Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person.

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?

No.

 

[rylah]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

[/QUOTE]
For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.[/QUOTE]
Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

 

[rylah]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.[/QUOTE]

Why?My definitions are not the problem here.

When a toddler was burned by Israelis purposefully it was terrorism.
When Igal Amir murdered Rabin it was terrorism.
When Goldstein went to murder Muslims during prayer it was terrorism.

Unfortunately - using Your logic I could easily prove that the attacks I've mentioned were totally legit
But You won't even confront Hamas dragging dead bodies of their own people as something wrong.
So I'm not expecting too much sense coming from You.
.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

Why?My definitions are not the problem here.

When a toddler was burned by Israelis purposefully it was terrorism.
When Igal Amir murdered Rabin it was terrorism.
When Goldstein went to murder Muslims during prayer it was terrorism.

Unfortunately - using Your logic I could easily prove that the attacks I've mentioned were totally legit
But You won't even confront Hamas dragging dead bodies of their own people as something wrong.
So I'm not expecting too much sense coming from You.
.[/QUOTE]
You forgot to mention Israel bombing the crap out of civilians in Gaza or shooting up protestors in the West Bank.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Ultimately (high percentage), the autonomous and self-governing territories adopt their own laws through their form of government.

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Paul: this is another misconception based on a poor understanding of universal law; wherein the law makes it impossible for a set of prohibitions to be to have been violated → and yet → the legal judgment nevertheless conclude otherwise.

Whether we talk civil or criminal law, the codification of most every set of criminal statues with slight variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Robbery is not a crime that has the same elements of the offense in every jurisdiction (ie Universally Defined) And as a matter of fact, there is no universally accepted statue that is accepted internationally that defines the elements of Robbery. YET! you would be hard pressed to point out a sovereignty that does not understand the concept of Robbery and that does not pursue prosecutorial action (excluding failed states and rogue nations).

The California statute Penal Code 211 (Robbery) requires the assailant accomplished the crime "by means of force or fear." However, the Ohio Revised Code 2911.02 (Robbery) has the element that the assailant has a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control. Under your logic, the two states have different definitions of "Robbery." The concept of a universal definition is not a key component.

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

(COMMENT)

The argument that the last half century of hostile Arab Palestinian activities are not terrorist acts is based on the absence of a "universally recognized definition" of terrorism. The act of terrorism need only be a violation of law within the venue the act was committed.

Any sovereignty (self-governing territory) can define its own laws regarding such criminal acts. The Russian Federations has legislated a very extensive set of anti-Terrorism Statutes. The latest legislation "introduces criminal liability for “failure to report a crime” that someone “has been planning, is perpetrating, or has perpetrated.”

Most Respectfully,
R

Can they export their definition outside of their territory?

(COMMENT)

Laws are not "exported;" per say. However, there are several commonwealths that are nations that are related, usually by a common Monarch. As you already know, the largest Commonwealth of Nations (over 50 members) is that which was formally known as the British Commonwealth. Our nearest neighbor --- Canada --- is a member of that "Commonwealth of Nations" (a free association) and their sovereign and Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II) is a common thread among the member nations. These nations have very similar legal, judicial and law enforcement structures, as well as a very similar military program. So, the British Terrorism Acts and the definition of terrorism is often reflected the same within The Commonwealth.

The Russian Federation (largest country in the world with 22 republics and more) and the Confederation of Helvetica (Switzerland --- technically a federal republic with 26 fully sovereign states) have nearly identical laws throughout their respective territories; much closer in most cases than that of a Commonwealth of Nations.

BTW: The Jewish Autonomous Oblast is a member territory of the Russian Federation.

So, laws are not "exported" as so much as their influence like members and are adopted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

Why?My definitions are not the problem here.

When a toddler was burned by Israelis purposefully it was terrorism.
When Igal Amir murdered Rabin it was terrorism.
When Goldstein went to murder Muslims during prayer it was terrorism.

Unfortunately - using Your logic I could easily prove that the attacks I've mentioned were totally legit
But You won't even confront Hamas dragging dead bodies of their own people as something wrong.
So I'm not expecting too much sense coming from You.
.

You forgot to mention Israel bombing the crap out of civilians in Gaza or shooting up protestors in the West Bank.

You forgot to mention Israel has the to resist acts of Islamic terrorism.

Admit it. You are thrilled when hamas provokes Israel to respond with military force. You are thrilled for those dead bodies you can parade around. You and the rest of the Islamic terrorist cowards who provoke an Israeli military response and then hike up your man-dresses and run when the in-coming starts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Ultimately (high percentage), the autonomous and self-governing territories adopt their own laws through their form of government.

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Paul: this is another misconception based on a poor understanding of universal law; wherein the law makes it impossible for a set of prohibitions to be to have been violated → and yet → the legal judgment nevertheless conclude otherwise.

Whether we talk civil or criminal law, the codification of most every set of criminal statues with slight variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Robbery is not a crime that has the same elements of the offense in every jurisdiction (ie Universally Defined) And as a matter of fact, there is no universally accepted statue that is accepted internationally that defines the elements of Robbery. YET! you would be hard pressed to point out a sovereignty that does not understand the concept of Robbery and that does not pursue prosecutorial action (excluding failed states and rogue nations).

The California statute Penal Code 211 (Robbery) requires the assailant accomplished the crime "by means of force or fear." However, the Ohio Revised Code 2911.02 (Robbery) has the element that the assailant has a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control. Under your logic, the two states have different definitions of "Robbery." The concept of a universal definition is not a key component.

There is no universally recognized definition of terrorism.

Mostly it is political name calling.

(COMMENT)

The argument that the last half century of hostile Arab Palestinian activities are not terrorist acts is based on the absence of a "universally recognized definition" of terrorism. The act of terrorism need only be a violation of law within the venue the act was committed.

Any sovereignty (self-governing territory) can define its own laws regarding such criminal acts. The Russian Federations has legislated a very extensive set of anti-Terrorism Statutes. The latest legislation "introduces criminal liability for “failure to report a crime” that someone “has been planning, is perpetrating, or has perpetrated.”

Most Respectfully,
R

Can they export their definition outside of their territory?

(COMMENT)

Laws are not "exported;" per say. However, there are several commonwealths that are nations that are related, usually by a common Monarch. As you already know, the largest Commonwealth of Nations (over 50 members) is that which was formally known as the British Commonwealth. Our nearest neighbor --- Canada --- is a member of that "Commonwealth of Nations" (a free association) and their sovereign and Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II) is a common thread among the member nations. These nations have very similar legal, judicial and law enforcement structures, as well as a very similar military program. So, the British Terrorism Acts and the definition of terrorism is often reflected the same within The Commonwealth.

The Russian Federation (largest country in the world with 22 republics and more) and the Confederation of Helvetica (Switzerland --- technically a federal republic with 26 fully sovereign states) have nearly identical laws throughout their respective territories; much closer in most cases than that of a Commonwealth of Nations.

BTW: The Jewish Autonomous Oblast is a member territory of the Russian Federation.

So, laws are not "exported" as so much as their influence like members and are adopted.

Most Respectfully,
R

You clearly did not understand my post.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Violations of law, are not justified because others (may or may not have) committed similar legal indiscretions.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

You cannot compare the (Israeli) actions taken under the Law of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention, or the Charter Right of Self-Defense, WITH (Arab Palestinian) violations of Customary IHL Rules.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

Why?My definitions are not the problem here.

When a toddler was burned by Israelis purposefully it was terrorism.
When Igal Amir murdered Rabin it was terrorism.
When Goldstein went to murder Muslims during prayer it was terrorism.

Unfortunately - using Your logic I could easily prove that the attacks I've mentioned were totally legit
But You won't even confront Hamas dragging dead bodies of their own people as something wrong.
So I'm not expecting too much sense coming from You.
.

You forgot to mention Israel bombing the crap out of civilians in Gaza or shooting up protestors in the West Bank.

You forgot to mention Israel has the to resist acts of Islamic terrorism.

Admit it. You are thrilled when hamas provokes Israel to respond with military force. You are thrilled for those dead bodies you can parade around. You and the rest of the Islamic terrorist cowards who provoke an Israeli military response and then hike up your man-dresses and run when the in-coming starts.

More terrorist cards. More points for you.

 

[rylah]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

Why?My definitions are not the problem here.

When a toddler was burned by Israelis purposefully it was terrorism.
When Igal Amir murdered Rabin it was terrorism.
When Goldstein went to murder Muslims during prayer it was terrorism.

Unfortunately - using Your logic I could easily prove that the attacks I've mentioned were totally legit
But You won't even confront Hamas dragging dead bodies of their own people as something wrong.
So I'm not expecting too much sense coming from You.
.

You forgot to mention Israel bombing the crap out of civilians in Gaza or shooting up protestors in the West Bank.[/QUOTE]

Yes usually civilized countries bomb the Islamists out of existence, less civilians would die if Hamas weren't cowards hiding in Hospitals and under the skirts of their women.

Then again You and Hamas have no problem with dragging the bodies of their own people on the streets.

Terrorism explained in short - war outwards and war withing, against Your own, and merely for the continuation of the conflict.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Violations of law, are not justified because others (may or may not have) committed similar legal indiscretions.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

(COMMENT)

You cannot compare the (Israeli) actions taken under the Law of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention, or the Charter Right of Self-Defense, WITH (Arab Palestinian) violations of Customary IHL Rules.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
You can't claim self defense against occupied territory.

Look it up.

 

[Shusha]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person.

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?

Only if they are Jewish.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

Why?My definitions are not the problem here.

When a toddler was burned by Israelis purposefully it was terrorism.
When Igal Amir murdered Rabin it was terrorism.
When Goldstein went to murder Muslims during prayer it was terrorism.

Unfortunately - using Your logic I could easily prove that the attacks I've mentioned were totally legit
But You won't even confront Hamas dragging dead bodies of their own people as something wrong.
So I'm not expecting too much sense coming from You.
.

You forgot to mention Israel bombing the crap out of civilians in Gaza or shooting up protestors in the West Bank.

Yes usually civilized countries bomb the Islamists out of existence, less civilians would die if Hamas weren't cowards hiding in Hospitals and under the skirts of their women.

Then again You and Hamas have no problem with dragging the bodies of their own people on the streets.

Terrorism explained in short - war without while keeping the war withing against Your own, and merely for the continuation of the conflict. [/QUOTE]
Oh jeese, more BS Israeli talking points.

 

[rylah]

P F Tinmore
How else do You define a suicidal inclination at continuing the conflict on the account of Your own people, for mere existence of the conflict??

 

[Shusha]

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

Whether GCIV with respect to protected person applies or not is irrelevant. It is a CRIME to remove a civilian's right to life by using weapons that kill them. Sheesh. This isn't that HARD, you know.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You clearly did not understand my post.

Nice piece of verbosity though.

(COMMENT)

You are attempting to lay the ground-work to justify the use of acts (Commonly held under as violations of Customary and IHL law by) Arab Palestinians.

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

You may quibble over the definition of "terrorism" but it most definitely includes the support and participation for Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

I say Again:

Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever.
No Arab Palestinian grievance,
no Arab Palestinian goal,
No Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?

No.

I've seen this argument from him before. He is trying to argue that people who have the same nationality as the "occupiers" are not civilians and therefore ARE fair game during conflict as they have none of the human rights afforded all other peoples. And, of course, he applies this only to Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore
How else do You define a suicidal inclination at continuing the conflict on the account of Your own people, for mere existence of the conflict??

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?