The statements of reasons on which the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 are based show, moreover, that the Council’s reasoning took the opposite direction to that required by that common position.
114 Thus, instead of taking as the factual basis of its assessment decisions adopted by competent authorities which had taken precise facts into consideration and acted on the basis of those facts, and then ascertaining that those facts are indeed ‘terrorist acts’ and that the group concerned is indeed ‘a group’, within the meaning of the definitions in Common Position 2001/931, before eventually deciding, on that basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to adopt a decision at EU level, the Council, in the statements of reasons for its measures of July 2011 to July 2014, did the opposite.
115 It begins with appraisals which are in reality its own, describing the applicant as ‘terrorist’ in the first sentence of the statements of reasons — thus settling the question that those reasons are supposed to resolve — and imputing to it a series of acts of violence which it has taken from the press and the internet (first and second paragraphs of the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014).
116 It should be noted, in that regard, that the fact that the exercise in question constitutes a review of the list relating to frozen funds, and therefore follows on from previous examinations, cannot justify that description being applied at the outset. Although the past cannot be ignored, the review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or the group concerned is no longer ‘terrorist’ at the time when the Council makes its determination. It is therefore only at the end of that review that the Council is able to draw its conclusion.
CURIA - Documents
--------------------------
IOW, the EU put Hamas on the terrorist list because they wanted to.
Why would the UN want to since Hamas is no threat to the EU or anyone else.
Challenger, et al,
The lack of a civil understanding that targeting civilians is NO EXCUSE for the Arab Palestinian to use it as justification. It merely puts Arab Palestinians in the category as poorly developed nations.
(COMMENT)Acts of resistance to an occupation may have the side effect of intimidation but they're still acts of resistance. Most of the world outside of Western Europe and the USA does not see Hamas as a terrorist organisation.P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh come now. Is this a sympathy ploy?
(COMMENT)Did they use the same bogus information they used the first time?
When the time comes for the general population of the world sees HAMAS as an activity that DOES NOT
• Use unlawful act of violence to • Intimidates governments or societies, for the purpose of attaining • Goals to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives, THEN and ONLY THEN can the dialog be started to re-characterized the Jihadist organization that has a long history of past criminal behaves and is still targeting innocent civilians for the purpose of intimidation.
Most Respectfully,
R
TERRORISM said:There is a broad sense in which terrorism can be understood as “intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes”.2 In ethical terms, this formulation seems to capture the salient feature of the practice, the intentional targeting of noncombatants (and not in the context of crime or the like). However, I wish to focus here on terrorism in a narrower sense, as practiced by members of small or weak groups that lack the capacity to field an army and engage in warfare. Henceforth when I speak of terrorism I shall refer to this narrower sense.
SOURCE:
You have to think in braoder strokes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Thinking in broader strokes, then.
On the one hand the Zionuts accuse the Palestinian Resistance of targeting civillians, while on the other hand accuse them of using indiscriminate weapons that cannot be targeted. You can't have it both ways.
Secondly who is a "civillian" in Zionist Israel over the age of 18? On the one hand you have IDF reservists who either on or off duty carry arms. Even those opting for Sherut Leumi can participate in internal security programs or other activities that can be defined as contributing to the "war effort" which would make them valid targets of Resistance activity. On the other, there are those retired from the IDF but who may have comitted war crimes while serving so might be a valid target for reprisal action.
Point out to me the genuine non-combatants in the above pictures? Are they not being used as "human shields"?
Where are the civilians in this photo?
If a civillian takes up arms, they lose protected person status, how are the Palestinian Resistance expected to differentiate?
Challenger, et al,
The lack of a civil understanding that targeting civilians is NO EXCUSE for the Arab Palestinian to use it as justification. It merely puts Arab Palestinians in the category as poorly developed nations.
(COMMENT)Acts of resistance to an occupation may have the side effect of intimidation but they're still acts of resistance. Most of the world outside of Western Europe and the USA does not see Hamas as a terrorist organisation.P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh come now. Is this a sympathy ploy?
(COMMENT)
When the time comes for the general population of the world sees HAMAS as an activity that DOES NOT
• Use unlawful act of violence to • Intimidates governments or societies, for the purpose of attaining • Goals to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives, THEN and ONLY THEN can the dialog be started to re-characterized the Jihadist organization that has a long history of past criminal behaves and is still targeting innocent civilians for the purpose of intimidation.
Most Respectfully,
R
TERRORISM said:There is a broad sense in which terrorism can be understood as “intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes”.2 In ethical terms, this formulation seems to capture the salient feature of the practice, the intentional targeting of noncombatants (and not in the context of crime or the like). However, I wish to focus here on terrorism in a narrower sense, as practiced by members of small or weak groups that lack the capacity to field an army and engage in warfare. Henceforth when I speak of terrorism I shall refer to this narrower sense.
SOURCE:
You have to think in braoder strokes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Thinking in broader strokes, then.
On the one hand the Zionuts accuse the Palestinian Resistance of targeting civillians, while on the other hand accuse them of using indiscriminate weapons that cannot be targeted. You can't have it both ways.
Secondly who is a "civillian" in Zionist Israel over the age of 18? On the one hand you have IDF reservists who either on or off duty carry arms. Even those opting for Sherut Leumi can participate in internal security programs or other activities that can be defined as contributing to the "war effort" which would make them valid targets of Resistance activity. On the other, there are those retired from the IDF but who may have comitted war crimes while serving so might be a valid target for reprisal action.
Point out to me the genuine non-combatants in the above pictures? Are they not being used as "human shields"?
Where are the civilians in this photo?
If a civillian takes up arms, they lose protected person status, how are the Palestinian Resistance expected to differentiate?
Gee whiz. That cut and paste tirade was drenched in every Islamic terrorist shibboleth, cliché and slogan used to justify acts of Islamic terrorism aimed at killing Israeli civilians.
It's a simple matter to cut and paste propaganda photos from the islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza and the West Bank showing little muhammud, the other little mohamned, the other, other little muhammud and the various other little muhammuds in their Islamic terrorist gee-had attire. As you have defined legitimate combatants, why all the whining about dead little muhammuds?
"cut and paste propaganda"?
Hardly, however, at least there is a contribution being made to the thread rather than your whining because someone has made a constructive post...
Seems to be something that you can't cope with and simply bleat on about "cut and paste"...
Have you EVER made a sensible, constructive post?
One must never submit or compromise to violence and extortions, it is a very slippery slop to self destruction.
Exactly right. That's what the Palestinians have been doing since the Zionist invasion began, refusing to submit or compromise to the violence and extortion committed by the Zionist entity for 60+ years.
Challenger, et al,
The lack of a civil understanding that targeting civilians is NO EXCUSE for the Arab Palestinian to use it as justification. It merely puts Arab Palestinians in the category as poorly developed nations.
(COMMENT)Acts of resistance to an occupation may have the side effect of intimidation but they're still acts of resistance. Most of the world outside of Western Europe and the USA does not see Hamas as a terrorist organisation.P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh come now. Is this a sympathy ploy?
(COMMENT)
When the time comes for the general population of the world sees HAMAS as an activity that DOES NOT
• Use unlawful act of violence to • Intimidates governments or societies, for the purpose of attaining • Goals to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives, THEN and ONLY THEN can the dialog be started to re-characterized the Jihadist organization that has a long history of past criminal behaves and is still targeting innocent civilians for the purpose of intimidation.
Most Respectfully,
R
TERRORISM said:There is a broad sense in which terrorism can be understood as “intentionally targeting noncombatants with lethal or severe violence for political purposes”.2 In ethical terms, this formulation seems to capture the salient feature of the practice, the intentional targeting of noncombatants (and not in the context of crime or the like). However, I wish to focus here on terrorism in a narrower sense, as practiced by members of small or weak groups that lack the capacity to field an army and engage in warfare. Henceforth when I speak of terrorism I shall refer to this narrower sense.
SOURCE:
You have to think in braoder strokes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Thinking in broader strokes, then.
On the one hand the Zionuts accuse the Palestinian Resistance of targeting civillians, while on the other hand accuse them of using indiscriminate weapons that cannot be targeted. You can't have it both ways.
Secondly who is a "civillian" in Zionist Israel over the age of 18? On the one hand you have IDF reservists who either on or off duty carry arms. Even those opting for Sherut Leumi can participate in internal security programs or other activities that can be defined as contributing to the "war effort" which would make them valid targets of Resistance activity. On the other, there are those retired from the IDF but who may have comitted war crimes while serving so might be a valid target for reprisal action.
Point out to me the genuine non-combatants in the above pictures? Are they not being used as "human shields"?
Where are the civilians in this photo?
If a civillian takes up arms, they lose protected person status, how are the Palestinian Resistance expected to differentiate?
the part of your sig line saying seek the truth is amusing....since it comes from a lying jew hater.
but we understand that you think your terrorists should be able to do whatever they want without jews defending themselves.
Hello Mrs. Phoney, you've got it wrong...the correct way of posting is ...LYING JEW HATER!!! (as per the Hasbara playbook)
Anyway aren't we all seeking the "truth"?
bo·gus [bṓgəss]The court's findings were reported in the news. You won't believe me anyway so look it up yourself.Did they use the same bogus information they used the first time?
PROOF THAT IT WAS BOGUS then tinny, or admit you are just being a stupid fool again. Attacking civilians and children with illegal weapons is terrorism, that is the only criteria you need to know.
I did and it does not say that the court stated the reasons for hamas being on the terror list were bogus. You get caught every time you LIE and try to worm out of your lies. The courts next findings were also reported in the news and that put hamas straight back on the list once the minor discrepancy was sorted.
a Link
EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list - BBC News
A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
106 As regards the United States decisions taken under section 219 INA, the Council produces no decision adopted later than 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012, taken under section 219 INA and mentioned for the first time in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, the Council provides no evidence that would disclose how the actual reasons on which those decisions were based bears any relationship to the list of acts of violence set out in the statement of reasons for those measures. More generally, and so far as the reasons for the designation made in application of section 219 INA are concerned, the Council produces only a document dated 1997. As regards the United States decision taken in application of Executive Order 13224, the Council produces before the Court only a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no later decision of the United States Government in application of that order. As for the reasons for the designation, the Council produces an undated document originating in the United States Treasury which mentions Hamas in reference to facts the most recent of which dates from June 2003.
107 As for the national decisions to which reference was first made at the hearing, they constitute — quite apart from the fact that they have not been produced — an attempt to submit reasons out of time, which is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2013 in North Drilling v Council, T‑552/12, EU:T:2013:590, paragraph 26, and 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council, T‑58/12, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 36 to 39). It should be observed, incidentally, that there is no mention of those decisions in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, which were adopted after the hearing.
108 The Council claims, on the other hand, in its observations on the supplementary pleading, that it is sufficient to consult the press in order to establish that the applicant regularly acknowledges responsibility for terrorist acts.
109 That consideration, together with the absence of any reference in the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 to decisions of competent authorities more recent than the imputed acts and referring to those acts, clearly shows that the Council did not base its imputation to the applicant of the terrorist acts taken into account for the period after 2004 on appraisals contained in decisions of competent authorities, but on information which it derived from the press.
110 As is apparent from the matters recalled at paragraphs 91 and 92 above, however, Common Position 2001/931 requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
112 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council did not satisfy those requirements of Common Position 2001/931.
113 The statements of reasons on which the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 are based show, moreover, that the Council’s reasoning took the opposite direction to that required by that common position.
114 Thus, instead of taking as the factual basis of its assessment decisions adopted by competent authorities which had taken precise facts into consideration and acted on the basis of those facts, and then ascertaining that those facts are indeed ‘terrorist acts’ and that the group concerned is indeed ‘a group’, within the meaning of the definitions in Common Position 2001/931, before eventually deciding, on that basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to adopt a decision at EU level, the Council, in the statements of reasons for its measures of July 2011 to July 2014, did the opposite.
115 It begins with appraisals which are in reality its own, describing the applicant as ‘terrorist’ in the first sentence of the statements of reasons — thus settling the question that those reasons are supposed to resolve — and imputing to it a series of acts of violence which it has taken from the press and the internet (first and second paragraphs of the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014).
116 It should be noted, in that regard, that the fact that the exercise in question constitutes a review of the list relating to frozen funds, and therefore follows on from previous examinations, cannot justify that description being applied at the outset. Although the past cannot be ignored, the review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or the group concerned is no longer ‘terrorist’ at the time when the Council makes its determination. It is therefore only at the end of that review that the Council is able to draw its conclusion.
CURIA - Documents
--------------------------
IOW, the EU put Hamas on the terrorist list because they wanted to.
Why would the UN want to since Hamas is no threat to the EU or anyone else.
So no mention of the word BOGUS in all that.
PROVING THAT YOU HAVE LIED
bo·gus [bṓgəss]The court's findings were reported in the news. You won't believe me anyway so look it up yourself.PROOF THAT IT WAS BOGUS then tinny, or admit you are just being a stupid fool again. Attacking civilians and children with illegal weapons is terrorism, that is the only criteria you need to know.
I did and it does not say that the court stated the reasons for hamas being on the terror list were bogus. You get caught every time you LIE and try to worm out of your lies. The courts next findings were also reported in the news and that put hamas straight back on the list once the minor discrepancy was sorted.
a Link
EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list - BBC News
A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
106 As regards the United States decisions taken under section 219 INA, the Council produces no decision adopted later than 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012, taken under section 219 INA and mentioned for the first time in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, the Council provides no evidence that would disclose how the actual reasons on which those decisions were based bears any relationship to the list of acts of violence set out in the statement of reasons for those measures. More generally, and so far as the reasons for the designation made in application of section 219 INA are concerned, the Council produces only a document dated 1997. As regards the United States decision taken in application of Executive Order 13224, the Council produces before the Court only a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no later decision of the United States Government in application of that order. As for the reasons for the designation, the Council produces an undated document originating in the United States Treasury which mentions Hamas in reference to facts the most recent of which dates from June 2003.
107 As for the national decisions to which reference was first made at the hearing, they constitute — quite apart from the fact that they have not been produced — an attempt to submit reasons out of time, which is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2013 in North Drilling v Council, T‑552/12, EU:T:2013:590, paragraph 26, and 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council, T‑58/12, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 36 to 39). It should be observed, incidentally, that there is no mention of those decisions in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, which were adopted after the hearing.
108 The Council claims, on the other hand, in its observations on the supplementary pleading, that it is sufficient to consult the press in order to establish that the applicant regularly acknowledges responsibility for terrorist acts.
109 That consideration, together with the absence of any reference in the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 to decisions of competent authorities more recent than the imputed acts and referring to those acts, clearly shows that the Council did not base its imputation to the applicant of the terrorist acts taken into account for the period after 2004 on appraisals contained in decisions of competent authorities, but on information which it derived from the press.
110 As is apparent from the matters recalled at paragraphs 91 and 92 above, however, Common Position 2001/931 requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
112 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council did not satisfy those requirements of Common Position 2001/931.
113 The statements of reasons on which the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 are based show, moreover, that the Council’s reasoning took the opposite direction to that required by that common position.
114 Thus, instead of taking as the factual basis of its assessment decisions adopted by competent authorities which had taken precise facts into consideration and acted on the basis of those facts, and then ascertaining that those facts are indeed ‘terrorist acts’ and that the group concerned is indeed ‘a group’, within the meaning of the definitions in Common Position 2001/931, before eventually deciding, on that basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to adopt a decision at EU level, the Council, in the statements of reasons for its measures of July 2011 to July 2014, did the opposite.
115 It begins with appraisals which are in reality its own, describing the applicant as ‘terrorist’ in the first sentence of the statements of reasons — thus settling the question that those reasons are supposed to resolve — and imputing to it a series of acts of violence which it has taken from the press and the internet (first and second paragraphs of the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014).
116 It should be noted, in that regard, that the fact that the exercise in question constitutes a review of the list relating to frozen funds, and therefore follows on from previous examinations, cannot justify that description being applied at the outset. Although the past cannot be ignored, the review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or the group concerned is no longer ‘terrorist’ at the time when the Council makes its determination. It is therefore only at the end of that review that the Council is able to draw its conclusion.
CURIA - Documents
--------------------------
IOW, the EU put Hamas on the terrorist list because they wanted to.
Why would the UN want to since Hamas is no threat to the EU or anyone else.
So no mention of the word BOGUS in all that.
PROVING THAT YOU HAVE LIED
adj
1. fake or deceitful: false, dishonest, or fraudulently imitating something
2. bad or useless: not good, pleasant, or acceptable (slang)
It was bogus.
You have no point.
They designated Hams terrorists because they wanted to without any real evidence.bo·gus [bṓgəss]The court's findings were reported in the news. You won't believe me anyway so look it up yourself.
I did and it does not say that the court stated the reasons for hamas being on the terror list were bogus. You get caught every time you LIE and try to worm out of your lies. The courts next findings were also reported in the news and that put hamas straight back on the list once the minor discrepancy was sorted.
a Link
EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list - BBC News
A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
106 As regards the United States decisions taken under section 219 INA, the Council produces no decision adopted later than 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012, taken under section 219 INA and mentioned for the first time in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, the Council provides no evidence that would disclose how the actual reasons on which those decisions were based bears any relationship to the list of acts of violence set out in the statement of reasons for those measures. More generally, and so far as the reasons for the designation made in application of section 219 INA are concerned, the Council produces only a document dated 1997. As regards the United States decision taken in application of Executive Order 13224, the Council produces before the Court only a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no later decision of the United States Government in application of that order. As for the reasons for the designation, the Council produces an undated document originating in the United States Treasury which mentions Hamas in reference to facts the most recent of which dates from June 2003.
107 As for the national decisions to which reference was first made at the hearing, they constitute — quite apart from the fact that they have not been produced — an attempt to submit reasons out of time, which is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2013 in North Drilling v Council, T‑552/12, EU:T:2013:590, paragraph 26, and 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council, T‑58/12, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 36 to 39). It should be observed, incidentally, that there is no mention of those decisions in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, which were adopted after the hearing.
108 The Council claims, on the other hand, in its observations on the supplementary pleading, that it is sufficient to consult the press in order to establish that the applicant regularly acknowledges responsibility for terrorist acts.
109 That consideration, together with the absence of any reference in the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 to decisions of competent authorities more recent than the imputed acts and referring to those acts, clearly shows that the Council did not base its imputation to the applicant of the terrorist acts taken into account for the period after 2004 on appraisals contained in decisions of competent authorities, but on information which it derived from the press.
110 As is apparent from the matters recalled at paragraphs 91 and 92 above, however, Common Position 2001/931 requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
112 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council did not satisfy those requirements of Common Position 2001/931.
113 The statements of reasons on which the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 are based show, moreover, that the Council’s reasoning took the opposite direction to that required by that common position.
114 Thus, instead of taking as the factual basis of its assessment decisions adopted by competent authorities which had taken precise facts into consideration and acted on the basis of those facts, and then ascertaining that those facts are indeed ‘terrorist acts’ and that the group concerned is indeed ‘a group’, within the meaning of the definitions in Common Position 2001/931, before eventually deciding, on that basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to adopt a decision at EU level, the Council, in the statements of reasons for its measures of July 2011 to July 2014, did the opposite.
115 It begins with appraisals which are in reality its own, describing the applicant as ‘terrorist’ in the first sentence of the statements of reasons — thus settling the question that those reasons are supposed to resolve — and imputing to it a series of acts of violence which it has taken from the press and the internet (first and second paragraphs of the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014).
116 It should be noted, in that regard, that the fact that the exercise in question constitutes a review of the list relating to frozen funds, and therefore follows on from previous examinations, cannot justify that description being applied at the outset. Although the past cannot be ignored, the review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or the group concerned is no longer ‘terrorist’ at the time when the Council makes its determination. It is therefore only at the end of that review that the Council is able to draw its conclusion.
CURIA - Documents
--------------------------
IOW, the EU put Hamas on the terrorist list because they wanted to.
Why would the UN want to since Hamas is no threat to the EU or anyone else.
So no mention of the word BOGUS in all that.
PROVING THAT YOU HAVE LIED
adj
1. fake or deceitful: false, dishonest, or fraudulently imitating something
2. bad or useless: not good, pleasant, or acceptable (slang)
It was bogus.
You have no point.
I have the perfect point that you lied, and then lied some more to get out of the first lie. Now you are LYING again to cover up your previous lies.
I asked for evidence that states the EU based their findings on bogus information, you cant produce any so post a lengthy C&P instead about what was found. Namely "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", which are real and not bogus. Then this The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group. again facts not bogus
YOU LOSE AGAIN because you don't have the intelligence to understand what you are posting.
They designated Hams terrorists because they wanted to without any real evidence.bo·gus [bṓgəss]I did and it does not say that the court stated the reasons for hamas being on the terror list were bogus. You get caught every time you LIE and try to worm out of your lies. The courts next findings were also reported in the news and that put hamas straight back on the list once the minor discrepancy was sorted.
a Link
EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list - BBC News
A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
106 As regards the United States decisions taken under section 219 INA, the Council produces no decision adopted later than 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012, taken under section 219 INA and mentioned for the first time in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, the Council provides no evidence that would disclose how the actual reasons on which those decisions were based bears any relationship to the list of acts of violence set out in the statement of reasons for those measures. More generally, and so far as the reasons for the designation made in application of section 219 INA are concerned, the Council produces only a document dated 1997. As regards the United States decision taken in application of Executive Order 13224, the Council produces before the Court only a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no later decision of the United States Government in application of that order. As for the reasons for the designation, the Council produces an undated document originating in the United States Treasury which mentions Hamas in reference to facts the most recent of which dates from June 2003.
107 As for the national decisions to which reference was first made at the hearing, they constitute — quite apart from the fact that they have not been produced — an attempt to submit reasons out of time, which is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2013 in North Drilling v Council, T‑552/12, EU:T:2013:590, paragraph 26, and 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council, T‑58/12, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 36 to 39). It should be observed, incidentally, that there is no mention of those decisions in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, which were adopted after the hearing.
108 The Council claims, on the other hand, in its observations on the supplementary pleading, that it is sufficient to consult the press in order to establish that the applicant regularly acknowledges responsibility for terrorist acts.
109 That consideration, together with the absence of any reference in the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 to decisions of competent authorities more recent than the imputed acts and referring to those acts, clearly shows that the Council did not base its imputation to the applicant of the terrorist acts taken into account for the period after 2004 on appraisals contained in decisions of competent authorities, but on information which it derived from the press.
110 As is apparent from the matters recalled at paragraphs 91 and 92 above, however, Common Position 2001/931 requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
112 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council did not satisfy those requirements of Common Position 2001/931.
113 The statements of reasons on which the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 are based show, moreover, that the Council’s reasoning took the opposite direction to that required by that common position.
114 Thus, instead of taking as the factual basis of its assessment decisions adopted by competent authorities which had taken precise facts into consideration and acted on the basis of those facts, and then ascertaining that those facts are indeed ‘terrorist acts’ and that the group concerned is indeed ‘a group’, within the meaning of the definitions in Common Position 2001/931, before eventually deciding, on that basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to adopt a decision at EU level, the Council, in the statements of reasons for its measures of July 2011 to July 2014, did the opposite.
115 It begins with appraisals which are in reality its own, describing the applicant as ‘terrorist’ in the first sentence of the statements of reasons — thus settling the question that those reasons are supposed to resolve — and imputing to it a series of acts of violence which it has taken from the press and the internet (first and second paragraphs of the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014).
116 It should be noted, in that regard, that the fact that the exercise in question constitutes a review of the list relating to frozen funds, and therefore follows on from previous examinations, cannot justify that description being applied at the outset. Although the past cannot be ignored, the review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or the group concerned is no longer ‘terrorist’ at the time when the Council makes its determination. It is therefore only at the end of that review that the Council is able to draw its conclusion.
CURIA - Documents
--------------------------
IOW, the EU put Hamas on the terrorist list because they wanted to.
Why would the UN want to since Hamas is no threat to the EU or anyone else.
So no mention of the word BOGUS in all that.
PROVING THAT YOU HAVE LIED
adj
1. fake or deceitful: false, dishonest, or fraudulently imitating something
2. bad or useless: not good, pleasant, or acceptable (slang)
It was bogus.
You have no point.
I have the perfect point that you lied, and then lied some more to get out of the first lie. Now you are LYING again to cover up your previous lies.
I asked for evidence that states the EU based their findings on bogus information, you cant produce any so post a lengthy C&P instead about what was found. Namely "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", which are real and not bogus. Then this The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group. again facts not bogus
YOU LOSE AGAIN because you don't have the intelligence to understand what you are posting.
That's bogus.
(REFERENCE)They designated Hams terrorists because they wanted to without any real evidence. That's bogus.
P F Tinmore, et al,
It is my considered opinion that HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) is a terrorist organization in transition and feeling the effects of the of the Terrorism Quarantine.
(REFERENCE)They designated Hams terrorists because they wanted to without any real evidence. That's bogus.
16 June 2016, HAMAS was responsible for the 4 Israelis were killed and five injured when two Palestinian terrorists opened fire in the popular Sarona Market in Tel Aviv. The attackers were from the town of Yatta, and came from the same family. They were wearing suits to disguise themselves as ultra-orthodox Jews before they began shooting.
Of course my favorite HAMAS period was 2002 and 2003:†
† ALL the HAMAS attacks listed above were deliberate attacks specifically directed killing as many civilians possible; not a case of inadvertent or collateral damage Article 50 of Additional Protocol I. These actions are fundamentally outside the norms of customary international law.
- he 9 March 2002 suicide bombing of a Jerusalem cafe, in which 11 people were murdered and 54 were wounded;
- The 27 March 2002 suicide bombing of a Netanya hotel on the first night of Passover, in which 30 people were murdered and 140 were wounded;
- The 18 June 2002 suicide bombing of a #32A bus in Jerusalem, in which 19 people were murdered and 74 were wounded;
- The 4 August 2002 suicide bombing of #361 bus at Meron junction, in which nine people were murdered and 50 were wounded;
- The 21 November 2002 suicide bombing of a #20 bus in Jerusalem, in which 11 people were murdered and 50 were wounded;
- The 5 March 2003 suicide bombing of a #37 bus in Haifa, in which 17 people were murdered and 53 were wounded;
- The 17 May 2003 suicide bombing in Hebron, in which two people were murdered;
- The 18 May 2003 suicide bombing of a #6 bus in Jerusalem, in which seven people were murdered and 20 wounded;
- The 11 June 2003 suicide bombing of #14A bus in Jerusalem, in which 11 people were murdered and over 100 were wounded;
- The 19 August 2003 suicide bombing of a #2 bus in Jerusalem, in which 23 people were murdered and over 130 were wounded;
The most hilarious event was when Saleh al-Arouri, founder and first commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (also a terrorist Group) took credit for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June 2014.
Hamas' War Crimes Drive Israel's Offensive
First, it is never justified to target and murder enemy civilians. Even if Israel did have a military occupation, as it does on the West Bank, it would still be a double war crime to fire rockets at Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields.
(COMMENT)
It doesn't matter if you think the entire question of HAMAS as a non-Terrorist Group is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is their was no HAMAS mission in which inflicting civilian casualties was not a primary or secondary objective.
If you don't think that the four people who died in the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv tourist area, then you need help. Similarly something is wrong with you if you're trying to justify the Wave of stabbing attacks continues with brutal assault on group of elderly women out for morning stroll.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT - IN REGARD TO THE SINGLE ISSUE)RoccoR said:16 June 2016, HAMAS was responsible for the 4 Israelis were killed and five injured
And Israel kills civilians by the thousands.
Are you trying to make a point.
Keep shoveling Israeli shit, Rocco.P F Tinmore, et al,
WOW, --- A "wrong" perceived as committed by another is not justification for The Islamic Resistance intentionally and directly targeting civilians.
The two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy states that it's okay for you to do something wrong as long as somebody else did a wrong thing first. Logicians categorize it as a fallacy of relevance, or a casual argument based on irrelevant or unrelated observations. According to the argument, you're not at fault, or may even be justified, if your wrongful behavior follows the wrongful behavior of another.
(COMMENT - IN REGARD TO THE SINGLE ISSUE)RoccoR said:16 June 2016, HAMAS was responsible for the 4 Israelis were killed and five injured
And Israel kills civilians by the thousands.
Are you trying to make a point.
As it turns-out, the IDF is not guilty of intentionally targeting civilians not aligned with terrorist and no a genuine threat to Israel. But, topic is not about defending the IDF. This topic is about the callous and the gross indifference to operations by ignoring the Customary International Law.
If the Arab Palestinians, like yourself, cannot tell the difference or make the distinction between the sociopath that intentionally target civilians or launches indiscriminate fires on civilians, AND that of the IDF targeting legitimate military targets hidden in and among the civilian population, while that explains how the argument progressed.
You need to brush-up on your understanding of the principle here.
- RULE 20.Advance Warning Article 57(2)(c) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 21.Target Selection Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 22.Principle of Precautions against the Effects of Attacks Article 58(c) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objective Article 58(a) of Additional Protocol I
- RULE 97.Human Shields ICC Rome Statute
- RULE 152.Command Responsibility for Orders to Commit War Crimes
- RULE 153.Command Responsibility for Failure to Prevent, Repress or Report War Crimes
Most Respectfully,
R
They designated Hams terrorists because they wanted to without any real evidence.bo·gus [bṓgəss]I did and it does not say that the court stated the reasons for hamas being on the terror list were bogus. You get caught every time you LIE and try to worm out of your lies. The courts next findings were also reported in the news and that put hamas straight back on the list once the minor discrepancy was sorted.
a Link
EU court takes Hamas off terrorist organisations list - BBC News
A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
106 As regards the United States decisions taken under section 219 INA, the Council produces no decision adopted later than 2003. As for the decision of 18 July 2012, taken under section 219 INA and mentioned for the first time in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, the Council provides no evidence that would disclose how the actual reasons on which those decisions were based bears any relationship to the list of acts of violence set out in the statement of reasons for those measures. More generally, and so far as the reasons for the designation made in application of section 219 INA are concerned, the Council produces only a document dated 1997. As regards the United States decision taken in application of Executive Order 13224, the Council produces before the Court only a decision of 31 October 2001. The Council produces no later decision of the United States Government in application of that order. As for the reasons for the designation, the Council produces an undated document originating in the United States Treasury which mentions Hamas in reference to facts the most recent of which dates from June 2003.
107 As for the national decisions to which reference was first made at the hearing, they constitute — quite apart from the fact that they have not been produced — an attempt to submit reasons out of time, which is inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2013 in North Drilling v Council, T‑552/12, EU:T:2013:590, paragraph 26, and 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council, T‑58/12, EU:T:2013:640, paragraphs 36 to 39). It should be observed, incidentally, that there is no mention of those decisions in the statement of reasons for the Council measures of July 2014, which were adopted after the hearing.
108 The Council claims, on the other hand, in its observations on the supplementary pleading, that it is sufficient to consult the press in order to establish that the applicant regularly acknowledges responsibility for terrorist acts.
109 That consideration, together with the absence of any reference in the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 to decisions of competent authorities more recent than the imputed acts and referring to those acts, clearly shows that the Council did not base its imputation to the applicant of the terrorist acts taken into account for the period after 2004 on appraisals contained in decisions of competent authorities, but on information which it derived from the press.
110 As is apparent from the matters recalled at paragraphs 91 and 92 above, however, Common Position 2001/931 requires, for the protection of the persons concerned and in the absence of the European Union’s own means of investigation, that the factual basis of a European Union decision freezing funds in a terrorism matter be based not on material that the Council has obtained from the press or from the internet, but on material actually examined and accepted in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931.
111 It is only on such a reliable factual basis that the Council can then exercise its broad discretion when adopting decisions to freeze funds at EU level, in particular as regards the considerations of appropriateness on which such decisions are based.
112 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Council did not satisfy those requirements of Common Position 2001/931.
113 The statements of reasons on which the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014 are based show, moreover, that the Council’s reasoning took the opposite direction to that required by that common position.
114 Thus, instead of taking as the factual basis of its assessment decisions adopted by competent authorities which had taken precise facts into consideration and acted on the basis of those facts, and then ascertaining that those facts are indeed ‘terrorist acts’ and that the group concerned is indeed ‘a group’, within the meaning of the definitions in Common Position 2001/931, before eventually deciding, on that basis and in the exercise of its broad discretion, to adopt a decision at EU level, the Council, in the statements of reasons for its measures of July 2011 to July 2014, did the opposite.
115 It begins with appraisals which are in reality its own, describing the applicant as ‘terrorist’ in the first sentence of the statements of reasons — thus settling the question that those reasons are supposed to resolve — and imputing to it a series of acts of violence which it has taken from the press and the internet (first and second paragraphs of the statements of reasons for the Council measures of July 2011 to July 2014).
116 It should be noted, in that regard, that the fact that the exercise in question constitutes a review of the list relating to frozen funds, and therefore follows on from previous examinations, cannot justify that description being applied at the outset. Although the past cannot be ignored, the review of a fund-freezing measure is, by definition, open to the possibility that the person or the group concerned is no longer ‘terrorist’ at the time when the Council makes its determination. It is therefore only at the end of that review that the Council is able to draw its conclusion.
CURIA - Documents
--------------------------
IOW, the EU put Hamas on the terrorist list because they wanted to.
Why would the UN want to since Hamas is no threat to the EU or anyone else.
So no mention of the word BOGUS in all that.
PROVING THAT YOU HAVE LIED
adj
1. fake or deceitful: false, dishonest, or fraudulently imitating something
2. bad or useless: not good, pleasant, or acceptable (slang)
It was bogus.
You have no point.
I have the perfect point that you lied, and then lied some more to get out of the first lie. Now you are LYING again to cover up your previous lies.
I asked for evidence that states the EU based their findings on bogus information, you cant produce any so post a lengthy C&P instead about what was found. Namely "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", which are real and not bogus. Then this The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group. again facts not bogus
YOU LOSE AGAIN because you don't have the intelligence to understand what you are posting.
That's bogus.
P F Tinmore, et al,
It is my considered opinion that HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) is a terrorist organization in transition and feeling the effects of the of the Terrorism Quarantine.
(REFERENCE)They designated Hams terrorists because they wanted to without any real evidence. That's bogus.
16 June 2016, HAMAS was responsible for the 4 Israelis were killed and five injured when two Palestinian terrorists opened fire in the popular Sarona Market in Tel Aviv. The attackers were from the town of Yatta, and came from the same family. They were wearing suits to disguise themselves as ultra-orthodox Jews before they began shooting.
Of course my favorite HAMAS period was 2002 and 2003:†
† ALL the HAMAS attacks listed above were deliberate attacks specifically directed killing as many civilians possible; not a case of inadvertent or collateral damage Article 50 of Additional Protocol I. These actions are fundamentally outside the norms of customary international law.
- he 9 March 2002 suicide bombing of a Jerusalem cafe, in which 11 people were murdered and 54 were wounded;
- The 27 March 2002 suicide bombing of a Netanya hotel on the first night of Passover, in which 30 people were murdered and 140 were wounded;
- The 18 June 2002 suicide bombing of a #32A bus in Jerusalem, in which 19 people were murdered and 74 were wounded;
- The 4 August 2002 suicide bombing of #361 bus at Meron junction, in which nine people were murdered and 50 were wounded;
- The 21 November 2002 suicide bombing of a #20 bus in Jerusalem, in which 11 people were murdered and 50 were wounded;
- The 5 March 2003 suicide bombing of a #37 bus in Haifa, in which 17 people were murdered and 53 were wounded;
- The 17 May 2003 suicide bombing in Hebron, in which two people were murdered;
- The 18 May 2003 suicide bombing of a #6 bus in Jerusalem, in which seven people were murdered and 20 wounded;
- The 11 June 2003 suicide bombing of #14A bus in Jerusalem, in which 11 people were murdered and over 100 were wounded;
- The 19 August 2003 suicide bombing of a #2 bus in Jerusalem, in which 23 people were murdered and over 130 were wounded;
The most hilarious event was when Saleh al-Arouri, founder and first commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (also a terrorist Group) took credit for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June 2014.
Hamas' War Crimes Drive Israel's Offensive
First, it is never justified to target and murder enemy civilians. Even if Israel did have a military occupation, as it does on the West Bank, it would still be a double war crime to fire rockets at Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields.
(COMMENT)
It doesn't matter if you think the entire question of HAMAS as a non-Terrorist Group is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is their was no HAMAS mission in which inflicting civilian casualties was not a primary or secondary objective.
If you don't think that the four people who died in the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv tourist area, then you need help. Similarly something is wrong with you if you're trying to justify the Wave of stabbing attacks continues with brutal assault on group of elderly women out for morning stroll.
Most Respectfully,
R16 June 2016, HAMAS was responsible for the 4 Israelis were killed and five injured
And Israel kills civilians by the thousands.
Are you trying to make a point.
Keep shoveling Israeli shit, Rocco.P F Tinmore, et al,
WOW, --- A "wrong" perceived as committed by another is not justification for The Islamic Resistance intentionally and directly targeting civilians.
The two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy states that it's okay for you to do something wrong as long as somebody else did a wrong thing first. Logicians categorize it as a fallacy of relevance, or a casual argument based on irrelevant or unrelated observations. According to the argument, you're not at fault, or may even be justified, if your wrongful behavior follows the wrongful behavior of another.
(COMMENT - IN REGARD TO THE SINGLE ISSUE)RoccoR said:16 June 2016, HAMAS was responsible for the 4 Israelis were killed and five injured
And Israel kills civilians by the thousands.
Are you trying to make a point.
As it turns-out, the IDF is not guilty of intentionally targeting civilians not aligned with terrorist and no a genuine threat to Israel. But, topic is not about defending the IDF. This topic is about the callous and the gross indifference to operations by ignoring the Customary International Law.
If the Arab Palestinians, like yourself, cannot tell the difference or make the distinction between the sociopath that intentionally target civilians or launches indiscriminate fires on civilians, AND that of the IDF targeting legitimate military targets hidden in and among the civilian population, while that explains how the argument progressed.
You need to brush-up on your understanding of the principle here.
- RULE 20.Advance Warning Article 57(2)(c) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 21.Target Selection Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 22.Principle of Precautions against the Effects of Attacks Article 58(c) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I,
- RULE 24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objective Article 58(a) of Additional Protocol I
- RULE 97.Human Shields ICC Rome Statute
- RULE 152.Command Responsibility for Orders to Commit War Crimes
- RULE 153.Command Responsibility for Failure to Prevent, Repress or Report War Crimes
Most Respectfully,
R
Palestinian violations are piddly compared to Israel's massive violations. And you keep forgetting that it is Israel who is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely trying to defend themselves with what little they have.
Palestinian violations are piddly compared to Israel's massive violations. And you keep forgetting that it is Israel who is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely trying to defend themselves with what little they have.
