Palestinians signed to join Rome Statute.

[toastman]

LOL

So if you think ISIS or Al quida are terrorist groups, than what's the difference between them and Hamas?

They both use(d) suicide bombings
They both have declared Jihad
They both use the Koran
They both target civilians
They both hate America
They both cheer when they kill civilians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

No, it was just a question. Give me a name of a known group that you would consider a terrorist organization.

Zionists first and last Toastie.

Do you TRY to say incredibly stupid things, or is it normal for you ?

 

[theliq]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

No, it was just a question. Give me a name of a known group that you would consider a terrorist organization.

Zionists first and last Toastie.

Do you TRY to say incredibly stupid things, or is it normal for you ?

Really sorry Toastie...I thought you said what Terrorist Group are worse than the islamists............steve

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, et al,

No, I was not.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia). The court did not make the suggestion that the information or reasoning was invalid or fraudulent; merely not from the "national competent authorities."

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm confused Rocco,in your last sentence above,you were referring to the IDF of course. Respectfully Steve

(COMMENT)

I don't believe I mentioned the IDF once. The "national competent authorities" are normally from within the EU framework; all of which have some input to the CT programs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

No, it was just a question. Give me a name of a known group that you would consider a terrorist organization.

Zionists first and last Toastie.

Do you TRY to say incredibly stupid things, or is it normal for you ?

Really sorry Toastie...I thought you said what Terrorist Group are worse than the islamists............steve

Zionism has nothing to do with it anyway,

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

 

[Phoenall]

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" 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."

You take an even closer look and you will find that it is not a binding decision, and that hamas is still viewed as a terrorist organisation by the EU.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah big deal.....and 3 Jewish thugs burnt alive a Palestinian boy.....in a horrific manner.....respectfully I think you forgot to mention.......but then again probably not...............maybe you enjoyed this heroic Jewish kidnapping and murder of an innocent.......Sometimes Rocco,you really are a Creep.Now let me think..did these Murdering Jews get punished......of course they Fukcing did not.
With Respect R Your whole summation is basically a Crock of Shit.steve

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

How many groups during a war send their OWN PEOPLE strapped with bombs to blow themselves up ?
How many groups celebrate and hand out candy when they find out that innocent civilians have been murdered?
How many groups during a way send their militants to go shoot up an entire family ?

Hamas is a terrorist group, no matter which way you look at it.,

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

There is confusion here between a "legal action" taken pursuant to law (complete with loop holes and flaws) and the political decisions taken (pursuant to lawful authority).

• BTW: The "court record" is in French only. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2014. Hamas v Council of the European Union --- Case T-400/10.

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" 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."

(OBSERVATION)

General Court of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 178/14 Luxembourg, 17 December 2014
Hamas v Council of the European Union.
Case T-400/10.

(COMMENT)

There are two aspects to this case. One is the technical aspect on the judicial side of the equation. The other is the executive side of the issue in which the common position is expressed by the political leadership. These two aspects are roughly equivalent to the Judicial Branch of Government and the Executive Branch of Government.

The General Court of the European Union (what "montelatici" call the "top court") ruled on the technical evaluation of the evidence openly used in the EU on which the decision was based. It did not rule on the validity of the decision --- not did it rule on the reality of HAMAS as a terrorist group.

• The Court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group within the meaning of the Common Position.

This is a very crafty attempt by HAMAS to make an end run around the UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 and Resolution 1390 which require member nations to disrupt terrorist financing; implemented under The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism (CT) Strategy was adopted by Member States on 8 September 2006. The strategy, in the form of a resolution and an annexed Plan of Action (A/RES/60/288). Both the EU and the General Court understand the goal and objective of HAMAS; as well as, the political intention of the EU counter-terrorism (CT) policy. But the EU CT policy is not a stand-alone program. It is politically interlocked with the UN Global CT Strategy.

EU foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini releases statement saying that the EU upholds the "Quartet principles," [UN Security Council Resolution 1850 (2008)] that bans engagement with Hamas until it forswears terrorism.

In the mean time, and understanding the importance of keeping a freeze on HAMAS assets, the General Court gave the EU time to (two months) to take follow-on action.

Make no mistake, HAMAS is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

WRONG I was based on customary international law, which is why the court has given the EU 3 months to prove its case. The court sees this as a cut and dried action and hamas is sill seen as a terrorist group by all membe states o the EU

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" 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."

You take an even closer look and you will find that it is not a binding decision, and that hamas is still viewed as a terrorist organisation by the EU.

Hamas is designated as terrorists by a handful of countries in the world. The vast majority do not.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

So hat war were the palestinians engaged in that made them murder 3,000 innocent Americans or 50 Innocent Brits ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

How many groups during a war send their OWN PEOPLE strapped with bombs to blow themselves up ?
How many groups celebrate and hand out candy when they find out that innocent civilians have been murdered?
How many groups during a way send their militants to go shoot up an entire family ?

Hamas is a terrorist group, no matter which way you look at it.,

How many groups during a war send their OWN PEOPLE strapped with bombs to blow themselves up ?​

Those who cannot mooch airplanes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

So hat war were the palestinians engaged in that made them murder 3,000 innocent Americans or 50 Innocent Brits ?

Good question.

What war was that?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah big deal.....and 3 Jewish thugs burnt alive a Palestinian boy.....in a horrific manner.....respectfully I think you forgot to mention.......but then again probably not...............maybe you enjoyed this heroic Jewish kidnapping and murder of an innocent.......Sometimes Rocco,you really are a Creep.Now let me think..did these Murdering Jews get punished......of course they Fukcing did not.
With Respect R Your whole summation is basically a Crock of Shit.steve

Not that long ago a group of Palestinians burnt an Israeli child to death, did you enjoy reading about that episode. How many Christians have been barricaded in to their churches and burnt to death in the name of islam.
They are still awaiting trial and will be punished in due course

 

[Phoenall]

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" 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."

You take an even closer look and you will find that it is not a binding decision, and that hamas is still viewed as a terrorist organisation by the EU.

Hamas is designated as terrorists by a handful of countries in the world. The vast majority do not.

The majority do, but are afraid of Islamic reprisals if they come out and say so. Time for the UN to make a stand and declare hamas a state terrorist group and declare open season on them

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

How many groups during a war send their OWN PEOPLE strapped with bombs to blow themselves up ?
How many groups celebrate and hand out candy when they find out that innocent civilians have been murdered?
How many groups during a way send their militants to go shoot up an entire family ?

Hamas is a terrorist group, no matter which way you look at it.,

How many groups during a war send their OWN PEOPLE strapped with bombs to blow themselves up ?​

Those who cannot mooch airplanes.

Yu mean like Pakistan an Saudi who mooch more planes and aid than any other nation. How many planes and flying lesson have the US given to Saudi in the last 10 years

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah big deal.....and 3 Jewish thugs burnt alive a Palestinian boy.....in a horrific manner.....respectfully I think you forgot to mention.......but then again probably not...............maybe you enjoyed this heroic Jewish kidnapping and murder of an innocent.......Sometimes Rocco,you really are a Creep.Now let me think..did these Murdering Jews get punished......of course they Fukcing did not.
With Respect R Your whole summation is basically a Crock of Shit.steve

Not that long ago a group of Palestinians burnt an Israeli child to death, did you enjoy reading about that episode. How many Christians have been barricaded in to their churches and burnt to death in the name of islam.
They are still awaiting trial and will be punished in due course

Children killed since 2000

Israeli - 131
Palestinian - 1656

Remember These Children

Do you really want to go there?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are using media interpretation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

​

(COMMENT)

​

Yes, but there is a misunderstanding as to the difference between the "legal position" (for a general court determination // judicial branch stuff) and the "political determination" (made by lawful authorities and leadership // executive branch stuff). The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

(COMMENT)

The EU is a political animal; a coalition of many states. The framework for decision is complicated. The US process is much different.

Unless you are inside the systems (you're talking about three different complex systems --- Israel, US and EU) it is not possible for you to know what happened between the various entities, if anything, relative to the decision. That is pure supposition on your part.

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2010, the applicant, Hamas, has brought this action. In that 15 days prior (as an example) --- HAMAS was reportedly involved:

• September 1, 2010: Two Israelis were wounded, one seriously, when Hamas terrorists ambushed their car as as the couple was driving near Kochav Hashachar.
• August 31, 2010: Four Israelis, including a pregnant woman, were murdered when terrorists ambushed their car as they were driving near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which coincided with the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In the one case, HAMAS claimed responsibility (the August 31st Event). For each event, there are official "reports" that point out HAMAS as the perpetrator. There is no question that the "national authorities" can achieve the standard. In some cases, as in the senior HAMAS official, Saleh Al-Arouri, admitted his group had carried out the “heroic” act of kidnapping and murdering Naftali Fraenkel, Eyal Yifrach and Gil-Ad Shear. There are any number of "national authorities" collected this information.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question is, was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "legal decision;" or was placing HAMAS on the Terrorist List a "political decision?"​

Strictly political name calling shit.

Sure Hamas has done things that may be considered terrorism. Name a war any time any place where this has not happened.

Israel calling Hamas terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

So hat war were the palestinians engaged in that made them murder 3,000 innocent Americans or 50 Innocent Brits ?

Good question.

What war was that?

That is what I am asking you as one of the reasons given for both attacks was the ongoing blockade and occupation of Palestine.