Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

[RoccoR]

Samson, et al,

I don't quite follow.

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings.

Welcome to ISIS.

(COMMENT)

How does this apply?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Samson]

Coyote, et al,

Terrorism is usually defined by the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.

Genocide is an International Crime.

I think there is overlap - but genocide and terrorism are two different things.

The best definition of genocide I've come across is this: What Is Genocide? — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Terrorism is a tactic who's aim is some sort of political or cultural change through targeting civiliabs - not necessarily genocide. Genocide can be accomplished through conventional warfare, not terrorism (ie - the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan conflict).

(COMMENT)

Article 6 Genocide comes in different flavors and defined by the elements of the offense:

Article 6 Genocide
Introduction
With respect to the last element listed for each crime:

(a) The term “in the context of” would include the initial acts in an emerging pattern;
(b) The term “manifest” is an objective qualification;
(c) Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis.​

Article 6
(a) Genocide by killing
Elements

1. The perpetrator killed2 one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (b)
Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm
Elements

1. The perpetrator caused serious bodily or mental harm to one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (c)
Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
Elements

1. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.
5. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (d)
Genocide by imposing measures intended to prevent births
Elements

1. The perpetrator imposed certain measures upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The measures imposed were intended to prevent births within that group.
5. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (e)
Genocide by forcibly transferring children
Elements

1. The perpetrator forcibly transferred one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The transfer was from that group to another group.​

The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 6 (d) will now fill the tread with the Pro-Life Wackos, enter stage left.....

 

[Samson]

Samson, et al,

I don't quite follow.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings.

Welcome to ISIS.

(COMMENT)

How does this apply?

Most Respectfully,
R

ISIS easily justifies actions by saying: Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

There are very few long-term conflicts, wherein the struggle is over some nationalist question, that each side is made-up of a single homogenous political component. Almost always, over time, the spectrum of those that conduct themselves in an ethical manner gets progressively wider and wider - expanding towards unethical behaviors. In any given population sample, there are going to be psychopaths & sociopaths; with estimates that start as low as 1% of the general populations --- and up to as much as 25% when the population is concentrated deviants as in a prison population.

Agree. But I can see how the Palestinians could be considered "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists". In fact - have there ever been freedom fighters who have not engaged in terrorism?

It's only AFTER victory...that they are acknowledged as "freedom fighters" and their terrorist tactics swept under the rug.

(COMMENT)

In any given conflict, true freedom fighters, which generally conduct themselves in an ethical manner considering the environment, will make mistakes periodically. But they don't set a policy that runs counter to acceptable standards. However, psychopaths & sociopaths tend to gravitate together and draw with them the weak-minded and those susceptible to manipulation. The longer the sustained conflict, the greater density the circle of the unethical grows until it break-off to form a splinter group.

Both the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Israeli Defense and Security forces are a composite of the ethical and unethical. Which opposing group is dominated by the psychopaths & sociopaths is judged on which exhibits the greater tendency to openly condone and advocate for assaults and attacks on soft, undefended and innocent civilian persons and objects. Existence of criminal intent and specific knowledge can be inferred from elements associated with criminal actions involving a judgement to proceed or to withdraw from the action. This would include an established pattern of criminal behaviors, and acts or failures to act in a way that violates customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting points and in some cases not surprising. The IDF also incorporated groups like Irgun into it's make up and that still resonates today.

The other interesting point is applicable to ISIS. Over and over I've read that ISIS is about Power, which attracts psycopaths and sociopaths, and one figure in particular was instrumental: Inside Islamic State's spookocracy

 

[Indofred]

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Agreed, but I'm hoping America and Israel stop doing that.

 

[RoccoR]

Indofred, et al,

Well, I think it is very foolish to believe that Israel (the Israeli Defense Force) intentionally targets (and murder children too, pregnant women, etc) in the conduct of military operations.

There is a great difference between "targeted" and "inadvertent" strikes.

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Agreed, but I'm hoping America and Israel stop doing that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Gaza Strip Operations, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) intentionally put their population in harms way. They do this in violation of two Rule of War:

• 23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
• 24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
​

This is a strategy that we have seen employed over and over again. It is a strategic extension on the HoAP justification that Israel is not allowed to defend itself against any military, asymmetric, insurgent, jihadist or terrorist operation focused on Israeli sovereign interests; including Israeli civilians.

This strategy is openly "Aided and Abetted" by the UN via the Resolutions and anti-Israeli rhetoric from the UN Human Rights Council which provided propaganda support to HoAP terrorist action. Examples are:

A/RES/15/1514 (14 DEC 60): All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

A/RES/3246 (29 NOV 74): Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
​

How the HoAP employ this strategy is really quite simple. Example:

• Set-up a launch site right in the middle of a densely populated area.
• Launch

Any retaliatory/countermeasures strike by the Israelis is bound to cause inadvertent civilian casualties. The HoAP have effectively utilized the cover of a densely populated area, they did not alert or remove civilians from the vicinity of the launch, and are able to use the aftermath of deaths as evidence of Israeli Targeting of civilians. They justify their actions by citing UN General Assembly Resolutions. The HoAP violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is shielded by the accomplices with the UN Human Right Commission (UNHRC) that support the ongoing struggle and cosign the justification to use human shields. If the IDF do not strike the launch site, then the HoAP have tactically won a secure site from which they may launch rockets into Israel; effectively using the close proximity of civilians to provide cover. Additionally, the International Commission of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also provided cover and concealment for HoAP activities using the cover of the Red Cross facilities and vehicles.

The integrity of the Rules of War, Customary and International Humanitarian Law have been compromised. Each of the international organization have been malfeasant in the objective analysis of the happenings in the conflict; and no longer represent an honest broker.

The media also plays an important part in the story. Competing for the big story or the renowned photo, they take portrait after portrait of goulash HoAP parading the bodies of dead children around the streets after ignoring Israeli warning of an impending strike.

Finally, the UN (et al) have prolonged the conflict by not allowing the combat phase to come to a conclusion. Just win a decisive victory is about to occur that would bring an end to the conflict, the NGO's and the UN join the choir of HoAP chanting ceasefire (before we are destroyed) --- effectively protecting the HoAP. None of the UN activities, the ICRC, or the NGOs actually deny this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ChrisL]

Indofred, et al,

Well, I think it is very foolish to believe that Israel (the Israeli Defense Force) intentionally targets (and murder children too, pregnant women, etc) in the conduct of military operations.

There is a great difference between "targeted" and "inadvertent" strikes.

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Agreed, but I'm hoping America and Israel stop doing that.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Gaza Strip Operations, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) intentionally put their population in harms way. They do this in violation of two Rule of War:

• 23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
• 24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
​

This is a strategy that we have seen employed over and over again. It is a strategic extension on the HoAP justification that Israel is not allowed to defend itself against any military, asymmetric, insurgent, jihadist or terrorist operation focused on Israeli sovereign interests; including Israeli civilians.

This strategy is openly "Aided and Abetted" by the UN via the Resolutions and anti-Israeli rhetoric from the UN Human Rights Council which provided propaganda support to HoAP terrorist action. Examples are:

A/RES/15/1514 (14 DEC 60): All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

A/RES/3246 (29 NOV 74): Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
​

How the HoAP employ this strategy is really quite simple. Example:

• Set-up a launch site right in the middle of a densely populated area.
• Launch

Any retaliatory/countermeasures strike by the Israelis is bound to cause inadvertent civilian casualties. The HoAP have effectively utilized the cover of a densely populated area, they did not alert or remove civilians from the vicinity of the launch, and are able to use the aftermath of deaths as evidence of Israeli Targeting of civilians. They justify their actions by citing UN General Assembly Resolutions. The HoAP violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is shielded by the accomplices with the UN Human Right Commission (UNHRC) that support the ongoing struggle and cosign the justification to use human shields. If the IDF do not strike the launch site, then the HoAP have tactically won a secure site from which they may launch rockets into Israel; effectively using the close proximity of civilians to provide cover. Additionally, the International Commission of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also provided cover and concealment for HoAP activities using the cover of the Red Cross facilities and vehicles.

The integrity of the Rules of War, Customary and International Humanitarian Law have been compromised. Each of the international organization have been malfeasant in the objective analysis of the happenings in the conflict; and no longer represent an honest broker.

The media also plays an important part in the story. Competing for the big story or the renowned photo, they take portrait after portrait of goulash HoAP parading the bodies of dead children around the streets after ignoring Israeli warning of an impending strike.

Finally, the UN (et al) have prolonged the conflict by not allowing the combat phase to come to a conclusion. Just win a decisive victory is about to occur that would bring an end to the conflict, the NGO's and the UN join the choir of HoAP chanting ceasefire (before we are destroyed) --- effectively protecting the HoAP. None of the UN activities, the ICRC, or the NGOs actually deny this.

Most Respectfully,
R

Great post! Thanks! *thumbs up*

 

[ChrisL]

Coyote, et al,

There are very few long-term conflicts, wherein the struggle is over some nationalist question, that each side is made-up of a single homogenous political component. Almost always, over time, the spectrum of those that conduct themselves in an ethical manner gets progressively wider and wider - expanding towards unethical behaviors. In any given population sample, there are going to be psychopaths & sociopaths; with estimates that start as low as 1% of the general populations --- and up to as much as 25% when the population is concentrated deviants as in a prison population.

Agree. But I can see how the Palestinians could be considered "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists". In fact - have there ever been freedom fighters who have not engaged in terrorism?

It's only AFTER victory...that they are acknowledged as "freedom fighters" and their terrorist tactics swept under the rug.

(COMMENT)

In any given conflict, true freedom fighters, which generally conduct themselves in an ethical manner considering the environment, will make mistakes periodically. But they don't set a policy that runs counter to acceptable standards. However, psychopaths & sociopaths tend to gravitate together and draw with them the weak-minded and those susceptible to manipulation. The longer the sustained conflict, the greater density the circle of the unethical grows until it break-off to form a splinter group.

Both the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Israeli Defense and Security forces are a composite of the ethical and unethical. Which opposing group is dominated by the psychopaths & sociopaths is judged on which exhibits the greater tendency to openly condone and advocate for assaults and attacks on soft, undefended and innocent civilian persons and objects. Existence of criminal intent and specific knowledge can be inferred from elements associated with criminal actions involving a judgement to proceed or to withdraw from the action. This would include an established pattern of criminal behaviors, and acts or failures to act in a way that violates customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting points and in some cases not surprising. The IDF also incorporated groups like Irgun into it's make up and that still resonates today.

The other interesting point is applicable to ISIS. Over and over I've read that ISIS is about Power, which attracts psycopaths and sociopaths, and one figure in particular was instrumental: Inside Islamic State's spookocracy

While this group is more blatant about what they do and don't bother to try to hide it or even to use propaganda to "justify" it, they are really not much different from other such groups in the ME. There must be an AWFUL lot of psychopaths there.

 

[RoccoR]

ChrisL, Coyote, et al,

Yes, there is some similarity here. But you have to remember that the "IRGUN Zvai Le'umi" (National Military Organization) was a paramilitary splinter group of the "Hah Gah nah'" or (more commonly) "HAGANAH."

• NOTE: The "Irgun Zvai Le'umi" (formed by Avraham Tehomi 1931, after a political and operational dispute) must not be confused with the "Irgun HaHagannah Ha'vri."

In about 1937, approximately half of the Irgun went back to rejoin the Haganah. Shortly afterwords, the Irgun formed aggressor units which again split (1940) into the "Loḥamei Ḥerut Yisraʾel" or LEHI (under Avraham Stern) which would come to be known as the "Stern Gang," considered the British Administration as the central focus of Jewish problems. Most notiably, the Stern Gang did not align with the Allied Forces and cease operations against British Forces during World War II. Whereas, the Haganah and Irgun did choose to operate in support of Allied Forces.

The Jewish organizations helped form a Allied Military unit known as the Jewish Brigade, VIII Corps, British 15th Army, consisting of three Infantry Regiments and an Artillery Regiment, deployed to both North Africa and then the Italian Campaign.

Interesting points and in some cases not surprising. The IDF also incorporated groups like Irgun into it's make up and that still resonates today.

The other interesting point is applicable to ISIS. Over and over I've read that ISIS is about Power, which attracts psychopaths and sociopaths, and one figure in particular was instrumental: Inside Islamic State's spookocracy

While this group is more blatant about what they do and don't bother to try to hide it or even to use propaganda to "justify" it, they are really not much different from other such groups in the ME. There must be an AWFUL lot of psychopaths there.

(COMMENT)

After the assassination of Lord Moyne (British Minister of State, Cairo November 1944) many had come to believe that the leadership and men of the LEHI organization had become a right-wing, anti-British, underground extremist movement of Jewish psychopaths and sociopaths. Even within the Jewish hierarchy, believed the actions of Lehi were becoming counterproductive and even damaging to the Jewish cause; this was especially true in the shadow of the Lehi assassination of Lord Moyne. Many believed that the assignation, coupled with the destruction of the King David Hotel and the massacre at Deir Yassin, were a pivotal events that turned British sentiment against the Jewish cause and hindered the implementation of the Partition Plan; retarding early independence for Israel.

Many advocates for the independence of the Jewish State were lost because they began to interpret the Jewish actions of that period leaning towards some seriously unhealthy traits:

• A disregard for laws and social mores
• A disregard for the rights of others
• A failure to feel remorse or guilt
• A tendency to display violent behavior

Today, the Arab-Palestinian are trying to revive that very sentiment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

There are very few long-term conflicts, wherein the struggle is over some nationalist question, that each side is made-up of a single homogenous political component. Almost always, over time, the spectrum of those that conduct themselves in an ethical manner gets progressively wider and wider - expanding towards unethical behaviors. In any given population sample, there are going to be psychopaths & sociopaths; with estimates that start as low as 1% of the general populations --- and up to as much as 25% when the population is concentrated deviants as in a prison population.

Agree. But I can see how the Palestinians could be considered "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists". In fact - have there ever been freedom fighters who have not engaged in terrorism?

It's only AFTER victory...that they are acknowledged as "freedom fighters" and their terrorist tactics swept under the rug.

(COMMENT)

In any given conflict, true freedom fighters, which generally conduct themselves in an ethical manner considering the environment, will make mistakes periodically. But they don't set a policy that runs counter to acceptable standards. However, psychopaths & sociopaths tend to gravitate together and draw with them the weak-minded and those susceptible to manipulation. The longer the sustained conflict, the greater density the circle of the unethical grows until it break-off to form a splinter group.

Both the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Israeli Defense and Security forces are a composite of the ethical and unethical. Which opposing group is dominated by the psychopaths & sociopaths is judged on which exhibits the greater tendency to openly condone and advocate for assaults and attacks on soft, undefended and innocent civilian persons and objects. Existence of criminal intent and specific knowledge can be inferred from elements associated with criminal actions involving a judgement to proceed or to withdraw from the action. This would include an established pattern of criminal behaviors, and acts or failures to act in a way that violates customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting points and in some cases not surprising. The IDF also incorporated groups like Irgun into it's make up and that still resonates today.

The other interesting point is applicable to ISIS. Over and over I've read that ISIS is about Power, which attracts psycopaths and sociopaths, and one figure in particular was instrumental: Inside Islamic State's spookocracy

While this group is more blatant about what they do and don't bother to try to hide it or even to use propaganda to "justify" it, they are really not much different from other such groups in the ME. There must be an AWFUL lot of psychopaths there.

I think power - absolute power, tends to draw psychopaths, some are just better at covering it with governmental legalities. Look at the various dictators around the world over the past half century.

 

[Indofred]

Well, I think it is very foolish to believe that Israel (the Israeli Defense Force) intentionally targets (and murder children too, pregnant women, etc) in the conduct of military operations.

There is a great difference between "targeted" and "inadvertent" strikes

Also between inadvertent strikes and just blasting away, not giving a toss how many civilians you kill, as the IDF commonly do.
I believe the mass murder of civilians in Gaza was deliberate, hoping lots of women and children being killed would remove support for the elected government there.

 

[RoccoR]

Indofred, et al,

It is "possible" that individual indiscretions and bad judgments could occur from time to time.

Well, I think it is very foolish to believe that Israel (the Israeli Defense Force) intentionally targets (and murder children too, pregnant women, etc) in the conduct of military operations.

There is a great difference between "targeted" and "inadvertent" strikes

Also between inadvertent strikes and just blasting away, not giving a toss how many civilians you kill, as the IDF commonly do.
I believe the mass murder of civilians in Gaza was deliberate, hoping lots of women and children being killed would remove support for the elected government there.

(COMMENT)

But again, there even a big difference between the two patterns of attacks, advocacy of a policy by any and all means, and the systematic use of civilians as cover and concealment.

The Palestinians have a publish and periodically affirmation of a policy to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group of the Jewish People. Since a time before the Munich Olympic Team massacre to the present, Palestinian conduct taken place in the context of a manifest criminal pattern of acknowledging the intentional attacks on Israeli civilians.

Abbas Calls for Murder, Palestinians Attack
by Khaled Abu Toameh
October 7, 2015
The incitement, which has been around for many years, intensified after the arson attack that killed three members of the Dawabsha family in the West Bank village of Duma in July.

Since then, Abbas and his senior officials have been waging an unprecedented campaign of incitement against Israel in general and Jewish settlers in particular, although the perpetrators of the Duma attack still have not been identified or caught. Palestinian Authority leaders have since accused the Israeli government of committing "war crimes," and have told their people that the arson attack was actually part of an Israeli conspiracy against all Palestinians.

• The terrorists did not need permission from Hamas leaders to murder the first Jews they ran into. The inflammatory rhetoric of Abbas and Palestinian Authority (PA) officials and media outlets was sufficient to drive any Palestinian to go out and murder Jews.
  
  
• Instead of condemning the murder of the Jews, the PA denounced Israel for killing the two Palestinians who carried out the Jerusalem attacks.
  
  
• The Palestinian Authority and its leaders are in no position today to condemn the murder of any Jews, simply because the PA itself has been encouraging such terrorist attacks through its ceaseless campaign of incitement against Israel.
  
  
• The PA is playing a double game: it tells the world that it wants peace and coexistence with Israel; meanwhile it incites Palestinians against Israel, driving some to set out with guns and knives to murder Jews.
  
  
• Although Abbas has repeatedly stated during the past few years that he does not want another intifada against Israel, his statements and actions show that he is doing his utmost to spark another wave of violence, in order to invite international pressure on Israel.

The US is slowly ramping up for the discussion on cutting funding to the Palestinians. And this is the right time in the budget cycle for the discussion to happen.

Kerry Refuses to Shut Down PLO’s Washington, DC Office
By Abra Forman December 23, 2015
On Tuesday, the State Department rejected calls by 32 members of Congress to close the offices of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington, DC.

The 32 lawmakers, represented by Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz, who wrote the open letter along with Congressional member Mark Meadows, called on Secretary of State John Kerry to revoke the permit allowing the PLO to keep an office open in the US capital.

The PLO office is essentially the equivalent of a Palestinian Authority (PA) embassy in Washington, acting both as a consulate and as a diplomatic entity.

The letter, released by Cruz’s office on Friday, pointed out that recent Palestinian terror and violence against Israelis and Jews is largely fomented by “the message of hatred and intolerance proclaimed by leaders within the Palestinian Liberation Organization.”

Cruz, who currently holds second place behind Donald Trump in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, wrote that the relationship between acts of terror and incitement by Arab leaders is clear, saying, “The spike in violence in Israel is directly connected to the Palestinian government’s teaching of hate and glorification of terrorism.”

Indeed, Palestinian incitement has been a serious pressure behind the recent rise in terror. Much of the rhetoric revolves around the Temple Mount, which PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas urged Palestinians to “liberate” from the “filthy feet” of the Jews.

Congress Calls for Closure of Palestine Liberation Organization’s Office in U.S.
Washington Free Beacon ^ | December 21, 2015 | Adam Kredo
Posted on 12/21/2015, 752 PM by Isara

Members of Congress are petitioning the Obama administration to close the Palestine Liberation Organization's Washington, D.C., office due to a continuing wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel that have killed multiple Jewish individuals.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), as well as more than 30 other members of Congress, demanded in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the administration revoke the PLO's waiver permitting it to maintain a D.C.-based office.

The PLO, which is guilty of waging multiple deadly terrorist attacks, stands accused of funding terrorist and paying imprisoned Palestinian terrorists a salary as an award for acts of terrorism.

"Shockingly, despite being complicit in spreading hatred and terror, the PLO retains an office in Washington, D.C.," the lawmakers wrote. "We ask that the State Department revoke the Palestinian Liberation Organization's waiver to maintain an office in the United States."

"Closing the PLO office in Washington, D.C., would send a clear statement that the kind of incitement to violence perpetrated by the PLO and its leaders will not be tolerated," they write.

Meadows said in a statement that the United States is turning a blind eye to the PLO's encouragement of terrorism.

"For too long the PLO has not just tolerated acts of terrorism against the Israeli people-but incited others to commit acts of violence in the name of jihad," Meadows said in a statement. "It goes against everything we stand for as an American people to allow the PLO to retain an office in our nation's capital, considering its long and well-documented history of encouraging violence and terror against our Israeli allies."

Meadows said that the United States must take concrete action to show Israel that it "does not tolerate extremism and demonstrate our unwavering support for our allies in Israel by revoking this waiver."

Cruz condemned the recent wave of terrorism in Israel and said that "the continued incitement and glorification of violence by Palestinian leadership" must be addressed with action.

"Just last week," Cruz said in a statement, "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the recent attacks a 'justified popular uprising' following his remarks in September, in which he said, 'We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.' It is long past time for the United States to hold the PLO and its leaders accountable for engaging in such rampant incitement, for celebrating the murder of Jews, and for providing payment to Palestinian terrorists jailed in Israel and their families."
​

It is a matter of perspective. But it is hard to argue against the observations that the Palestinians are inciting conflict only to set the stage to complain about the Israeli response. Palestinians have been doing this since the NAZI supporting Grand Mufti did it in the early years of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Why wouldn't a native population resist, with armed force, a colonial project designed to dispossess them of the land they inhabit to make room for a population from another continent? Have any native people anywhere accepted colonization passively?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, this is the approach you take.

Why wouldn't a native population resist, with armed force, a colonial project designed to dispossess them of the land they inhabit to make room for a population from another continent? Have any native people anywhere accepted colonization passively?

(COMMENT)

The Mandate was not colonization project of the Allied Powers or the Council of the League of Nations. Yes, the Jewish Immigrants may have used that term, because they were people moving. The term "colonist" was not a dirty word at that time in history. BUT, they were moving on the authority of the Mandatory; per the Mandate. And it is very clear that the Arab Palestinian latched on to that term and politicized the hell out of it --- to lend the impression that there was a colonial power involved and the Jewish Immigrants were colonist of that power. And that sometime into the future (four decades), there wold be a decolonization trend. None of the Mandates were considered improper at the time. And while the Arab population, at the time was immediately carved-out 77% of the Mandate, the Arab was never satisfied or understanding of the need to establish a Jewish National Home (but the realization was readily apparent from 1939 and forward).

So, I take this comment as sour grapes from the Arab Palestinian that has been obstructing the establishment of the Jewish National Home from the very beginning.

Q: Have any native people anywhere accepted colonization passively? ANS: I don't honestly know and I don't honestly care. The Arab Palestinian, an advocate for terrorism, does not understand the imperative for the turf necessary to preserve the future of the Jewish People. And at this point in history, with the Three-NO's in play, it is too late to even try to rationally express ideas with them.

Without regards to any reasoning the Arab Palestinian my put forth, some part of the rational civilization and humanity knows that "nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Of course you don't care. You believe that particular people have a right to rule over other people who you feel are inferior. It is a typical racist train of thought. For your information, no native peoples have ever passively accepted colonization. All have resisted with different levels of success.

Call it what you like, resistance against colonization and oppression is a right. Calling it terrorism doesn't change anything.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Well, this is the approach you take.

Why wouldn't a native population resist, with armed force, a colonial project designed to dispossess them of the land they inhabit to make room for a population from another continent? Have any native people anywhere accepted colonization passively?

(COMMENT)

The Mandate was not colonization project of the Allied Powers or the Council of the League of Nations. Yes, the Jewish Immigrants may have used that term, because they were people moving. The term "colonist" was not a dirty word at that time in history. BUT, they were moving on the authority of the Mandatory; per the Mandate. And it is very clear that the Arab Palestinian latched on to that term and politicized the hell out of it --- to lend the impression that there was a colonial power involved and the Jewish Immigrants were colonist of that power. And that sometime into the future (four decades), there wold be a decolonization trend. None of the Mandates were considered improper at the time. And while the Arab population, at the time was immediately carved-out 77% of the Mandate, the Arab was never satisfied or understanding of the need to establish a Jewish National Home (but the realization was readily apparent from 1939 and forward).

So, I take this comment as sour grapes from the Arab Palestinian that has been obstructing the establishment of the Jewish National Home from the very beginning.

Q: Have any native people anywhere accepted colonization passively? ANS: I don't honestly know and I don't honestly care. The Arab Palestinian, an advocate for terrorism, does not understand the imperative for the turf necessary to preserve the future of the Jewish People. And at this point in history, with the Three-NO's in play, it is too late to even try to rationally express ideas with them.

Without regards to any reasoning the Arab Palestinian my put forth, some part of the rational civilization and humanity knows that "nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts."

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization is colonization even if they are in cahoots with world powers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indofred, et al,

It is "possible" that individual indiscretions and bad judgments could occur from time to time.

Well, I think it is very foolish to believe that Israel (the Israeli Defense Force) intentionally targets (and murder children too, pregnant women, etc) in the conduct of military operations.

There is a great difference between "targeted" and "inadvertent" strikes

Also between inadvertent strikes and just blasting away, not giving a toss how many civilians you kill, as the IDF commonly do.
I believe the mass murder of civilians in Gaza was deliberate, hoping lots of women and children being killed would remove support for the elected government there.

(COMMENT)

But again, there even a big difference between the two patterns of attacks, advocacy of a policy by any and all means, and the systematic use of civilians as cover and concealment.

The Palestinians have a publish and periodically affirmation of a policy to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group of the Jewish People. Since a time before the Munich Olympic Team massacre to the present, Palestinian conduct taken place in the context of a manifest criminal pattern of acknowledging the intentional attacks on Israeli civilians.

Abbas Calls for Murder, Palestinians Attack
by Khaled Abu Toameh
October 7, 2015
The incitement, which has been around for many years, intensified after the arson attack that killed three members of the Dawabsha family in the West Bank village of Duma in July.

Since then, Abbas and his senior officials have been waging an unprecedented campaign of incitement against Israel in general and Jewish settlers in particular, although the perpetrators of the Duma attack still have not been identified or caught. Palestinian Authority leaders have since accused the Israeli government of committing "war crimes," and have told their people that the arson attack was actually part of an Israeli conspiracy against all Palestinians.

• The terrorists did not need permission from Hamas leaders to murder the first Jews they ran into. The inflammatory rhetoric of Abbas and Palestinian Authority (PA) officials and media outlets was sufficient to drive any Palestinian to go out and murder Jews.
  
  
• Instead of condemning the murder of the Jews, the PA denounced Israel for killing the two Palestinians who carried out the Jerusalem attacks.
  
  
• The Palestinian Authority and its leaders are in no position today to condemn the murder of any Jews, simply because the PA itself has been encouraging such terrorist attacks through its ceaseless campaign of incitement against Israel.
  
  
• The PA is playing a double game: it tells the world that it wants peace and coexistence with Israel; meanwhile it incites Palestinians against Israel, driving some to set out with guns and knives to murder Jews.
  
  
• Although Abbas has repeatedly stated during the past few years that he does not want another intifada against Israel, his statements and actions show that he is doing his utmost to spark another wave of violence, in order to invite international pressure on Israel.

The US is slowly ramping up for the discussion on cutting funding to the Palestinians. And this is the right time in the budget cycle for the discussion to happen.

Kerry Refuses to Shut Down PLO’s Washington, DC Office
By Abra Forman December 23, 2015
On Tuesday, the State Department rejected calls by 32 members of Congress to close the offices of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington, DC.

The 32 lawmakers, represented by Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz, who wrote the open letter along with Congressional member Mark Meadows, called on Secretary of State John Kerry to revoke the permit allowing the PLO to keep an office open in the US capital.

The PLO office is essentially the equivalent of a Palestinian Authority (PA) embassy in Washington, acting both as a consulate and as a diplomatic entity.

The letter, released by Cruz’s office on Friday, pointed out that recent Palestinian terror and violence against Israelis and Jews is largely fomented by “the message of hatred and intolerance proclaimed by leaders within the Palestinian Liberation Organization.”

Cruz, who currently holds second place behind Donald Trump in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, wrote that the relationship between acts of terror and incitement by Arab leaders is clear, saying, “The spike in violence in Israel is directly connected to the Palestinian government’s teaching of hate and glorification of terrorism.”

Indeed, Palestinian incitement has been a serious pressure behind the recent rise in terror. Much of the rhetoric revolves around the Temple Mount, which PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas urged Palestinians to “liberate” from the “filthy feet” of the Jews.

Congress Calls for Closure of Palestine Liberation Organization’s Office in U.S.
Washington Free Beacon ^ | December 21, 2015 | Adam Kredo
Posted on 12/21/2015, 752 PM by Isara

Members of Congress are petitioning the Obama administration to close the Palestine Liberation Organization's Washington, D.C., office due to a continuing wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel that have killed multiple Jewish individuals.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), as well as more than 30 other members of Congress, demanded in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the administration revoke the PLO's waiver permitting it to maintain a D.C.-based office.

The PLO, which is guilty of waging multiple deadly terrorist attacks, stands accused of funding terrorist and paying imprisoned Palestinian terrorists a salary as an award for acts of terrorism.

"Shockingly, despite being complicit in spreading hatred and terror, the PLO retains an office in Washington, D.C.," the lawmakers wrote. "We ask that the State Department revoke the Palestinian Liberation Organization's waiver to maintain an office in the United States."

"Closing the PLO office in Washington, D.C., would send a clear statement that the kind of incitement to violence perpetrated by the PLO and its leaders will not be tolerated," they write.

Meadows said in a statement that the United States is turning a blind eye to the PLO's encouragement of terrorism.

"For too long the PLO has not just tolerated acts of terrorism against the Israeli people-but incited others to commit acts of violence in the name of jihad," Meadows said in a statement. "It goes against everything we stand for as an American people to allow the PLO to retain an office in our nation's capital, considering its long and well-documented history of encouraging violence and terror against our Israeli allies."

Meadows said that the United States must take concrete action to show Israel that it "does not tolerate extremism and demonstrate our unwavering support for our allies in Israel by revoking this waiver."

Cruz condemned the recent wave of terrorism in Israel and said that "the continued incitement and glorification of violence by Palestinian leadership" must be addressed with action.

"Just last week," Cruz said in a statement, "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the recent attacks a 'justified popular uprising' following his remarks in September, in which he said, 'We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.' It is long past time for the United States to hold the PLO and its leaders accountable for engaging in such rampant incitement, for celebrating the murder of Jews, and for providing payment to Palestinian terrorists jailed in Israel and their families."
​

It is a matter of perspective. But it is hard to argue against the observations that the Palestinians are inciting conflict only to set the stage to complain about the Israeli response. Palestinians have been doing this since the NAZI supporting Grand Mufti did it in the early years of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is "possible" that individual indiscretions and bad judgments could occur from time to time.​

Baloney, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Question.

If a citizen of a country attacks an illegal alien, would that be terrorism?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I don't think that I (even) once mentioned --- ever --- the "right to rule over other people" as even remotely associated with the question of "can Terrorism ever be justified?

We can never stress this too much: "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts;" which:

• Is an unlawful act of violence

• Intimidates governments or societies

• Goal is to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives:

§ In the case of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) the generalized goal across all the various factions is to eliminate the opposition to totalitarian rule as a post conflict outcome, and to consolidate power state power and regional influence. To raise the standard of living of corrupt terrorist that masquerade as freedom fighters, politicians and Islamic patriots.

§ Generalized Jihadi terrorism (HAMAS uses a form of Jihadi Terrorism) is one of the most threatening forms to western values, interests and advanced concepts societal developments of the 21st Century. This form of terrorism is the product of a combination of Islamist nationalist-separatist movements and right-wing political ideologies of radicalized religious factions.

§ HAMAS intentionally gives the appearance of focusing solely on the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian State by way of Jihad; strongly opposing any accommodation with Israel. HAMAS follows the Khartoum Resolution:

ø No peace with Israel,
ø No recognition of Israel,
ø No negotiations with Israel
​

Of course you don't care. You believe that particular people have a right to rule over other people who you feel are inferior. It is a typical racist train of thought. For your information, no native peoples have ever passively accepted colonization. All have resisted with different levels of success.

Call it what you like, resistance against colonization and oppression is a right. Calling it terrorism doesn't change anything.

(COMMENT)

There is no greater demonstration in the concept and idea of "inferior people" than that of "radicalized Islamic militant movements." Whether we examine the influence over women, or the HAMAS noble goal in the establishment of a Caliphate (the territory over which a Caliph's Rule and sovereign authority extends); which represented the unbroken chain of religious and political authority. HAMAS accepts the reality that in order to build its power base it must approach each state -- one at a time - over time.

No I think you are confused. If there is a danger to freedoms and self-determination, it is with the radicalism in Islam, like HAMAS, that wish to institute a Caliphate, and subject its constituent population to a rule under Sharia; as interpreted by the extremist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is this, a trick question?

Question.

If a citizen of a country attacks an illegal alien, would that be terrorism?

(COMMENT)

In America, you can not attack a person for just for being an "illegal alien." Whether such an attack is terrorism, or some form of hate crime, or vigilantism, OR just plain old "assault and battery," (a case of the dumb ass) requires investigation by the appropriate authorities. But unless the Illegal Alien presents an immediate and present danger to you or some other member of the public, you best say Good Morning and move along.

But as I think about this, you just demonstrated the propensity for the Palestinian to immediately jump to the solution of violence; as oppose to non-violent alternatives.

Most Respectfully,
R